Abstract
In the legal system's search for truth, determination of the credibility of any witness is left to the fact finder. The widely recognized bar on any witness's attesting to the credibility of any other witness or claimant, however, exists in tension with certain ethical and technical requirements of the forensic psychiatric witness's role. These requirements include the need to perform an initial credibility threshold determination; the need to consider malingering in all forensic evaluations; and the need to utilize standard criteria for diagnosis, even if some diagnoses have acquired pejorative connotations. After examining the impact of Daubert v. Merrell-Dow on admissibility of scientific testimony, this article reviews the conflicts and concepts impinging on the legal system's search for truth through fairness and offers suggestions for coping with the testimonial and theoretical pitfalls that may occur during the process.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
