Abstract
In this article, the author explores the constitutional issues that arise when a capital defendant is subjected to a government psychiatric exam, and a government psychiatrist then seeks to testify on the basis of the evidence derived from the examination. The author concludes that the government psychiatrist may testify only for the purpose of rebutting expert psychiatric testimony introduced by the defense. The author proposes safeguards that should be provided to protect defendants' Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.
How to Cite
37 Ariz. L. Rev. 869 (1995)
4
Views
2
Downloads