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.