A psychologist testifies in court.

The psychologist as expert witness: A case report and analysis of personal experiences previously reported in the American Psychologist.

“…McCary (1956) and Louisell (1955Louisell ( , 1957 discuss the legal precedents thoroughly. In the present case, as well as those reported by Frank (1956), Schofield (1956, Stopol (1957), Weitz (1957), andMcCary (1960), the psychologist was allowed to testify as an expert. In one instance (May, 1956) the psychologist's testimony was excluded by the trial judge on the grounds that the psychologist was not a medical man, but a Court of Appeals reversed this decision.…”

“…T HE complementary articles by Schofield (1956) and McCary (1956), the former a general discussion of the psychologist as an expert witness in courts of law, his interactions with attorneys in this situation, and the potential pitfalls to the psychologist, the latter a technical report of legal findings and opinions in a number of civil and criminal, state and federal court cases in which psychological testimony was involved, have presented an excellent introduction to the psychologist interested in the problems of testifying as an expert witness. In addition, McCary (1960), in the form of a hypothetical trial transcript formed from transcripts of three actual court cases, reports nearly the entire range of problems the psychologist as a witness may encounter.…”

“…There was no objection in the present case however to the statement that the bankrupt's test responses were similar to those frequently obtained from schizophrenics. McCary (1960) notes the possible use of the technique of derogating the psychologist by attacking his use of the title "doctor." Schofield indicates that this may be done either intentionally or in honest error through the attorney's own equating of the term doctor with physician.…”