{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021570319240724764, 'fraction_numerical': 0.001725625539257981, 'mean_word_length': 5.236559139784946, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Keeping criticism at bay: suggestions for forensic psychiatry experts.

Antisius, after examining the corpse of Julius Caesar, “opined that only one of the 23 sword wounds was deadly, namely the one perforating his thorax.” This report, dating back to the Roman Empire, seems to be the first documented use of a scientific expert witness. Experts are presumed to be persons with special reliable knowledge who share their insights through testimony so that legal issues may be justly resolved. The role of expert testimony is continually criticized by almost everyone, and medical experts seem to be the most controversial for the following reasons: medicine remains as much an art as a science, touches life and death, and involves highly personalized decisions. Yet, despite such abundant criticism, courts will continue to need expertise. Forensic psychiatry experts can keep criticism at bay by being aware of the cultural differences between law and medicine, understanding how the admissibility of expert testimony may impinge on their opinion, taking heed of the current attempts to regulate expert testimony, and being familiar with jurors’ attitudes.