Abstract

In the past, the piecemeal growth of the use of psychiatric testimony has prevented the development of an overall conception of the psychiatrist's proper role in the courtroom. Restriction of such testimony based on the policies of the exclusionary rules of evidence has diverted judicial discussion from the difficult problem of determining what contribution could be made by psychiatric evidence on each issue on which such testimony is offered. Until the courts determine a basic rationale for the psychiatrist's place in the decision-making process, an issue by issue consideration of the value of such testimony will continue to be avoided.

The solution to be proposed here is to establish rules for the admission of psychiatric testimony which will be consistent with the treatment of other medical testimony. Once the courts have eliminated the evidentiary exceptions, deviations, and inconsistencies which treat the psychiatrist as a medical leper in the legal world, then an issue by issue consideration of the value of such testimony itself may begin. Then the question of admission may turn specifically to the legal usefulness of the psychiatrist's contribution to a given question of fact or law.

This article does not advocate that psychiatric testimony should be automatically admitted for all purposes or on all issues. Rather, the decision should rest on the value of specific testimony, and not on the often inappropriate policy of some evidentiary barricade.

This article is not intended as a defense of the substance and quality of psychiatric testimony. The discussion here will be limited to the legal applications of the psychiatric raw material presently available, rather than the problems of developing the potential content of such testimony. Qualification to testify as a psychiatric expert will be limited for the present discussion to those medical graduates specializing in mental disorders. Membership in the American Psychiatric Association, or certification by either the Board of Psychiatry and Neurology or the American Psychoanalytic Association are desirable indicia of the individual's qualifications, but are not invariable requisites of expertness in the field. This paper will undertake only the basic task of developing the grounds for courtroom acceptance of psychiatric testimony and will ignore divergent legal implications of the various psychiatric theories which have grown primarily from an early psychoanalytic core. For present purposes the qualified psychologists will be considered as presenting different fields of expertness which the court can draw upon when appropriate, but which should not be indiscriminately intermingled with the medical standards for psychiatry.

How to Cite