Abstract
In recent years, ultimate opinion testimony given by mental health experts in insanity trials has come under strident criticism as an unwarranted incursion into the legal arena. This article examines the merits of such criticism and concludes that attempts to eliminate such testimony will not achieve their intended goals but will obscure more substantive issues inherent in insanity evaluations and subsequent testimony. The article then recasts problems in expert testimony in a broader conceptual basis buttressed with empiricism.
Full Text 
Sign-in/Register to access full text options
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Paper version not known
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
