Forensic Psychiatry: The Making—and Breaking—of Expert Opinion Testimony

Expressing an expert opinion in an open courtroom or other legal proceeding as to a person's mental condition presents a number of challenges for both the forensic psychiatrist and the attorney employing the psychiatrist. Both the forensic psychiatrist and the attorney must become thoroughly educated as to what goes into the forming of a valid, unimpeachable expert psychiatric opinion. The psychiatrist must conduct a thorough investigation and examination of the person whose mental condition is at issue in a variety of criminal and civil situations. While testifying as a psychiatric expert on the witness stand in open court can be an exhilarating experience, it also opens the psychiatrist to scrutiny surpassing even that to which we subject our presidential candidates.

Download Full-text

Objectivity and Advocacy in Forensic Psychiatry after Ake v. Oklahoma

The Journal of Psychiatry & Law ◽

10.1177/009318538701500203 ◽

1987 ◽

Vol 15 (2) ◽

pp. 177-188

Author(s):

C. Robert Showalter ◽

W. Lawrence Fitch

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Forensic Psychiatry ◽

United States Supreme Court ◽

The United States ◽

Mental Condition ◽

United States Supreme ◽

The Public ◽

Justice Process ◽

Criminal Justice Process ◽

Proper Subject

In its landmark opinion in Ake v. Oklahoma, the United States Supreme Court enunciated a broad right to psychiatric assistance for criminal defendants who raise the defense of insanity or whose mental condition is relevant to sentencing in a capital case. Recognizing such assistance as essential to the proper functioning of the adversary process in cases in which an issue concerning the defendant's mental condition has been raised, the opinion may be read to pose an ethical dilemma for the psychiatrist who regards his or her assessment as objective and, hence, not a proper subject for adversarial presentation or inquiry. The authors contend, however, that rather than inviting psychiatrists to compromise their objectivity in these cases, in fact the Supreme Court's ruling challenges psychiatrists to demonstrate and assure their objectivity by revealing and explaining the bases for their opinions, thereby enhancing their utility in the criminal justice process and, ultimately, their credibility in the minds of the public.

Download Full-text