Cross-examination of the psychiatrist, using publications: point counter-point.

Dr. Irwin Perr has used a specific case to draw a generalization and make a recommendation about the forensic psychiatrist's tactical response to a particular aspect of the legal adversary process; that is, he addresses the question of how the psychiatric expert witness should respond to cross-examination by use of publications that attack his credibility as a witness. In his article he makes a point. I would like to offer these comments as a counter-point. Dr. Perr states, "The use of [specific] articles and excerpts tends to distort the [trial] process;" and by this he means that the adversary use of technical publications distorts the fact-finding trial process seeking to clarify and establish the authenticity or truth of a phenomenon, here a clinical judgment, because published statements can be taken out of context and twisted to the attorney's use and purpose. Not being present, the author of the written treatise is himself immune to criticism, challenge, and attack and is not even available to present the statement in proper perspective. The expert witness, therefore, is faced with an allegedly authoritative statement that impugns the credibility of the clinical judgment and opinion offered by that witness. Dr. Perr suggests the following as a (traditional) testimonial response by the expert witness to this cross-examination ploy, "[one] way of responses available to the witness in such a situation is [for the witness] to deny or not acknowledge the authoritativeness of the publication and to base his opinion on his own experience, discussion with colleagues, information culled from professional meetings, conferences, and [upon an] over-all interpretation of the literature at large." Dr. Perr thus recommends that, for legal trial purposes, no psychiatric author should be recognized as an authority above the psychiatric expert witness, and that psychiatric expert witnesses who are practicing psychiatrists and "who are knowledgeable about a given topic should learn to rely on their own opinions without seeking supportive writings elsewhere." If I can consider this to be the trial posture that Dr. Perr recommends for