Download pdf
Comparative Analysis of Expert Testimony in Cases Involving Mental Health as Mitigating Factor
- 1 Tulane University
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Abstract
In the 20th century, the reliance on expert witnesses grew due to technological advancements and complex legal cases. Notably, the scientific foundation of psychology gained widespread acknowledgment, bestowing a pivotal role upon psychologists, particularly those specializing in forensic psychology, within the courtroom. In the United States, experts assist impartial judgments in the adversarial litigation model. This article conducts a comparative analysis of two cases—one in South Korea and one in the United States—where forensic psychologists played a central role in providing crucial assistance to defendants grappling with mental health issues. These cases shed light on the discernible distinctions within the expert witness systems between the two countries, emphasizing the profound impact of legal traditions on the significance attributed to expert opinions and the dynamics of equitable legal decision-making. This exploration underscores the evolving role of expert witnesses in an ever-advancing legal landscape, where their expertise continues to be a lodestar guiding the pursuit of justice.
Keywords
sociology, forensic criminology, expert testimony, mitigating factor, mental health
[1]. Blau, Theodore H. 2002. The Psychologist as Expert Witness. New York: Wiley.
[2]. Seoul Central District Court 2016.10.14. judgment 2016gob673. (English Translated Version). https://legalengine.co.kr/cases/en/oN5in1-5AVEg7IyEH_IMzA.
[3]. Pratt, Travis C., and Francis T. Cullen. 2005. “Assessing Macro-Level Predictors and Theories of Crime: A Meta-Analysis.” Crime and Justice, 32, 373.
[4]. Korobkin, Russell B., and Thomas S. Ulen. 2000. “Law and Behavioral Science: Removing the Rationality Assumption from Law and Economics.” California Law Review, 88, 1051.
[5]. McClain, Valerie, Elliot Atkins, and Michael L. Perlin. 2014. “‘Oh, Stop that Cursed Jury’: The Role of the Forensic Psychologist in the Mitigation Phase of the Death Penalty Trial.” Pp. 29-45 in Morewitz, Stephen J., Goldstein, Mark L. (Eds.). Handbook of Forensic Sociology and Psychology. Springer.
[6]. Yates v. State, 171 SW 3d 215 - Tex: Court of Appeals 2005.
[7]. Akers, Ronald L. 1990. “Criminology: Rational Choice, Deterrence, and Social Learning Theory in Criminology: The Path Not Taken.” Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 81, 653.
[8]. Gutheil, Thomas G. 2009. The Psychiatrist as Expert Witness. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Pub.
[9]. Tomes, Jonathan P. 1997. “Damned if You do, Damned if You Don’t: The use of Mitigation Experts in Death Penalty Litigation.” American Journal of Criminal Law 24(2):359-399.
[10]. Butler, Brooke, and Gary Moran. 2007. “The Role of Death Qualification and Need for Cognition in Venirepersons’ Evaluations of Expert Scientific Testimony in Capital Trials.” Behavioral sciences & the law 25, no. 4 (2007): 561–571.
[11]. Lee,Eric Ilhyung. 1997. “Expert Evidence in the Korean and under the U.S. Federal Rules of Evidence - A Comparative Study.” Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Journal 19(2): 585 - 632.
[12]. Lee,Eric Ilhyung. 1997. “Expert Evidence in the Korean and under the U.S. Federal Rules of Evidence - A Comparative Study.” Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Journal 19(2): 585 - 632.
[13]. Frase, Richard S. 1990. “Comparative Criminal Justice as a Guide to American Law Reform: How Do the French Do It, How Can We Find Out, and Why Should We Care?” California Law Review, 78, 542.
[14]. Browne, Neil M., Carrie L. Williamson and Linda L. Barkacs. 2002. “The Perspectival Nature of Expert Testimony in the United States, England, Korea, and France.” Connecticut Journal of International Law, 18, 55.
[15]. Richmond, Douglas R. 1997. “Regulating Expert Testimony.” Missouri Law Review, 62, 485.
[16]. Krauss, Daniel A., Joel D. Lieberman, and Jodi Olson. 2004. “The Effects of Rational and Experiential Information Processing of Expert Testimony in Death Penalty Cases.” Behavioral Sciences & the Law 22, no. 6 (2004): 801–822.
[17]. Frye v. United States - 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).
[18]. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 US 579 - Supreme Court 1993.
[19]. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 US 137 - Supreme Court 1999.
Cite this article
Li,M. (2023). Comparative Analysis of Expert Testimony in Cases Involving Mental Health as Mitigating Factor. Lecture Notes in Education Psychology and Public Media,28,99-107.
Data availability
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study will be available from the authors upon reasonable request.
Disclaimer/Publisher's Note
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of EWA Publishing and/or the editor(s). EWA Publishing and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
About volume
Volume title: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Interdisciplinary Humanities and Communication Studies
© 2024 by the author(s). Licensee EWA Publishing, Oxford, UK. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license. Authors who
publish this series agree to the following terms:
1. Authors retain copyright and grant the series right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this
series.
2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the series's published
version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial
publication in this series.
3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and
during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See
Open access policy for details).