How the Supreme Court Mangled My Research

You assume judges hear expert testimony and know if it's trustworthy or not. You know what they say about assumptions...

This is a very sobering article.

Counterpunch:

"What the Supreme Court Doesn't Know

By PAULA J. CAPLAN

I should have been thrilled. And I was, for five minutes. 'Your book about psychiatric diagnosis was cited in the latest United States Supreme Court decision,' read a colleague's email message to me.

For five minutes I felt gratified, thinking my report that many psychiatric diagnostic categories are unscientific had been helpful. Then I saw that what the Clark v. Arizona decision, the last in the Court's most recent term, included was a serious mischaracterization and misapplication of my work. I wondered how the Court had heard of my book and soon discovered that the writer of an amicus curiae brief had cited it in a way that, through implication and omission, was misleading."