"admissibility  of  evidence  on  psychiatric  issues  is  infrequently  challenged, unless the material presented is novel or peripheral to mainstream understanding of diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment intervention" (Roberts  1996 ; Gutheil & Sutherland  1999 ; Slobogin  1999 ; Slobogin et al.  2001...)Roberts, Paul. "Will you stand up in court? On the admissibility of psychiatric and psychological evidence." Journal of Forensic Psychiatry 7.1 (1996): 63-78.Dahl, Peter R. "Legal and psychiatric concepts and the use of psychiatric evidence in criminal trials." Calif. L. Rev. 73 (1985): 411.Buchanan, Alec, and Michael A. Norko, eds. "The psychiatric report: Principles and practice of forensic writing, Writing for the US federal courts" Cambridge University Press, 2011, p. 3Biggers, Jacquelyne R. "The utility of diagnostic language as expert witness testimony: Should syndrome terminology be used in battering cases?." Journal of forensic psychology practice 5.1 (2005): 43-61.   Dahir, Veronica B., et al. "Judicial Application of Daubert to Psychological Syndrome and Profile Evidence: A Research Note." Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 11.1 (2005): 62.Amato, Julie M., and Ira K. Packer. "Battered-Child Syndrome." Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online 34.3 (2006): 414-416.    {Admissibility of Expert Testimony on “Syndrome Evidence” Properly Determined Through Application of Minnesota Rule of Evidence 702, Not the Frye-Mack Standard, State v. MacLennan (702 N.W.2d 219 (Minn. 2005))}    Grove, William M., and R. Christopher Barden. "Protecting the integrity of the legal system: The admissibility of testimony from mental health experts under Daubert/Kumho analyses." Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 5.1 (1999): 224.           Gutheil, Thomas G., and Marshall D. Stein. "Daubert-based gatekeeping and psychiatric/psychological testimony in court: Review and proposal." J. Psychiatry & L. 28 (2000): 235.https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/jpsych28&div=20&id=&page=         Slobogin, Christopher. "The admissibility of behavioral science information in criminal trials: From primitivism to Daubert to voice." Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 5.1 (1999): 100.Slobogin, Christopher. "Psychiatric evidence in criminal trials: A 25-year retrospective." (2001). The Evolution of Mental Health Law .   Washington,  DC :   American Psychological Association , pp. 245–276.https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2001-01474-013Monden, Yasuhiro, Richard Rosner, Principles and Practice of Forensic Psychiatry, 2003DOI https://doi.org/10.1201/b13499Smith, S. (1989). Mental health expert witnesses: Of science and crystal balls.BehavioralSciences & the Law, 7(2), 145–180.Yuille, J. (1989). Expert evidence by psychologists: Sometimes problematic and often premature.Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 7(2), 181–196.McCormick, M. (1982). Scientific evidence: Defining a new approach to admissibility. Iowa Law Review, 67(5), 879–916.{DOJ: https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/scientific-evidence-defining-new-approach-admissibility}Huber, G. A., Roth, L. H., Appelbaum, P. S., & Ore, T. M. (1982). Hospitalization, Arrest, or Discharge: Important Legal and Clinical Issues in the Emergency Evaluation of Persons Believed Dangerous to Others. Law and Contemporary Problems, 45(3), 99. doi:10.2307/1191244 ----McEvoy, Joseph P., et al. "Why must some schizophrenic patients be involuntarily committed? The role of insight." Comprehensive psychiatry 30.1 (1989): 13-17.Appelbaum, Paul S. "A theory of ethics for forensic psychiatry." Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online 25.3 (1997): 233-247.Gutheil, Thomas G., and Pamela K. Sutherland. "Forensic assessment, witness credibility and the search for truth through expert testimony in the courtroom." The Journal of Psychiatry & Law 27.2 (1999): 289-312.Johnson, Sally, Eric Elbogen, and Alyson Kuroski-Mazzei. "Writing for the US Federal Courts." Principles and Practice of Forensic Psychiatry, edited by Michael A. Norko and Alec Buchanan, CRC Press, 2017, pp. 63-72.Gold, Liza H., and Richard L. Frierson, eds. The American Psychiatric Publishing textbook of forensic psychiatry. American Psychiatric Pub, 2017.----Veteran's Rights:            Did you know that 'PTSD' is the only Non-Kraepelian [non-endogenous,] diagnosis in the DSM?        {There is no specific category for catastrophic ego-fragmentation, or other sequelae related to Torture.}        Despite Harlow 1957, eg. Documenting in great detail as a medical disorder symptoms related to American POW's.        All DSM categories, even those which may be related to POW/Torture/Interrogation, are categorized as endogenous (pre-existing,) conditions, with no understood etiology.        It's an insurance company scam / trick.. . . .Or according to the official US Government statement 'A mystery to science!'According to APA, PTSD itself isn't a disabling condition; unless it's co-accompanied by other (pre-existing,) illness.Which means, no one has to pay a penny, for Veterans or others; suffering.{APA is also reluctant to diagnose PTSD in persons who are not US Government employees.}--Lykaion Publishing, 2022.----Also see:"Thank You For Your Service," Dreamworks Pictures, (et al.) 2017.DRRI-2 [Stress Modeling / Stress Adaptation / (Human Factors)]