Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “EXPERT TESTIMONY”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 1,693 records · Page 94Linked to original sources
PubMedDate not supplied

[Significance and testimonial value of hemo-genetic legal identification with special reference to DNA analysis].

175 hemogenetic expertises on the identity of ostensibly jumbled blood samples were analysed. In 4.5% of the cases a genetically qualified non-identity was found, although an erronous mixing-up of samples could be excluded. A major problem may arise when the expert witness has to find out whether a non-identity is due to either genetic or to artificial reasons. A battery of conventional blood group systems as well as highly informative DNA polymorphisms is a powerful tool in discriminating between both reasons and enables the expert to reach a decision.

Alcoholic Intoxication↗
PubMed2000

Wrapped in silence: psychotherapists and confidentiality in the courtroom.

The impact of the Austrian Psychotherapy Act, which, in contrast to legal provisions in the United States, does not provide for any exceptions to breach confidentiality, is compared with the effects of U.S. law on dealing with confidentiality. The authors investigated the impact of this law in light of three common situations in psychotherapy that may jeopardize strict confidentiality: treating potentially dangerous patients, giving testimony, and serving as a psychotherapist in prison. Under the strict provisions of the Austrian Psychotherapy Act, a breach may be excusable in the case of a highly probable danger, but Austrian psychotherapists cannot be obliged to serve as witnesses or as experts in civil or criminal cases, as American psychotherapists can. Psychotherapy in prison, where release is contingent on the success of the therapy and the divulging of information could be in the interests of the patient as well as the court and the public, requires a modified dealing with confidentiality.

Austria↗
PubMed2000

What the courts need to know about mental health diagnoses of abused women.

Abused women may appear before the courts because of family or criminal matters. It is not uncommon for an abused woman to be diagnosed as having a mental health condition, including a mental disorder. In this paper, we consider the implications of the use of mental health diagnoses in the court system. We discuss the diagnostic criteria in the DSM-IV and ICD-10 classification systems and examine what other information is needed by the courts to interpret the behaviour and thought processes of abused women. This other information includes: whether the abuse is continuing and the likely impact of its continuance, diagnosis and prognosis, as well as the woman's survival strategies, her coping mechanisms, her support systems, and the severity of the physical and/or psychological abuse. This information needs to be stated within the context of what we currently know about abuse, including up-to-date knowledge about its epidemiology (e.g., prevalence, physical and psychological manifestations, and complex psychological responses). Information about other intervening factors is essential for the courts; and in order to present meaningful testimony on these factors, it is critical for clinicians to have a thorough understanding of the complex dynamics of spousal abuse.

Battered Women↗
PubMed1990

Gene technology in medical diagnostics and criminal procedure and liability for malpractice in Germany.

The increasing employment of gene technological procedures in medical diagnostics and criminal procedure has forced both the medical and the legal professions to focus their attention on the complex question of liability of physicians, lab technicians, and other personnel involved in applying these measures. This article gives an outline, by citing practical cases, of the major aspects of liability for malpractice that are relevant under German law. Bearing in mind that this article will be read predominantly by members of the Anglo-American common-law legal system, the legal aspects - even though they are German legal aspects - are viewed in the light of the common law. The article examines three major issues: (a) liability for diagnoses employing gene technological procedures: (b) liability for wrong testimony based on 'genetic finger-printing': and (c) the donor's rights concerning his or her DNA-probe.

DNA Fingerprinting↗
PubMed1979

Some medicolegal tips.

The purposes for each type of medical record are critical legal determinants for its content. Deposition is the most important single step in the litigation process. The uses for a deposition greatly exceed the mere discovery of fact. The weight given the testimony of witnesses by a jury is affected by many subtle factors, including professional demeanor, attitude, manner of dress, ability to communicate and recollect, and prior inconsistent statements.

Expert Testimony↗
PubMed2003

Hindsight bias, outcome knowledge and adaptive learning.

The ubiquitous nature of hindsight bias is a cause for concern for those engaged in investigations and retrospective analysis of medical error. Hindsight does not equal foresight. Investigations that are anchored to outcome knowledge run the risk of not capturing the complexities and uncertainties facing sharp end personnel and why their actions made sense at the time. Important lessons go unlearned if the exercise is simply to back track someone else's decision landmarks. Outcome knowledge can also bias our thinking on the quality of the processes that led to the outcome. This paper examines the influence of outcome knowledge in relation to reconstructive memory and legal testimony, ways for reducing the impact of outcome knowledge, and an adaptive learning framework that places hindsight bias in a broader context of rapid updating of knowledge.

Adaptation, Psychological↗
PubMed1990

The evolution of the American test for the admissibility of scientific evidence.

Most legal systems, including the British, have adopted a flexible, liberal standard for admitting scientific evidence. Although these systems consider the novelty of a scientific theory as a factor in evaluating the reliability of the scientific evidence, they do not follow a rigid rule excluding scientific testimony based on new theories and techniques. In the United States, however, most jurisdictions follow a rule automatically rejecting testimony based on novel scientific techniques. Reformers have severely criticized that rule, and the American courts now seem to be moving towards the British position on the admissibility of scientific evidence.

Expert Testimony↗
PubMed1989

The psychiatrist's guide to right and wrong: Part IV: The insanity defense and the Ultimate Issue Rule.

In the wake of Hinckley, widespread public dissatisfaction with the role of psychiatrists in insanity defense litigation prompted Congress in 1984 to amend the Federal Rules of Evidence to prohibit psychiatric testimony on the ultimate legal issue of whether or not a defendant is insane. APA's Statement on the Insanity Defense served as the ably articulated premise for this evidentiary amendment. APA argued that in going beyond their psychiatric expertise by answering ultimate issue questions as to whether defendants are legally insane, experts are likely to confuse the jury and undermine public confidence in psychiatry. APA also asserted that there was an impermissible logical leap between scientific psychiatric inquiry and moral-legal conclusions on the ultimate issue of insanity. This article reviews the origins, history, and vicissitudes of the Ultimate Issue Rule and analyzes the Statement on the Insanity Defense from both a legal and psychiatric perspective on the issue of whether psychiatrists should answer the ultimate question in insanity cases. The analysis suggests that APA's conclusions are not supported on scientific or evidentiary grounds, but may be warranted as a policy consideration to safeguard the public image of psychiatry.

Expert Testimony↗