Skip to main content


In Furman v. Georgia, the United States Supreme Court held that it was unconstitutional to administer the death penalty upon the sole, unguided discretion of juries. In response to Furman, some states amended their statutes to suggest or require that a jury assess the defendant's future dangerousness before issuing a death sentence. Generally, this assessment is based on psychiatric expert testimony. This author explores the reliability and accuracy of psychiatric expert testimony of future dangerousness in light of the Court's more recent Barefoot v. Estelle and Dauber, v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals decisions. The author argues that because the death penalty is so extreme and utterly final, heightened standards of reliability and accuracy should be used when determining the admissibility of evidence at the sentencing phases of capital trials.


File nameDate UploadedVisibilityFile size
6 Sep 2022
1.76 MB



  • Subject
    • Constitutional Law

  • Journal title
    • Boston College Law Review

  • Volume
    • 44

  • Issue
    • 1

  • Pagination
    • 207

  • Date submitted

    6 September 2022