The prohibition of ultimate opinions: A misguided enterprise

Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice

Volumn 3, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 65-75

  Rogers, Richard ^a   Ewing, Charles Patrick ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO   (United States)

Author keywords

Conclusory opinions; Daubert standard; Expert testimony; Ultimate opinions

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COURT; EXPERT WITNESS; FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY; HUMAN; LEGAL ASPECT; PUBLIC OPINION; SEMANTICS;

EID: 0141731267     PISSN: 15228932     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1300/J158v03n03_04     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. American Psychological Association (1992). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 47, 1597-1611.
2. Arenella, J. (1982). Reflections on current proposals to abolish or reform the insanity defense. American Journal of Law and Medicine, 8, 271-284.
3. Atkins v. Virginia, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002).
4. Bergman, B. E., & Hollander, N. (2002). Wharton's criminal evidence (15th ed.). Minneapolis: West Group.
5. Borum, R., & Grisso, T. (1995). Psychological test use in criminal forensic evaluations. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 26, 465-473.
6. Ciccone, J. R., & Clements, C. (1987). The insanity defense: Asking and answering the ultimate question. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 16, 329-338.
7. Cohen, D., (1988). Punishing the insane: Restriction of expert psychiatric testimony by Federal Rule of Evidence 704(B). University of Florida Law Review, 10, 541-562.
8. Committee on Ethical Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists (1991). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychologists. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 655-665.
9. Daubert v. Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
10. Dauer, F. W. (1996). Critical thinking: An introduction to reasoning. New York: Barnes and Noble.
11. Federal Rules of Evidence handbook. (2002). Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing.
12. Fulero, S. M., & Finkel, N. J. (1991). Barring ultimate issue testimony: An "insane" rule? Law and Human Behavior, 15, 495-507.
13. Grisso, T. (1986). Evaluating competencies: Forensic assessments and instruments. New York: Plenum.
14. Grisso, T., & Appelbaum, P. S. (1992). Is it unethical to offer predictions of future violence? Law and Human Behavior, 16, 621-633.
15. Halleck, S. L. (1980). Law in the practice of psychiatry. New York: Plenum.
16. Heilbrun, K. (2001). Principles of forensic mental health assessment. New York: Kluwer.
17. Heilbrun, K., Rogers, R., & Otto, R. K. (in press). Forensic assessment: Current status and future directions. In J. R. P. Ogloff (Ed.), Psychology and law: Reviewing the discipline. New York: Plenum.
18. General Electric Company et al. v. Joiner et ux, 522 U.S. 136 (1997).
19. Kumho Tire Company Ltd. et al. v. Carmichael et al., 526 U.S. 137 (1999).
20. Melton, G. B. (1986). Populism, school prayer, and the courts: Confessions of an expert witness. New Directions for Child Development, 33, 63-73.
21. Melton, G. B. (1999). Due care, not prohibition of expert opinions. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 6, 335-338.
22. Melton, G. B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N. G., & Slobogin C. (1987). Psychological evaluations for the courts. New York: Guilford.
23. Melton, G. B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N. G., & Slobogin C. (1997). Psychological evaluations for the courts (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.
24. Melton, G. B., & Russo, N. F. (1987). Adolescent abortion: Psychological perspectives on public policy. American Psychologist, 42, 69-72.
25. Morse, S. J. (1978). Law and mental health professionals: The limits of expertise. Professional Psychology, 9, 389-399.
26. Münsterberg, H. (1923). On the witness stand; Essays on psychology and crime. New York: Clark.
27. Perlin, M. L. (1994). The jurisprudence of the insanity defense. Durham: Carolina Academic Press.
28. Poythress, N., Melton, G. B., Petrila, J., & Slobogin, C. (2000). Commentary on "The Mental Status at the Time of the Offense measure." Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 28, 29-32.
29. Rogers, R. (1986). Conducting insanity evaluations. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
30. Rogers, R., Bagby, R. M., & Chow, M. M. (1992). Psychiatrists and the parameters of expert testimony. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 15, 387-396.
31. Rogers, R., Bagby, R. M., Crouch, M., & Cutler, B. (1990). Effects of ultimate opinions on juror perceptions of insanity. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 13, 225-232.
32. Rogers, R., & Ewing, C. P. (1989). Proscribing ultimate opinions: A quick and cosmetic fix. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 357-374.
33. Rogers, R., & Shuman, D. W. (2000a). Conducting insanity evaluations. New York: Guilford Publications.
34. Rogers, R., & Shuman, D. W. (2000b). The "Mental Status at the Time of the Offense" measure: Its validation and admissibility under Daubert. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 28, 23-28.
35. Shuman, D. W. (1996). Psychiatric and psychological evidence (2nd ed.). Colorado Springs: Shepherds/McGraw-Hill.
36. Slobogin, C. (1989). The "ultimate issue" issue. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 7, 259-266.
37. Slobogin, C., Melton, G. B., & Showalter, C. R. (1984). The feasibility of a brief evaluation of mental state at the time of the offense. Law and Human Behavior, 8, 305-320.
38. Slovenko, R. (2002, October). The role of psychiatric diagnosis in the legal process. Paper presented at the First International Conference on Symptom, Diagnostic and Disability Validity. Toronto, Canada.
39. Strong, J. W. (1999). McCormick on evidence (5th Ed.). Minneapolis: West Publishing.
40. Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 106 S.Ct. 2169 (1986).
41. Wigmore, J. H. (1909). Professor Munsterberg and the psychology of testimony: Being a report of the case of Cokestone v. Munsterberg. Illinois Law Review, 3, 399.