Sentencing Mitigation Evaluations

Dr. Selina Mangassarian  provides comprehensive neuropsychological and psychological evaluations for sentencing mitigation in criminal matters. She is a paneled neuropsychologist and forensic psychologist with the Superior Court of California in both Los Angeles County and Ventura County, and has extensive experience providing expert evaluation and testimony in criminal proceedings across both jurisdictions.

What sentencing mitigation is

After a conviction or guilty plea, sentencing is one of the most consequential phases of a criminal proceeding. Courts have broad discretion in determining an appropriate sentence, and are required to consider the full picture of a defendant’s background, history, and functioning before imposing punishment. A sentencing mitigation evaluation provides the court with objective, scientifically grounded neuropsychological and psychological data that helps explain who the defendant is, how their brain and mental health history contributed to their behavior, and what individualized factors the court should weigh in determining a just sentence.

Mitigation is not about excusing criminal conduct. It is about ensuring the court has complete and accurate information about the neurological, psychiatric, developmental, and psychosocial factors that are relevant to culpability, the likelihood of rehabilitation, and the most appropriate disposition.

Why Neuropsychological Expertise Matters at Sentencing

Many defendants have histories of brain injury, intellectual disability, neurodevelopmental conditions, severe trauma, or psychiatric illness that have never been formally identified or documented. These factors can be highly relevant to sentencing, particularly in cases involving:

• Defendants with undiagnosed or poorly documented traumatic brain injury, including injuries sustained in childhood, through domestic violence, or in prior accidents
• Intellectual disability or borderline intellectual functioning affecting judgment, decision-making, and susceptibility to influence
• Neurodevelopmental conditions such as ADHD or autism spectrum disorder that affected impulse control, behavioral regulation, or social understanding
• Significant trauma histories and their neuropsychological consequences, including effects on executive functioning, emotional regulation, and threat response
• Substance use disorders with neuropsychological sequelae
• Psychiatric conditions that affected the defendant’s functioning at the time of the offense and continue to affect their current presentation
• Cognitive limitations that are not apparent from clinical interview alone but are clearly documented through standardized neuropsychological testing

Objective neuropsychological testing can quantify these factors in a way that clinical interview cannot, and can provide the court with a level of scientific rigor and specificity that strengthens the mitigation argument.