Avoiding ipse dixit mislabeling: Post-Daubert approaches to expert clinical opinions

Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law

Volumn 31, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 205-210

  Gutheil, Thomas G ^a,b   Bursztajn, Harold ^a  

^a MASSACHUSETTS MENTAL HEALTH CENTER   (United States)

^b NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COURT; DECISION MAKING; FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY; LAW; MEDICAL SPECIALIST; METHODOLOGY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; RELIABILITY;

EXPERT TESTIMONY; FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY; JUDICIAL ROLE; SUPREME COURT DECISIONS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0037870708     PISSN: 10936793     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Huber TW: Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom. New York: Basic Books, 1993
2. Jasanoff S: Science at the Bar. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1995
3. Gutheil TG, Stein MS: Daubert-based gatekeeping and psychiatric/psychological testimony in court. J Psychiatry Law 28:235-51, 2000
4. Vidmar N: Medical Malpractice and the American Jury. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, 1998
5. Cecil JS, Willging TE: Court-Appointed Experts: Defining the Role of Experts Appointed under Federal Rule of Evidence 706. Washington DC: Federal Judicial Center, 1993
6. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993)
7. General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997)
8. Grudzinkas AJ, Appelbaum KL: General Electric v. Joiner: lighting up the post-Daubert landscape [Analysis and Commentary]. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 26:497-504, 1998
9. Kumho Tire Co. Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999)
10. Grudzinkas AJ: Kumho Tire Co. Ltd. v. Carmichael. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 27:482-8, 1999
11. Bohan TL, Heels EJ: The case against Daubert: the new scientific evidence "standard" and the standards of the several states. J Forensic Sci 40:1030-44, 1995
12. Bursztajn HJ, Brodsky A: Ethical and effective testimony during direct examination and cross examination post-Daubert, in The Mental Health Practitioner and the Law. Edited by Lifson LE, Simon RI. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998, pp 262-80
13. Strasburger LH, Gutheil TG, Brodsky A: On wearing two hats: role conflict in serving as both psychotherapist and expert witness. Am J Psychiatry 154:448-56, 1997
14. Gutheil TG: The Psychiatrist as Expert Witness. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press, 1998
15. Goldstein R: Hiring the hired gun: lawyers and their psychiatric experts - a preliminary investigation of misuse of expert psychiatric testimony by lawyers. Legal Studies Forum 11:41-53, 1987
16. Mancuso v. Con Ed. Co. of New York Inc., 967 F.Supp. 1437, 1445 (S.D. N.Y. 1997); Cavallo v. Star Enter., 892 F.Supp. 756, 764 (E.D. Va. 1995); In re Joint Eastern and Southern Dis. Asbestos Lit., 52 F.3d 1124, 1128 (2nd Cir. 1995)
17. Judge David Bazelon, personal communication to the Psychiatry and Law Course, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, MA, 1981
18. Bursztajn HJ, Feinbloom RI, Hamm RM, et al. Medical Choices, Medical Chances: How Patients, Families and Physicians Can Cope with Uncertainty. New York: Routledge Chapman Hall, 1990
19. Gutheil TG, Bursztajn HJ, Brodsky A: The multidimensional assessment of dangerousness: competence assessment in patient care and liability prevention. Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law 14: 123-9, 1986
20. Federal Rules of Evidence 702
21. Commonwealth v. LaCorte, 369 N.E.2d 1006 (Mass. 1977) at 1010 ("The defendant...argues that the expert invaded the province of the jury by expressing an opinion as to an ultimate fact." See also Commonwealth v. McCaffrey, 633 N.E.2d 1062 (Mass. Ct. App. 1994) 1067: "McCaffrey's final claim is that the Commonwealth's expert was allowed to invade the province of the jury by providing testimony that had the effect of bolstering Erin's credibility"; and Commonwealth v. Sowers, 432 N.E.2d 539 (Mass. Ct. App. 1982) at 540: "...victim's ophthalmologist was permitted to invade the province of the jury by giving his opinion as to the victim's ability to identify the defendant.")
22. Zimmerman G: Effective Communication in the Courtroom. Notre Dame, IN: The National Institute for Trial Advocacy, Inc. 1982, p 47
23. Slovic P, Fischoff B. Lichtenstein S: Facts vs. fears: understanding perceived risk, in Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Edited by Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1982, pp 463-89
24. Gutheil TG: Approaches to forensic assessment of false allegations of sexual misconduct by therapists. Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law 20:289-96, 1992