Over 12 different diagnoses were offered in expert testimony during the Hinckley insanity trial. This multitude of diagnoses, many of them overlapping, served to focus attention on the labels themselves rather than on the psychological processes of the defendant. As a result, differences in opinion among the experts were exaggerated; more important, the testimony confused the jury. I believe that stating--or even explaining--a diagnosis is not only unnecessary but also misleading in courtroom testimony. In an application of Roy Schafer's "action language" approach (1976; Miller 1979, 1983) and consistent with the law, I recommend that diagnoses be excluded from insanity trials.