EPILOGUE

We realize that six special articles reflect a small representative interface that exists between psychoanalysis and the law. On first thought, many would think that these two disciplines, which are based on very fundamentally different concepts, are essentially antithetical. Law strives to remove affect and emotional factors to insure both a more cognitive approach to fact-finding and a more accurate and factual evaluation of contradictory evidence. In fact, the more passionate the nature of the crime/conflict and ensuing Court proceedings, the more the law strives to reduce emotional bias through recourse to changes in venue, careful screening of jurors and limiting the nature and form of questioning of witnesses. Certain evidence that may be prejudicial (such as the past sexual behavior of a rape victim claimant) is often excluded. Nevertheless passion, bias, vengefulness, compassion, and other feelings find their way into courtroom proceedings. Lawyers often become emotional in their questioning of witnesses and in their closing arguments. Every trial attorney is interested in selecting a jury favorable to his or her point of view and often will employ psychological experts to help identify those qualities and characteristics in prospective jurors favorable to their client (the jury selection process).

There are many other areas of collaboration between the attorney and a knowledgeable psychological expert. The psychological strategy of the overall case or the approach to the cross-examination of a witness is a frequent area requiring joint expertise. Opportunities for collaboration are often present even in legal conflicts that never go to trial. (Nevertheless, sometimes an attorney is too inexperienced in psychological issues to even know where and when help and consultation is useful.) However, with the decision to work together, opportunities present themselves much as they do in a psychoanalytic session: unexpected, or vaguely hinted at, yet vit