The Oz Illusion: The Expert Behind the Curtain

In what is, perhaps, the most famous case, Andy Barefoot was sentenced to death based largely on predictions of his future propensity for danger, offered by two psychiatrists, neither of whom had examined him. In 1978, Barefoot was convicted by a Texas jury of capital murder. Subsequently, the same jury had to determine whether or not the death penalty should be imposed. The state called two psychiatrists, John Holbrook and James Grigson, both of whom, in response to hypothetical questions, opined that Barefoot was likely to commit further acts of violence. On the basis of the experts' testimony, the jury imposed the death penalty.

When the case found its way to the United States Supreme Court, the American Psychiatric Association, participating as amicus curiae, made known its view that predictions of long-term future violence are wrong more often than they are right. The Supreme Court was not swayed by the psychiatric association's modesty. Justice White, writing for the Court, declared: 'Neither petitioner nor the Association suggests that psychiatrists are always wrong with respect to future dangerousness, only most of the time' (Barefoot v. Estelle, 103 S.Ct. 3383 (1983), at 3398)