Abstract
The phrase “reasonable certainty” has become embedded in the legal world of expert testimony, the version used with physicians being “reasonable medical certainty,” and with psychologists usually “reasonable scientific certainty.” Such experts are required to sanctify their opinions in court in virtually every jurisdiction by uttering the magic words before their testimony will be admitted as expert. Unfortunately, the phrase has no consistent legal meaning, often no specified meaning at all. Courts differ as to its definition, if they define it at all. The author reviews case law and the legal and forensic clinical literature on the subject, and discusses options for expert witnesses forced to couch their opinions within the standard.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.