Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Dr. Bernard L. Diamond (1973) published the first article in the first issue of the Journal of Psychiatry & Law. Entitled “The Psychiatrist as Advocate,” it was a follow-up to his famous editorial, “The Fallacy of the Impartial Expert” (Diamond, 1959). Given the impossibility of total impartiality, the expert witness can still be ethical, but then undertake a form of activism. After nearly 40 years, we continue to reassess our boundaries as expert witnesses. In this article, the author has asked Dr. Robert L. Sadoff to comment on Dr. Diamond's ideas in the context of contemporary ethics.

Keywords

Advocacy expert witnesses forensic psychiatry professional ethics

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1994).

Diamond

B. L.

(1959). The fallacy of the impartial expert. Archives of Criminal Psychodynamics, 3, 221–236.

Diamond

B. L.

(1973). The psychiatrist as advocate. Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 1, 5–21.

Durham v. U.S., 214 F.2d 862 (D.C. Cir. 1954).

In re Lifschutz, 2 C.3d 415, 85 Cal. Rptr. 829, 467 P.2d 557 (1970).

Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999).

M'Naghten's Case, 10 C & F 200 (U.K. 1843).

People v. Gorshen, 51 C.2d 716, 336 P.2d 492 (1959).

People v. Wells, 33 C.2d 330, 202 P.2d 53 (1949).

10.

Sadoff

R. L.

(2011). Ethical issues in forensic psychiatry: Minimizing harm. Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

11.

U. S. v. Brawner, 471 F.2d 969 (D.C. Cir. 1972).