Most trial judges understand that psychiatry and psychology aspire to, and sometimes achieve, the standards of hard science. Amid a climate of case demands and research initiatives, many frontiers spark sincere disagreement in how data are to be interpreted. This is not unlike the controversies of established medicine — for example, the assessment of signs of sexual assault or a shaken baby, among others. Apart from differences in perspective, forensic psychiatrists and psychologists reach different opinions for principally two reasons: because one examiner is relying upon more data to inform an opinion, or because bias has affected one or both of the forensic psychiatrists’ or psychologists’ work. See Robert A. Nicholson & Steve Norwood, “The Quality of Forensic Psychological Assessments, Reports, and Testimony: Acknowledging the Gap Between Promise and Practice,” 24 Law & Hum. Behav. 1 (2000); David E. Bernstein, “Expert Witnesses, Adversarial Bias and the (Partial) Failure of the Daubert Revolution,” 93 Iowa L. Rev. (2008).
To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.
Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.
ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at email@example.com