| How to Obtain
Documents |
| |
| NCJ Number:
|
NCJ 131315
|
| Title:
|
Ultimate Issue Issue
|
| Journal:
|
Behavioral Sciences and the Law Volume:7 Issue:2 Dated:special issue (Spring 1989) Pages:259-266
|
| Author(s):
|
C Slobogin
|
| Publication Date:
|
1991 |
| Pages:
|
8 |
| Type:
|
Legislation/policy analysis |
| Origin:
|
United States |
| Language:
|
English |
| Annotation:
|
This article examines the ultimate issues debate from multiple perspectives. |
| Abstract:
|
It expresses the opinion that the ultimate issue and opinion testimony is dependent on the setting in which the expert testimony is presented. A distinction is made between testimony concerning the ultimate issues and testimony using penultimate language. The ultimate conclusion determines the dispositive legal issue of a person's competency, insanity, or committability. However, a penultimate conclusion presents the relevant legal test such as the American Law Institute test for insanity which determines whether a person accused of crime did or did not as a result of his/her disease understand the wrongfulness of his/her act. Those who advocate a ban on these types of testimony feel the testimony is not properly within the province of the mental health profession, and secondly, the use of such testimony may influence the fact finder. An alternative is offered for limiting opinion testimony, unless the testimony is tested by the adversary process, including cross-examination of the expert's data and submission of rebuttal evidence. 26 notes |
| Main Term(s):
|
Expert witnesses ; Psychiatric testimony |
| Index Term(s):
|
Insanity defense ; Cross-examination |
| |
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=131315
|
* A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents
not available online, a link to the publisher's web site is provided.
|
|
Help | Contact Us | Home
