Forensic assessment, witness credibility and the search for truth through expert testimony in the courtroom

Journal of Psychiatry and Law

Volumn 27, Issue 2, 1999, Pages 289-312

  Gutheil, Thomas G ^a   Sutherland, Pamela K ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COPING BEHAVIOR; COURT; EXPERIENCE; EXPERT WITNESS; FORENSIC PATHOLOGY; HUMAN; LEGAL ASPECT; MENTAL HEALTH; PSYCHIATRIC DIAGNOSIS; REVIEW;

EID: 0032727770     PISSN: 00931853     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/009318539902700203     Document Type: Review

References (73)

1. Mark Oswald, Poll Shows Legislators Don't Have Many Fans, THE NEW MEXICAN, March 6, 1995, at B 1.
2. Joseph Smith, Mental Health Expert Witnesses, 7 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE & LAW 145, 146 (1989).
3. Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
4. This is called the "Frye test." Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C. Cir. 1923). S.B. BISBING, L.M. JORGENSON AND P.K. SUTHERLAND, SEXUAL ABUSE BY PROFESSIONALS: A LEGAL GUIDE. Charlottesville, VA: Michie (1995).
5. 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
6. 419 Mass. 15 (1994).
7. Lanigan, supra note 6 at 27.
8. Daubert, supra note 5 at 592-3.
9. Lanigan, supra note 6 at 26.
10. Lanigan, supra note 6 at 27.
11. 122 F.3d 803 (9th Cir. 1997).
12. McKendall, supra note 11 at 807.
13. McKendall, supra note 11.
14. McKendall, supra note 11 at 806 (citing Daubert).
15. Compton v. Subaru of America, Inc., 82 F.3d 1513, 1518-19 (10th Cir.), cert. denied 117 S. Ct. 611 (1996). See also United States v. Webb, 115 F.3d 711 (9th Cir. 1997) (standards for admission of scientific knowledge do not apply to expert testimony based upon specialized knowledge as to why people hide guns in the engine compartments of their cars); United States v. Bighead, 128 F.3d 1329, 1330 (9th Cir. 1997) (Daubert applied to scientific evidence only); Mensink v. American Grain, 564 N.W.2d 376, 380-81 (Iowa 1997) (citing with approval federal cases holding Daubert applicable only to novel scientific testimony and not to "technical or other specialized knowledge").
16. Confronting the New Challenges of Scientific Evidence, III. Judicial Responsibilities in Assessing Expert Testimony, 108 HARV. L. REV. 1509, 1524 n. 114 (1995).
17. HARV. L. REV., supra note 16, 1525-1526.
18. Supra note 16 at 1526 (citing David McCord, Syndromes, Profiles & Other Mental Exotica: A New Approach to the Admissibility of Nontraditional Psychological Evidence in Criminal Cases, 66 OR. L. REV. 19, 86 (1994)).
19. State v. Wetherbee, 594 A.2d 390, 393 (Vt. 1991).
20. 570 N.W.2d 633 (Iowa 1997).
21. Johnson, supra note 20 at 640.
22. Johnson, supra note 20 at 639.
23. 701 So.2d 475 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1997).
24. Miramon, supra note 23 at 479.
25. 93 F.3d 1337, 1343 (7th Cir. 1996).
26. Hall, supra note 25 at 1341.
27. Hall, supra note 25 at 1343.
28. See, e.g., PAUL J. LIACOS, HANDBOOK OF MASSACHUSETTS EVIDENCE, section 7.3 (6th ed. 1994 and 1995 supp.).
29. Commonwealth v. Mendrala, 20 Mass. App. Ct. 398, 402 (1985).
30. State v. Alberico, 861 P.2d 219, 224-25 (N.M. App. 1991).
