Abstract
T HE PSYCHIATRIST as an expert witness introduces into the judicial process a very broad and far ranging type of evidence. In line with his own methods, he asks the law to give consideration to information concerning all factors which influence and determine specific human behavior. Notwithstanding the many difficult problems in relating psychiatric concepts to those of criminal law, his testimony performs an essential function in the criminal process by providing a fuller disclosure of the background and development of the individual on trial. Properly developed, psychiatric evidence broadens the inquiry beyond an isolated consideration of the circumstances of the crime and provides an explanation of the defendant's behavior in the context of his entire life history, including his childhood, his social environment, his conscious and unconscious thoughts, and his emotional experience.' Until recently, psychiatric evidence in California has been confined mainly to the single issue of legal responsibility, and introduced only in the separate sanity phase of the trial conducted after an adjudication of the defendant's guilt.2 Fortunately, this limitation has been overcome through the judicial development of a rule, primarily in People v. Wells,s
Published Version
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 call