Protecting the integrity of the legal system: The Admissibility of Testimony from Mental Health Experts under Daubert/Kumho Analyses

William M. Grove, R. Christopher Barden

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

71 Scopus citations

Abstract

The authors discussed to what degree testimony from social science and mental health experts (psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, therapists, others) meets admissibility requirements expressed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Daubert (1993), Joiner (General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 1997) and the recent Kumho (1999) decision. They reviewed data on Daubert/Kumho indicia of reliability using 2 exemplar areas of mental health testimony: psychodiagnostic assessment by means of the Rorschach and other "projective" assessment techniques and the diagnoses of posttraumatic stress disorder and multiple personality disorder (dissociative identity disorder). They concluded that some testimony offered by mental health professionals relating to these concepts should not survive scrutiny under the framework of Daubert, Joiner, and Kumho.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)224-242
Number of pages19
JournalPsychology, Public Policy, and Law
Volume5
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1999

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Protecting the integrity of the legal system: The Admissibility of Testimony from Mental Health Experts under Daubert/Kumho Analyses'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this