The Impartial Expert

Myth or Reality?
  • Henry C. Weinstein
Part of the Critical Issues in American Psychiatry and the Law book series (CIAP, volume 7)


The question posed by the title of this chapter is of more than mere academic interest at the present moment in the history of forensic psychiatry in the United States. As this book was in the process of being published, the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law after vigorous debate eliminated the word “impartiality” from its ethical guidelines,1 replacing it with the word “honesty” (see Appendix).


Legal Process Expert Testimony Expert Witness Paranoid Schizophrenia Forensic Psychiatry 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Ethical Guidelines for the Practice of Forensic Psychiatry, Newsletter of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, April 1987, pp 16–17.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Curran WJ, McGarry AL: The psychiatrist as expert witness, in Curran WJ, McGarry AL, Shah SA: Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology. Philadelphia, Davis, 1987.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Appelbaum PS: In the wake of Ake: The ethics of expert testimony in an advocate’s world. Bull Am Acad Psychiatr Law 1987; 15: 15–25.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Robitscher, J: The Powers of Psychiatry, Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 1980.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    May 10, 1987.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Diamond BL: The fallacy of the impartial expert. Arch Crim Psychodynamics 1959; 3: 22 1236.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Weinstock R: Report of the Ethics Committee, American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, to the Executive Committee, April 14, 1989.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Personal communication: A. Halpern, M.D.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    For a discussion of this material and some historical information see, Weinstein, HC: How should forensic psychiatry police itself? Guidelines and grievances: The AAPL Committee on Ethics. Bull Amer Acad Psychiatr Law 1984; 12: 289–302.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    The American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Ethical Guidelines for the Practice of Forensic Psychiatry, Second Draft, July 1985. (It is important to note that there were many “internal” drafts that the Committee was working with over the years. The Second Draft was the second presented to the membership in the form of a request for comments.) Compare Appelbaum, cited in Ref. 3, “the process of striving for objectivity and impartiality.”Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 1981.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    American Bar Association: Standards for Criminal Justice, 3–3.3(a), 4–4.4(a) and commentary.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    American Bar Association: Criminal Justice Mental Health Standards, 7–3. 14 (1984).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ake v Oklahoma, 105 S.Ct.1087 (1985).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Faust D, Ziskin J: The expert witness in psychology and psychiatry. Science 1988; 241: 3135.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Freud S: Observations on transference love. (1913) Standard Edition, Vol 12, London, Hogarth, 1958.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tyson R, Renick O: Panel, Countertransference theory and practice. J Amer Psychoanal (1986); 34: 699–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Owen Renik in panel cited in Ref. 17.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hans Loewald in panel cited in Ref. 17.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shapiro T: On neutrality. J Amer Psychoanal 1984; 32: 269–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Campbell J: Myths to Live By. New York, Viking, 1972.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Henry C. Weinstein
    • 1
  1. 1.Forensic Psychiatry ServiceNew York University Medical Center/Bellevue Hospital CenterNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations