Ziskin's model of cross examination to rebut expert psychological testimony is based in his belief that both the clinical methods and conclusions of mental health professionals are scientifically flawed. Ziskin's cross- examination principles are composed of basic strategies to discredit experts that may be applied across a wide range of criminal and civil cases. Such principles pertain to the scientific status of psychology and psychiatry, the training and background of experts, inadequacies in diagnosis, frailties of clinical judgment, and uncontrolled situational influences on assessment. In the empirical assessment of Ziskin's general principles of cross-examination, the authors operationalized four general principles (education and training, situational influences, diagnosis, and clinical judgment) and examined the effect of cross- examination based on these principles by using an abbreviated court transcript. The principles were tested on individual juror perceptions in a simulated insanity trial. A total of 350 subjects (150 men and 200 women) participated in the study. Claims by Ziskin that his general principles of cross-examination will devastate the credibility of the expert were not supported in this initial study. Although these negative findings do not disprove Ziskin's model, the burden lies on Ziskin to demonstrate the effectiveness of his methods and provide empirical support for his predictions. 1 figure, 22 references, and an appended transcript of a cross-examination associated with Ziskin's general principles