The Daubert Standard for Admitting Expert Testimonies in Court

Court Room Photo by David Veksler on Unsplash

Stephen Raffle, MD, is a clinical psychiatrist and neuropsychiatrist in Kentfield, CA. While Dr. Raffle’s work as an MD covers several fields, the bulk is related to tort cases in civil litigation in which he acts as an expert witness.

For an expert witness’ testimony to be admissible in court, it must meet either the Daubert standard or, in some states, the Frye test. The Daubert standard is used in all federal jurisdictions and some state jurisdictions to establish whether an expert witness’ testimony is grounded in scientific reasoning that is appropriately applied to the facts at issue.

The Daubert standard originated from the 1993 Supreme Court case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, in which the court listed five factors to guide judges in determining whether an expert witness' testimony should be admissible. Per the court, a testimony is admissible if its theory or technique:

1. has been tested,

2. is subjected to peer review and publication,

3. has a known potential error rate,

4. has standards controlling its operation, and

5. is widely accepted within the scientific community.

Before Daubert, the standard for admissible testimony was the Frye test. The Frye test required that testimony be founded on methods generally accepted by experts in that field. The Frye test is still used in some states, including California.

Common Psychological Attributes Shared by Serial Killers

Shooting Image:pexels.com

Stephen Raffle, MD, is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist specializing in criminal, administrative, and civil law proceedings and assessments with offices in Kentfield, CA. Board-certified in Psychiatry and Forensic Psychiatry, Stephen Raffle, MD, sometimes shares his expertise with journalists, scholars and others seeking a professional medical perspective on relevant legal matters. In the article “Golden State Killer, Part 2: Forensic Psychiatry and the Rapist and Serial Killer," author Nick Rishwain's interview of Dr. Raffle highlights common psychological attributes that serial killers share.

The article centers on answering the question: How could a person carry out the terrible crimes the Golden State Killer is alleged to have committed? Among the common psychological traits Dr. Raffle discusses is serial killers' lack of empathy for others. Most understand they are committing a crime because they go to great lengths not to get caught. Lack of empathy with victims is a common denominator in such cases.

Numerous other common psychopathologies exist in serial killers. A short list includes Antisocial Personality Disorder, Borderline Personality Disorder, Sadomasochistic Personality Disorder, and Paranoid Schizophrenia. Although these psychological attributes are risk factors for predicting violence, identifying when one individual at a particular moment in time will become violent is very difficult. As Dr. Raffle reports, the best we can do at this time is to identify individuals who are at low, medium, or high risk for committing violence.

Psychiatrist or Psychologist - Who Is the Better Expert Witness?

Based in Kentfield, CA, Stephen Raffle, MD, earned his BA in physiology from the University of California, Berkeley and his MD from Chicago Medical School. Dr. Raffle, a Forensic Psychiatrist who is certified by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, frequently serves as an expert witness in legal proceedings. 

An expert witness possesses information acquired through education, training, and experience that can help a judge or jury understand specialized evidence in order to reach a verdict in a trial. In civil or criminal cases, whenever there is a medical issue bearing on emotional states or behavior, a forensic psychiatrist can provide expertise on the behavioral consequences of such conditions. Psychologists are not trained in medicine and are not qualified to evaluate or explain medical-psychiatric disorders. 

Psychiatrists are better expert witnesses because: 

 Psychiatrists can review prior medical records and render non-psychiatric opinions. Psychologists cannot.

 Psychiatrists are formally trained in pharmacology and understand pharmacologic interactions and the behavioral aspects of medication. Psychologists are not.

 Psychiatrists are required to demonstrate competence in neurology; hence, they are more knowledgeable about the neurological organic pathologies causing mental symptoms. Psychologists are not.

 Psychiatrists are trained to conduct physical (medical) examinations, read laboratory results, read radiological studies, and understand pathophysiology to diagnose patients. Psychologists are not. 

Presently, only three percent of all psychiatrists are board-certified in forensic psychiatry by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology.