| Summary: | "Experts in Court: Reconciling Law, Science, and Professional Knowledge examines the use of expert testimony, particularly that of mental health professionals, in civil and criminal litigation. Lawyers and judges often fear that mental health professionals' testimony is purely experiential and not based on objective criteria or a demonstrable scientific foundation. Through the use of a novel approach to evaluating the interactions of experts with the courts, Sales and Shuman explain the scrutiny that psychologists and all other experts will need to use to survive admissibility determinations under new and evolving rules of evidence. Their skillful and detailed analysis shows how the standards of admissibility for expert testimony have changed and how they have altered the relationships among judges, juries, experts, and lawyers. The book carefully reveals the evolution of laws regarding evidence admissibility, the requirements established by specific court rulings for scientific and nonscientific expert testimony, and the new rules for the submission of psychological expertise in court. It also explains how the law can use experts more effectively and how their behavior serves or complicates the goals of the rules of evidence. Finally, the authors propose a research agenda designed to foster a better understanding of the attitudes and practices of trial courts concerning rules of evidence and expert testimony"--Cover. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved).
|
|---|
