Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Concerning reform in expert testimony

An open letter from a practicing psychologist

  • Notes/Discussions
  • Published:
Law and Human Behavior

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Bazelon, D. Psychiatrists and the adversary process.Scientific American, 1974,230(6), 18–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonnie, R. & Slobogin, C. The role of mental health professionals in the criminal process: The case for “informed speculation.”Virginia Law Review, 1980,66, 427–522.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morse, S. Crazy behavior, morals and science: An analysis of mental health law.Southern California Law Review, 1978a,51, 527–653.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morse, S. Law and mental health professionals: The limits of expertise.Professional Psychology, 1978b,9, 389–399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poythress, N. Psychiatric experts, guardian ad litem attorneys, and civil commitment: Training lawyers to cope with expert testimony. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, May, 1977.

  • Poythress, N.. Psychiatric expertise in civil commitment: Training attorneys to cope with expert testimony.Law and Human Behavior, 1978,2, 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Forensic Psychiatry, Ann Arbor, Michigan

    Norman G. Poythress Jr.

Authors
  1. Norman G. Poythress Jr.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

About this article

Cite this article

Poythress, N.G. Concerning reform in expert testimony. Law Hum Behav 6, 39–43 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01049312

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01049312

Keywords

Search

Navigation