HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Buchanan, A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Buchanan, A.

Psychiatric Evidence on the Ultimate Issue

Dr. Buchanan is Associate Professor, Law and Psychiatry Division, Department of Psychiatry, Yale University, New Haven, CT. Address correspondence to: Alec Buchanan, PhD, MD, Yale University, 34 Park Street, New Haven, CT 06519. E-mail: alec.buchanan{at}yale.edu

Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b) prevents psychiatrists and other expert witnesses in federal criminal trials from testifying as to whether a defendant did or did not have a mental state or condition comprising either an element of the crime or an element of the defense. This paper describes the origins of the Rule and its judicial development. The Rule is an exception to a 20th century trend that has seen witnesses increasingly permitted to address the ultimate issue. It has been applied inconsistently, has been criticized in appellate decisions, and has spawned an idiosyncratic legal definition of "helpful." Attempts to circumvent it have included inviting jurors to make inferences, inventing hypothetical cases that mimic the one before the court, and eliciting expert testimony on what is "possible" or "probable." Courts have held that rendering transparent the reasons behind an expert’s conclusions can minimize the damage done by ultimate issue testimony.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. Buchanan Competency to Stand Trial and the Seriousness of the Charge J Am Acad Psychiatry Law, December 1, 2006; 34(4): 458 - 465. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. Slovenko Commentary: deceptions to the rule on ultimate issue testimony. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law, January 1, 2006; 34(1): 22 - 25. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]