Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Commentary: Deceptions to the rule on ultimate issue testimony.

Ralph Slovenko1

  • 1Wayne State University Law School, 471 West Palmer, Detroit, MI 48202, USA. ai2362@wayne.edu

The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
|April 6, 2006
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

The DSM in litigation and legislation.

The journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law·2011
Same author

Commentary: personality disorders and criminal law.

The journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law·2009
Same author

Patients who deceive.

International journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology·2006
Same author

The evolution of standards for experimental treatment or research.

The Journal of psychiatry & law·2005
Same author

Commentary: responsibility and insurance coverage of the mentally ill.

The journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law·2005
Same author

The transinstitutionalization of the mentally ill.

Ohio Northern University law review·2005

Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b) prohibits expert opinions on mental states related to criminal intent. Judicial discretion in applying this rule is significant, with exceptions often undermining its effectiveness in court.

Area of Science:

  • Forensic Psychology
  • Legal Psychology
  • Evidence Law

Background:

  • Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b) and its state equivalents restrict expert testimony concerning the mental state of a defendant as it relates to criminal offenses or defenses.
  • This rule aims to prevent expert witnesses from usurting the jury's role in determining ultimate issues of fact, particularly regarding criminal intent.

Discussion:

  • The application of Rule 704(b) involves considerable judicial discretion, leading to varied interpretations and implementations across different jurisdictions.
  • Case law reveals that strategic use of 'exceptions' or alternative phrasing by legal counsel can effectively circumvent the intended prohibition of the rule.
  • This circumvention raises questions about the rule's efficacy in its current form and the challenges in consistently applying evidentiary standards.

Related Experiment Videos

Key Insights:

  • Expert testimony on mental state is restricted by Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b).
  • Judicial discretion significantly influences the application and enforcement of Rule 704(b).
  • Existing jurisprudence suggests that exceptions and strategic legal maneuvers can undermine the rule's intent.

Outlook:

  • Future legal scholarship may explore clearer guidelines or amendments to Rule 704(b) to enhance its consistency and prevent circumvention.
  • Further analysis of judicial decisions is needed to understand the evolving landscape of mental state testimony in legal proceedings.
  • The tension between the rule's prohibition and the practicalities of legal defense strategies will likely continue to be a focal point in evidence law.