Advertisement

Framing the Question of the Admissibility of Expert Testimony about Recollections of Trauma in the United States

  • Daniel W. Shuman
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (NSSA, volume 291)

Abstract

To understand the rules of any legal system it is necessary to understand the constructs that underlie that system. Similarly worded rules may have vastly different consequences in different legal systems based on unspoken values and assumptions that underlie the operation of the legal system. This is nowhere more apparent than in seeking to understand the American legal system. The American legal system is built on a common law system inherited from England, informed by a revolutionary, rugged individualistic heritage of distrusting authority. This heritage is reflected in the U.S. Constitution which does not give citizens the right to receive anything from the government but rather grants them the right to protection from the government. This same heritage of distrust of authority is reflected in contemporary American political debates, for example those involving governmental assurances of health care for all citizens, in which the rejection of universal health care (unique among western democracies), is tied, in part, to the assumption that the government cannot be trusted to get it right.

Keywords

Legal System Child Sexual Abuse Judicial System Expert Testimony Expert Witness 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bender, L. (1990). Feminist (Re)torts: Thoughts on the liability crisis, mass torts, power, and responsibilities. Duke Law Journal, 1990: 848–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cheatham v. Rogers, 824 S.W.2d 231 ( Tex. Civ. App. - Tyler 1992 )Google Scholar
  3. Enns, C. Z., McNeilly, C. L., Corkery, J. M., and Gilbert, M. S. (1995) The debate about delayed memories of child sexual abuse: A feminist perspective. The Counseling Psychologist 23: 181–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993).Google Scholar
  5. Gobert, J. J. and Jordan, W. E. (2nd ed 1990 ) Jury Selection: The Law, Art, and Science of Selecting A Jury. Colorado Springs, CO: Shepard’s/McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  6. Greenberg, S. A. and Shuman, D.W. (1996). Irreconcilable conflicts between therapeutic and forensic roles. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  7. Herald v. Hood, 1993 Ohio App. LEX1S 3688Google Scholar
  8. Isely v. Capuchin, 877 F. Supp. 1055 (S.D. Mich. 1995 ).Google Scholar
  9. Loftus. E. (1993). The reality of repressed memories. American Psychologist, 48: 518–537.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lorenzen, D. (1988). The admissibility of expert psychological testimony in cases involving the sexual misuse of a child. University of Miami Law Review, 42: 1033–1072.Google Scholar
  11. Sales, B.D., Shuman, D.W., and O’Connor, M. (1994). In a dim light: Admissibility of child sexual abuse memories. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 8: 399–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Sales, B. and Shuman, D. (1993). Reclaiming the integrity of science in expert witnessing. Ethics and Behavior, 8: 223–229.Google Scholar
  13. Shahzade v. Gregory, 1996 US Dist LEXIS 6463 (D Mass 1996 )Google Scholar
  14. Shuman, D. (1993). The psychology of deterrence in tort law. University of Kansas Law Review, 42: 115–168.Google Scholar
  15. Shuman, D. (1994). The psychology of compensation in tort law. University of Kansas Law Review, 43: 39–77.Google Scholar
  16. Shuman, D. (1994a). Psychiatric and Psychological Evidence 2nd ed. Colorado Springs: Shepards-McGraw Hill. State v. Hungerford, No. 94-S-045 (N.H. Super. Ct., Hillsborough County 1994 )Google Scholar
  17. State v. Morahan, No. 93-S-1734 (N.H. Super. Ct., Hillsborough County 1993)Google Scholar
  18. Tyler, T. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel W. Shuman
    • 1
  1. 1.Southern Methodist UniversityDallasUSA

Personalised recommendations