Barring ultimate issue testimony

  title={Barring ultimate issue testimony},
  author={Solomon M. Fulero and Norman J. Finkel},
  journal={Law and Human Behavior},
This research focuses on one of the major changes wrought by the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984: the exclusion of expert mental health testimony on the “ultimate issue,” that is, testimony specifically addressing the expert's opinion that the defendant is sane or insane. Subjects in this research were presented with 1 of 10 variants of an insanity case in which experts testified for the defense, prosecution, both, or neither. The testimony was at one of three levels: diagnostic only… 
What judges and lawyers think about the testimony of mental health experts: a survey of the courts and bar.
Mental health professionals should consider how to educate the courts and bar about the dangers inherent in over-reliance on the conclusory legal testimony of mental health experts, the utility of scientific data as such information becomes more routinely introduced as evidence at trial, and the expertise available from various mental health professionals.
Empirical Research on the Insanity Defense and Attempted Reforms: Evidence Toward Informed Policy
The development of sound conditional release programs for criminal defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity is proposed as a reform option which could serve the objective of enhancing public safety and access to appropriate treatment while continuing to meet the objectives of the insanity defense within criminal jurisprudence.
New Measures for Witnesses: Are They Performing as Anticipated?
The route of the witness through the criminal justice system, from identification to testimony, has always been fraught with difficulty. There are innumerable sources of influence, intimidation and
Mock Juror Sampling Issues in Jury Simulation Research: A Meta-Analysis
The question of sample differences (student v. nonstudent) in jury research was meta-analyzed for 6 dependent variables and revealed that guilty verdicts, culpability ratings, and damage awards did not vary with sample.
Third-Party Information in Retrospective Assessment of NGRI: Impact of Source and Supportive Versus Contradictory Content
Experimental conditions utilizing three types of third-party information (TPI) that supported or countered a psychologist's opinion regarding insanity were compared for differential effects in a mock
Opinion formation in evaluating the adjudicative competence and restorability of criminal defendants: a review of 8,000 evaluations.
Overall, clinicians opined that 19% of defendants were incompetent and considered 23% of these unlikely to be restored to competence and there were some notable differences between evaluations by psychologists versus psychiatrists and between evaluations conducted in inpatient versus outpatient settings.
Educative Expert Testimony: A One-Two Punch Can Affect Jurors' Decisions: EDUCATIVE EXPERT TESTIMONY
The present research examined whether different types of educative expert testimony can increase mock jurors' knowledge of problems associated with hearsay witnesses and decrease guilty verdicts.
The insanity defense
Changing thelegal test definition of insanity remains the remedy of choice when insanity outcomes appear problematic, despite empirical studies showing no significant differences among tests. An
The Impact of Elements of Self-Defense and Objective Versus Subjective Instructions on Jurors' Verdicts for Battered Women Defendants
Battered woman defendants' claims of self-defense have often been viewed as not fitting the classic definition of self-defense. Vignettes of a legal case varied the explicitness of the threat made to
The Prohibition of Ultimate Opinions: A Misguided Enterprise
ABSTRACT During the 1980s, a coterie of scholars attempted to limit the scope of expert testimony by curtailing ultimate opinions. As its foremost proponent, Melton continues to champion this


The psychiatrist's guide to right and wrong: Part IV: The insanity defense and the Ultimate Issue Rule.
  • R. Goldstein
  • Psychology, Medicine
    The Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
  • 1989
The origins, history, and vicissitudes of the Ultimate Issue Rule are reviewed and the Statement on the Insanity Defense is analyzed from both a legal and psychiatric perspective on the issue of whether psychiatrists should answer the ultimate question in insanity cases.
How jurors construe “insanity”
Historically and currently, jurors who have rendered verdicts in insanity cases have themselves been criticized and maligned-accused of being simplistic and biased, of lacking understanding, and of
The Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984: Much ado about nothing
The Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984(IDRA), passed in the wake of Hinckley (1981) and after two years of Senate and House testimony and debate, removed the “volitional” prong of the ALI test,
De facto departures from insanity instructions
De facto departures form the law (de jure) have been noted in such areas as jury revolts, jury nullification, extralegal concerns, and insanity. The thesis developed here is that (a) when such
Insanity on trial
I. Historical Development of Anglo-American Insanity Perspectives.- 1. An Historical Look at Insanity Defenses: From King Aethelred to Queen Victoria.- Secular Shortcomings and Ecclesiastical
Juror decision making
Much of the research on juror decision making is concerned with whether jurors are swayed by irrelevant-or extralegal-issues in their judgments of defendants. Such studies examine whether jurors'
The insanity defense: asking and answering the ultimate question.
The authors address the main questions in the insanity defense debate: Should it be abolished? Should psychiatrists participate as expert witnesses? Is the profession damaged by such testimony? Is
Formation and change in lay evaluations of criminal sentencing
In public opinion polls, a substantial proportion of lay respondents report that judges are too lenient. We examine the factors that contribute to this perceived judicial leniency. The majority of
Public opinion of forensic psychiatry following the Hinckley verdict.
A majority of respondents expressed little or no confidence in the specific psychiatric testimony in the Hinckley trial and only modest faith in the general ability of psychiatrists to determine legal insanity.
Practical Implications of Psychological Research on Juror and Jury Decision Making
The results of basic social science research have been applied to legal practice at a number of levels within the criminal and civil justice systems, although its application is controversial at all