holding that trial court erred in excluding psychiatrist's testimony that he changed his diagnosis based on his consideration of later psychological reports
How later courts described this case
- holding that trial court erred in excluding psychiatrist's testimony that he changed his diagnosis based on his consideration of later psychological reports
- explaining that a clinical psychologist may be qualified to diagnose a mental illness even though she has no medical training and therefore is unqualified to treat it
- holding *43 that trial court erred in excluding psychiatrist's testimony that he changed his diagnosis based on his consideration of later psychological reports
- “Particular inquiries which may be appropriate in some cases may be inappropriate in others.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
FAHY, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
Having joined in the opinion issued October 26, 1961, reversing and remanding for a new trial, I join now in similar action taken by the court after rehearing en banc. I concur generally in the opinion, adding the qualifications to be stated.
While, strictly speaking, it is not necessary, as the present opinion states, to decide whether the three psychologists who testified for the defense at the trial were qualified to offer expert opinions, since they may not be called to testify at the retrial, it would be altogether appropriate to pass upon their qualifications on the record before us; for the record is here for our review of the rulings of the District Court in excluding their testimony. Upon the reasoning of both the original and the present opinions, considered with the facts, I would hold that these witnesses were qualified. A ruling to that effect now would be useful to the District Court.
The main feature of the present opinion, however, is its holding that psychologists may qualify as experts on the question of mental disease or defect under the standards set forth in the opinion. I am in entire agreement with this, which was the gist of the opinion of the division prior to the rehearing en banc.
I am authorized to say that Judges Ebgerton and Washington join in the views above expressed.