Encyclopedia of Clinical Neuropsychology

2018 Edition
| Editors: Jeffrey S. Kreutzer, John DeLuca, Bruce Caplan

Baxter v. Temple (2005)

  • Robert L. HeilbronnerEmail author
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57111-9_2235

Synonyms

Admissibility of psychological/neuropsychological evidence

Historical Background

One of the first decisions to address the admissibility of expert testimony by a psychologist or neuropsychologist as to the existence of a brain injury or mental defect was Jenkins v. United States (1962). This was a criminal trial in which the jury was instructed to disregard the testimony of the psychologists on the grounds that they could not give a medical opinion as to mental disease or defect because they did not have medical training. The appellate court reversed the decision holding that the expert did not need to be a medical practitioner. A later opinion, in United States v. Riggleman (1969) supported the position that psychologists were not excluded from testifying about criminal sanity solely because they lacked medical training. Simmons v. Mullins (1975) was an early appellate court decision that essentially reversed a trial court opinion that neuropsychologists were not competent...

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

References and Readings

  1. Chapple v. Ganger, 851 F. Suppl. 1481 (E. D. Wash, 1994).Google Scholar
  2. Greiffenstein, M. F. (2009). Basics of forensic neuropsychology. In J. Morgan & J. Ricker (Eds.), Textbook of clinical neuropsychology. New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  3. Greiffenstein, M. F., & Cohen, L. (2005). Neuropsychology and the law: Principles of productive attorney-neuropsychologists relations. In G. Larrabee (Ed.), Forensic neuropsychology: A scientific approach. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Jenkins v. United States (1962). 307 F. 2d 637.Google Scholar
  5. Kaufmann, P. M. (2008). Admissibility of neuropsychological evidence in criminal cases: Competency, insanity, culpability, and mitigation. In R. Denney & J. Sullivan (Eds.), Clinical neuropsychology in the criminal forensic setting. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  6. Richardson, R. E. L., & Adams, R. L. (1992). Neuropsychologists as expert witnesses: Issues of admissibility. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 6, 295–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Simmons v. Mullins (Pa. Super Ct. 1975). 331 A2D 892, 897.Google Scholar
  8. United States v. Riggleman (4th Cir. 1969). 411 F.2d 1190.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chicago Neuropsychology GroupChicagoUSA