[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Citations 0
JAMA 100 Years Ago
August 20, 2003


Author Affiliations

JAMA 100 Years Ago Section Editor: Jennifer Reiling, Assistant Editor.

JAMA. 2003;290(7):966. doi:10.1001/jama.290.7.966-b

It has been suggested that in criminal cases in which questions of mental sanity or other medical questions are involved there should be a jury of physicians. Thus can be avoided, it is to be inferred, the scandal of conflicting "expert" testimony (so-called), which is so often used, it is claimed, to befog the jury and embarrass justice. It is assumed that a medical jury would be able to properly interpret the evidence and reach a correct conclusion where an ordinary jury of laymen would fail. This seems plausible, but will hardly bear examination.

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview