Every report deserves a second opinion. Yours just got one.
ForensicShield is AI-powered forensic report review — finding defensibility gaps and preparing you for cross-examination before opposing counsel does.
HIPAA compliant. Built by a forensic professional. 14-day free trial.
Not ready to subscribe? Run a single report for $49 →
Three questions. One methodology gap. This is what ForensicShield catches.
“Doctor, you administered the PCL-R as part of your risk assessment, correct?”
“And you’re aware that the PCL-R was designed as a clinical assessment tool, not as a standalone predictor of sexual recidivism?”
“So you’re asking this court to commit this individual based in part on an instrument that was not designed to predict the specific behavior at issue — and you did not supplement it with an actuarial tool that was. Is that your testimony?”
ForensicShield would have flagged this before your report left your desk. The Court Preparation Packet would have identified the missing actuarial instrument, generated this exact cross-examination sequence, cited the relevant Daubert case law, and given you a response framework — all calibrated to your jurisdiction and the side that retained you.
This is what preparation looks like. This is what ForensicShield delivers before you take the stand.
A structured second set of eyes — calibrated to your case.
Upload your report. ForensicShield analyzes it through multiple specialized clinical lenses — not a single scan. Only corroborated vulnerabilities make it into your Court Preparation Packet. It never rewrites your conclusions or tells you what to say. You are the expert. ForensicShield is the preparation.
Clinical Depth, Not a Checklist
A missing instrument isn’t automatically a vulnerability.
ForensicShield evaluates whether the relevant constructs are adequately covered — through whatever combination of instruments, clinical interview, and behavioral observation you used. If your methodology addresses the construct, you won’t be penalized for not using a specific test.
Case-Specific Analysis
Every finding reflects your actual courtroom context.
A defense-retained SVP evaluation in a Daubert jurisdiction is analyzed differently than a court-ordered competency evaluation in a Frye state. The retaining party changes which questions opposing counsel will ask. The jurisdiction changes which standards your methodology is measured against.
Cross-Examination Preparation
You see the trap, the escalation, and a defensible response framework.
For every vulnerability, ForensicShield generates the question opposing counsel will ask — framed from their perspective, not yours. Calibrated to whether you’re facing prosecution, defense counsel, or both sides.
Verified Case Law
No hallucinated cases. No invented holdings.
Every case citation in your Court Preparation Packet is verified against federal court records. If a citation can’t be confirmed, it’s flagged — because an expert citing a bad case on the stand is the one mistake you can’t recover from.
What a Court Preparation Packet looks like.
Two findings from a sample competency evaluation — each with clinical context, a response framework, the cross-examination question opposing counsel would ask, and verified case law.
No Functional Nexus Between Clinical Presentation and Competency Determination
Despite documenting pressured speech, tangential reasoning, and active auditory hallucinations, the report does not explain how these observations were weighed against the three Dusky prongs. Opposing counsel can argue the opinion is a conclusion without a reasoning chain.
Without a reasoning chain connecting clinical observations to the Dusky prongs, the court has no way to evaluate the basis for your opinion — and opposing counsel will frame this as a conclusion you reached before you started.
Add a dedicated section mapping each clinical observation to the specific Dusky prong it informs, with explicit reasoning chains. For example: “The defendant’s tangential reasoning during structured questioning (Clinical Finding) impacts his ability to assist counsel in his own defense (Dusky Prong 3) because…”
“Doctor, you documented active auditory hallucinations during the evaluation. Can you point to where in your report you explain how that finding factored into your competency determination?”
No Formal Diagnosis Rendered Despite Psychiatric Complexity
The evaluator concludes “does not meet criteria for a DSM-5-TR diagnosis” despite 4 self-reported psychiatric hospitalizations, documented hallucinations, current psychotropic medication, and a jail nurse impression of adjustment disorder.
When psychiatric complexity is documented but no diagnosis is rendered, opposing counsel can argue the evaluator either missed the clinical picture or deliberately avoided a diagnosis that would have changed the opinion.
Either render a differential diagnosis explaining why the documented symptoms do not meet criteria, or explain the clinical reasoning for deferring diagnosis given the documented psychiatric history. A conclusory “no diagnosis” cannot withstand scrutiny when the record contains this level of complexity.
“You concluded no diagnosis was warranted. Were you aware of the four prior psychiatric hospitalizations documented in the jail medical records?”
Trusted by practitioners who take the stand.
One platform. Four disciplines. Each analyzed on its own terms.
Forensic Psychology
The baseline discipline. Competency, criminal responsibility, risk assessment, custody — the full scope of forensic psychological evaluation, with methodology and construct adequacy calibrated to APA and AAFP standards.
Forensic Psychiatry
Competency, criminal responsibility, civil commitment, SVP, and violence risk — analyzed against psychiatric standards of care, medication considerations, and diagnostic formulation specific to psychiatric practice.
Neuropsychology
Competency, personal injury, fitness for duty — with analysis calibrated to neuropsychological test batteries, cognitive domains, and the unique methodology requirements of neuropsychological forensic opinions.
Forensic Social Work
Custody, parental fitness, immigration, juvenile evaluations — reviewed against social work standards of practice, psychosocial assessment methodology, and the distinct scope of forensic social work opinions.
Every discipline activates its own analytical configuration — different professional standards, different instruments expected, different cross-examination patterns. Your discipline shapes the analysis.
Each evaluation type activates a different analytical configuration.
De-identification available. For practitioners who want to strip evaluee identifiers before AI processing, ForensicShield offers a de-identification option — with no reduction in analytical depth.
Three questions to ask before you upload a forensic report anywhere.
Do they hold a Business Associate Agreement?
ForensicShield does. Our BAA with AWS covers the entire processing pipeline. Your report is handled as protected health information from upload to output.
Where does the AI processing happen?
ForensicShield processes all reports within AWS’s HIPAA-compliant infrastructure. Your evaluee’s data never reaches a third-party AI provider’s servers. One security boundary. One compliance chain.
What happens to your data after analysis?
Your report content is encrypted at rest (AES-256) and never leaves ForensicShield’s HIPAA-compliant infrastructure. AI processing runs through AWS Bedrock, which does not retain your data. Your reports stay yours — accessible only to your practice, protected by the same encryption and access controls as any HIPAA-covered system.
Who built this — and why it matters.
Dr. Aubree Harrington, Psy.D.
Licensed forensic psychologist. Dr. Harrington has written the same reports ForensicShield reviews — competency evaluations, risk assessments, custody evaluations, and more. Her clinical judgment is embedded in every analytical framework, every severity calibration, and every scope decision in the platform. ForensicShield reflects how forensic psychologists actually practice, because it was designed by one.
Steve Harrington
U.S. Navy veteran with 32 years across defense electronics, classified infrastructure, and software engineering. Steve currently leads DoD programs delivering classified facilities, multi-enclave networks, and command-and-control platforms. He designed and built ForensicShield’s entire technical stack — the HIPAA-compliant AWS infrastructure, the multi-pass AI analysis pipeline, and the encryption architecture protecting your data. The same engineering discipline that secures classified national security systems now protects your forensic work product.
Your next report will be challenged. The only question is whether you’re ready.
Try ForensicShield on a sample report — no upload required. Then run your own.
14-day free trial · 2 reports included · HIPAA compliant · No auto-charge at trial end
ForensicShield is a preparation tool, not a clinical decision support system. The forensic evaluator is the expert.