Avoiding Expert Opinions on the Ultimate Legal Question: The Case for Integrity
Department of Psychiatry
Forensic Psychiatry; Insanity Defense; Expert Testimony; Ethics, Professional
In this article, we argue against testifying to the ultimate legal issue. There is no basis in science or clinical knowledge for determining the degree of capacity that is required in order to reach the threshold of capacity associated with legal questions such as competency and criminal responsibility. Society qualifies mental health professionals to provide expert testimony on the basis of their clinical and scientific expertise. Thus testifying to the ultimate legal issue is inappropriate and illogical and to do so threatens the integrity of mental health professions and the legal process.
DOI of Published Version
Tillbrook, C., Mumley, D. & Grisso, T. (2003). Avoiding Expert Opinions on the Ultimate Legal Question: The Case for Integrity. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 3(3), 77-87. doi:10.1300/J158v03n03_05
Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice
Tillbrook, Chad E.; Mumley, Denise L.; and Grisso, Thomas, "Avoiding Expert Opinions on the Ultimate Legal Question: The Case for Integrity" (2003). Psychiatry Publications and Presentations. 292.