Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Equivocal Rulings on Expert Psychological and Psychiatric Evidence: Turning a muddle into a nonsense|
Colman, Andrew M.
|Publisher:||Sweet & Maxwell|
|Citation:||Criminal Law Review, 1996, pp.88-95.|
|Abstract:||This article expands on a previous critical examination of the rule established in R. v. Turner and discusses more recent decisions regarding the admissibility of expert psychiatric and psychological evidence.|
|Description:||This is the author's draft of an article published in Criminal Law Review by Sweet & Maxwell www.sweetandmaxwell.co.uk|
|Appears in Collections:||Published Articles, School of Psychology|
Files in This Item:
|Equivocal Rulings on Expert Psychological.pdf||66.28 kB||Adobe PDF||View/Open|
Items in LRA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.