PROTECTING THE INTEGRITY-OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM The Admissibility of Testimony From Mental Health Experts Under Daubert/Kumho Analyses

نویسندگان

  • William M. Grove
  • R. Christopher Barden
چکیده

The authors discussed to what degree testimony from social science and mental health experts (psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, therapists, others) meets admissibility requirements expressed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Daubert (1993), Joiner (General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 1997) and the recent Kumho (1999) decision. They reviewed data on Daubert/Kumho indicia of reliability using 2 exemplar areas of mental health testimony: psychodiagnostic assessment by means of the Rorschach and other "projective" assessment techniques and the diagnoses of posttraumatic stress disorder and multiple personality disorder (dissociative identity disorder). They concluded that some testimony offered by mental health professionals relating to these concepts should not survive scrutiny under the framework of Daubert, Joiner, and Kumho.

برای دانلود رایگان متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

منابع مشابه

Failure of Rorschach-Comprehensive-System-Based Testimony to Be Admissible Under the Daubert–Joiner–Kumho Standard

The Comprehensive System for the Rorschach (RCS) is currently the subject of intense scientific criticism. The normative data for many RCS scores are seriously in error and tend to make normal individuals appear maladjusted. Reliability is inadequate for many RCS scores, and validity for the great majority of RCS scores has not been adequately demonstrated. In addition, a substantial number of ...

متن کامل

Handwriting Evidence in Federal Courts - From Frye to Kumho.

In federal courts, the admissibility of scientific expert testimony in the last century has been governed by three major standards. The first of these standards, the "general acceptance" test, arose from the 1923 Frye v. United States (Frye) and required that any technique or method introduced in court be generally accepted by the relevant community of scientists. The more liberal "relevancy" s...

متن کامل

Attorney abuses of Daubert hearings: junk science, junk law, or just plain obstruction?

The U.S. Supreme Court case of Daubert v. MerrellDow Pharmaceuticals focused attention on the problem of “junk science” testimony in the courtroom, a decision that led to the emergence of the Daubert hearing as a pre-trial screening device for determining the reliability and relevance of expert testimony. Similar to other useful legal procedural safeguards of due process, alas, the Daubert hear...

متن کامل

The Case Against Abandoning the Search for Substantive Accuracy

Professor Slobogin’s new book, Proving the Unprovable, is the most provocative evidence text that I have read in years. In the book, he argues in favor of a more relaxed standard for admitting psychologists’ and psychiatrists’ testimony about a person’s prior mental state. He contends that a person’s earlier mental state is essentially unprovable and that it is impossible to gauge the validity ...

متن کامل

Experts, Mental States, and Acts

In my book Proving the Unprovable, I discussed at length the considerations that might govern the admissibility of expert psychiatric and psychological testimony in criminal and quasi-criminal cases. This evidence law symposium gives me the opportunity to elaborate on one particular thesis of that book—that the definition of expertise in the criminal justice system, derived in the federal court...

متن کامل

ذخیره در منابع من


  با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید

عنوان ژورنال:

دوره   شماره 

صفحات  -

تاریخ انتشار 2004