TY - JOUR
AU1 - Slobogin, Christopher
AB -  Christopher Slobogin, J.D., L.L.M., is visiting professor of law at University of Virginia Law School. Correspondence and reprint requests should be addressed to Mr. Slobogin at the University o Virginia Low School, Churlottesville, VA 22901. f This article examines the “ultimate issue” debate from multiple perspectives. An alternative is offered for limiting testimony, unless the testimony is adequately tested by the adversary process. 1. See, e.g., Morse, “Crazy Behavior, Morals, and Science: An Analysis of Mental Health Law,” 51 S. Cal. L. Rev. 527, 554-60 (1978); Bonnie & Slobogin, “The Role of Mental Health Professionals in the Criminal Process: The Case for Informed Speculation,” 66 Va. L. Rev. 427, 456 (1981); Weiner, “Mental Disability and the Criminal Law,” in The Mentally Disabled and the Law 693, 721 (Brakel, Parry & Weiner eds., 3d ed. 1985). See also i n t a notes 47. 2. See, e.g., United States v. Hearst, 563 F.2d 133 (9th Cir. 1977); Atkinson v. State, 391 N.E.2d 1170 (Ind. Ct. App. 1979); Melton, Weithom & Slobogin, Community Mental Healrh Centers and the Courts: An Evaluation of Community-Bused Services 94-95 (Univ. Nebraska: 1985) (descriptionof Virginia lawyers’ and judges’ reaction to ban on ultimate issue testimony). 
TI - The “ultimate issue” issue
JF - Behavioral Sciences & the Law
DO - 10.1002/bsl.2370070209
DA - 1989-03-01
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/wiley/the-ultimate-issue-issue-GtrlSGzQSp
SP - 259
EP - 266
VL - 7
IS - 2
DP - DeepDyve
ER -