Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Past Issues
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Print Subscriptions
  • About
    • About the Journal
    • About the Academy
    • Editorial Board
  • Feedback
  • Alerts
  • AAPL

User menu

  • Alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
  • AAPL
  • Alerts
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Past Issues
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Print Subscriptions
  • About
    • About the Journal
    • About the Academy
    • Editorial Board
  • Feedback
  • Alerts
OtherJOURNAL ARTICLE

"Just say no": experts' late withdrawal from cases to preserve independence and objectivity

TG Gutheil, H Bursztajn, JT Hilliard and A Brodsky
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online December 2004, 32 (4) 390-394;
TG Gutheil
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
H Bursztajn
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
JT Hilliard
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
A Brodsky
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

An expert's decision to withdraw from a case at a late stage is an important and serious step with both forensic and ethical consequences. Preservation of a mutual right to terminate services at will is an essential (but all too often neglected) element of forensic work that can aid in immunizing the expert from threats to independence and objectivity. The authors examine the foundations of such a right, the potential obstacles to exercising it, the factors that might enter into such a decision, and the possible consequences of late withdrawal.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online: 32 (4)
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online
Vol. 32, Issue 4
1 Dec 2004
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in recommending The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law site.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
"Just say no": experts' late withdrawal from cases to preserve independence and objectivity
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
"Just say no": experts' late withdrawal from cases to preserve independence and objectivity
TG Gutheil, H Bursztajn, JT Hilliard, A Brodsky
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online Dec 2004, 32 (4) 390-394;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
"Just say no": experts' late withdrawal from cases to preserve independence and objectivity
TG Gutheil, H Bursztajn, JT Hilliard, A Brodsky
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online Dec 2004, 32 (4) 390-394;
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Sequestration of lay witnesses and experts
  • Post-traumatic stress disorder in the forensic psychiatric setting
  • Alcoholic blackout for criminally relevant behavior
Show more JOURNAL ARTICLE

Similar Articles

Site Navigation

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Archive
  • Information for Authors
  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Feedback
  • Alerts

Other Resources

  • Academy Website
  • AAPL Meetings
  • AAPL Annual Review Course

Reviewers

  • Peer Reviewers

Other Publications

  • AAPL Practice Guidelines
  • AAPL Newsletter
  • AAPL Ethics Guidelines
  • AAPL Amicus Briefs
  • Landmark Cases

Customer Service

  • Cookie Policy
  • Reprints and Permissions
  • Order Physical Copy

Copyright © 2025 by The American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law