31. State v. Roderigues, 656 A.2d 192, 195 (R.I. 1995).
32. State v. Milbradt, 756 P.2d 620, 622 (Or. 1988).
33. State v. Gokey, 574 A.2d 766, 772 (Vt. 1990).
34. Gokey, supra note 33.
35. Karla Fischer, Note: Defining the Boundaries of Admissible Psychological Testimony on Rape Trauma Syndrome, 1989 U. ILL. L. REV. 691 (1989).
36. Joan M. Schroeder, Note: Using Battered Woman Syndrome Evidence in the Prosecution of a Batterer, 76 IOWA L. REV. 553 (1991).
37. Karla Ogradnik Boresi, Syndrome Testimony in Child Abuse Prosecutions: The Wave of the Future? 8 ST. LOUIS U. PUB. L. REV. 207 (1989).
38. Commonwealth v. Rather, 638 N.E.2d 915, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 140, 148 (1994).
39. Rather, supra note 38.
40. Rather, supra note 38 at 149.
41. 426 Mass. 17, 21 (1997).
42. Stockwell, supra note 41.
43. Stockwell, supra note 41.
44. Stockwell, supra note 41.
45. 535 N.E.2d 1189, 1193 (Ind. 1989).
46. Thomas G. Gutheil, Approaches to Forensic Assessment of False Claims of Sexual Misconduct by Therapists, 20 BULL. AM. ACAD. PSYCHIATRY & LAW 289 (1992).
47. THOMAS G. GUTHEIL, THE PSYCHIATRIST AS EXPERT WITNESS. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press (1998).
48. J. ROBITSCHER, THE POWER OF PSYCHIATRY 420 (1980), quoted in BISBING, JORGENSON & SUTHERLAND, supra note 4.
49. 57 F.3d 126 (1st Cir. 1995).
50. Shay, supra note 49 at 129, 129 n. 1.
51. Shay, supra note 49 at 130.
52. Shay, supra note 49 at 133.
53. _ F.3d _, 1998 WL 566087 (8th Cir. 1998).
54. Nichols, supra note 53 at 1998 WL 566087 at *6.
55. Nichols, supra note 54.
56. Nichols, supra note 53 at *7.
57. Nichols, supra note 53.
58. Nichols, supra note 53.
59. Nichols, supra note 53.
60. JUDITH LEWIS HERMAN, TRAUMA & RECOVERY 123. New York: Basic Books (1997).
61. ROBERT I. SIMON, CLINICAL PSYCHIATRY & THE LAW 389. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press (2d ed. 1992).
62. DIAGNOSTIC & STATISTICAL MANUAL OF MENTAL DISORDERS 654 (4th ed. 1994).
63. http://www.healthguide.com/personality/borderline.htm.
64. DIAGNOSTIC & STATISTICAL MANUAL, supra note 62 at 683.
65. Jeffrey S. Janofsky, The Munchausen Syndrome in Civil Forensic Psychiatry, 22 BULL. AM. ACAD. PSYCHIATRY & LAW 489 (1994).
66. Gutheil, supra note 47.
67. Gutheil, supra note 47.
68. Gutheil, supra note 47.
69. See, e.g., Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 511 (1947) (attorney work product encompasses "interviews, statements, memoranda, correspondence [and] briefs" of lawyers); Nelson Drainage Dist. v. Bay, 470 N.W.2d 449 (Mich. App. 1991); County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, 271 Cal. Rptr. 698 (Cal. App.3d 1990).
70. Thomas G. Gutheil, Borderline Personality Disorder, Boundary Violations and Patient-Therapist Sex: Medicolegal Pitfalls, 146 AM. J. PSYCHIATRY 597 (1989).
71. Thomas G. Gutheil & Glen O. Gabbard, Obstacles to the Dynamic Understanding of Therapist-Patient Sexual Relations, 46 AM. J. PSYCHOTHERAPY 515 (1992).
72. J.V. Jordan et al., More on therapist-patient sex (letter). 147 AM. J. PSYCHIATRY 129-130 (1990).
73. See, e.g., Nichols, supra note 53.