Ch6, Volkswagen v. Uptown, Part 2, Lecture Notes (9.28.08)

Ch6, Volkswagen v. Uptown, Part 2, Lecture Notes (9.28.08)...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Chapter 6 Part 2 Chapter 6: Admissibility of Expert Opinion Testimony Part 2 Lecture Notes Chapters 6, 7 and 8 all consider the use of expert testimony on social facts Let’s look at this type of testimony in greater detail: Different types of experts who testify Basis for their testimony Criteria courts use to decide whether to admit their testimony Experts Who Present Science As shown in the VW case, scientific research can be used: To establish facts, and Resolve disputes about facts The expert who presents this information is usually a behavioral/social scientist Experts Who Present Opinions However, sometimes scientists testify without having research to support their claims (see Chapter 1, Introduction, Part 1, Slide 14) When they do so, they are presenting opinion testimony There are 2 other types of experts who may provide opinion testimony that is not based on proven facts: Professionals-Practitioners (e.g., clinical practitioners; physicians; social workers) Other experts (e.g., police, plumbers, automobile mechanics) Opinion testimony can be based upon: Experience Social beliefs Social theory I. Professionals-Practitioners Providing Expert Opinion Testimony Many professionals receive science training and earn a PhD, but are not scientists in their practice (e.g., clinical psychologists) Many others do not receive significant scientific training at all (e.g., MD, PsyD, DSW, MSW) 1
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Chapter 6 Part 2 Consider professional-practitioners providing opinion testimony relevant to the insanity defense Example: Tennessee v. Flake ( TN Supreme Court , 2003) Flake was indicted on 2 counts of premeditated first degree murder for the shooting deaths of two people Flake admitted that he did the murders but claimed that he was insane at the time of the crime Jury rejected the insanity defense and found Flake guilty on both counts of premeditated first degree murder Flake appealed, asserting, among other things, that the insanity defense had been established and that the jury had erred in rejecting it Insanity Defense ( So what did Flake have to show to prove insanity?) To answer this question, we need to recognize that: Insanity is a legal term and not a psychiatric or psychological term And since this was a crime committed in TN, we need to look at how TN
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 05/09/2010 for the course PSYC PSY taught by Professor Na during the Spring '10 term at Arizona.

Page1 / 7

Ch6, Volkswagen v. Uptown, Part 2, Lecture Notes (9.28.08)...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online