Violence Risk Assessments
Violence risk assessment plays a role across a wide range of criminal and civil proceedings — from sentencing and probation decisions to civil commitment and other risk-related determinations. A well-supported risk opinion gives the court a clear, defensible picture of not just whether risk exists, but what's driving it and what could reduce it.
What This Evaluation Addresses
A violence risk assessment evaluates the likelihood of future violent behavior by examining static factors (historical, unchangeable risk indicators), dynamic factors (changeable risk indicators tied to current functioning and treatment needs), and protective factors (strengths and circumstances that reduce risk). This framework produces more than a risk label — it gives the court and both counsel an understanding of the specific factors driving the opinion, which is often what matters most in contested proceedings.
Beyond identifying risk factors, a sound risk opinion requires formulation — connecting those factors into a coherent account of how and why this particular individual might become violent — and scenario planning, which considers the specific circumstances, triggers, and contexts under which violence would be most likely to occur. I also assess risk management factors: the supervision, treatment, and structural conditions that could meaningfully reduce risk going forward. Together, these elements move the analysis beyond a static risk category and toward an opinion the court can actually act on.
Who I Work With
I accept referrals from both defense counsel and prosecutors, as well as court appointments, across California.
The Evaluation Process
Each evaluation includes a thorough review of relevant records (police reports, prior mental health and treatment history, criminal history, and any prior evaluations), a clinical interview, psychological testing where appropriate, and a malingering assessment, which is included as a standard part of nearly every evaluation. Collateral interviews are conducted when they would meaningfully inform the opinion. A structured professional judgment tool is used to organize the static, dynamic, and protective factor analysis and support the reliability of the risk opinion, including the HCR-20, with which I am well versed.
Personality pathology, particularly antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), can directly inform violence risk, and I have extensive experience evaluating individuals with ASPD. Where clinically indicated, I am trained to administer and score the PCL-R, which can provide additional relevant information for the risk analysis. I am also well versed in the assessment of psychopathic traits more broadly, which can further inform the risk picture beyond a categorical diagnosis.
Turnaround depends on the complexity of the referral question and the volume of records involved — I'm glad to discuss an expected timeline once I understand the specifics of your case.
What You Receive
A thorough, well-organized written report addressing the relevant legal standard and risk factors
Availability for pre-report consultation to clarify the referral question or case context
Testimony if the matter proceeds to a contested hearing or trial
Rebuttal review of an opposing expert's evaluation, when appropriate
Why Attorneys Work With Me
I've been qualified as an expert witness in California courts and bring extensive experience conducting risk assessments in high-stakes cases, including a former role with the Board of Parole Hearings' Forensic Assessment Division. I have completed hundreds of violence risk evaluations over the course of my career. Learn more about my background →
If you have a case where violence risk is at issue, I'm glad to discuss the referral before you commit to a full evaluation — feel free to reach out to talk through the specifics.
Curious what other attorneys say about working with me? Read my Google reviews →
Want to learn more about violence risk assessment and forensic evaluation in California? Visit my blog →