OPPOSITION TO PSYCHOLOGISTS AS EXPERT WITNESSES HAS COME FROM MANY DIRECTIONS, INCLUDING CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER WHO IN 1964 QUESTIONED WHETHER THE TESTIMONY OF PSYCHOLOGISTS AND PSYCHIATRISTS SHOULD BE REGARDED AS OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC FACT. THE AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION, THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, AND THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL OF THE AMERICAN PSYCHOANALYTIC ASSOCIATION, IN REPRESENTING THE MEDICAL PROFESSION, PASSED A RESOLUTION STATING THAT THE MEDICAL PROFESSION ALONE HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT OF ILLNESS, INCLUDING MENTAL ILLNESS, AND THAT ALTHOUGH THE MEDICAL PROFESSION APPROVES OF THE USE OF PSYCHOLOGISTS, IT CONSIDERS THEM TO BE ANCILLARY TO MEDICAL PERSONNEL. IN SPITE OF THIS OPPOSITION, THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROLE OF THE PSYCHOLOGIST AS AN EXPERT WITNESS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IS SOLIDLY FOUNDED ON THE RULINGS DELIVERED IN UNITED STATES V. JENKINS (1962), UNITED STATES V. BRAWNER (1972), AND UNITED STATES V. ALEXANDER AND MURDOCK (1972). THIS ACCEPTANCE IS BASED ON THE BELIEF THAT THE PSYCHOLOGIST HAS A DISTINCTIVE SKILL IN HIS ABILITY TO INTERPRET STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING THE HUMAN PERSONALITY. WHILE THE STATUS AS EXPERT WITNESS IS ACCEPTED, CROSS-EXAMINATION STILL FREQUENTLY TAKES THE FORM OF ATTEMPTING TO UNDERMINE THE VALIDITY OF PARTICULAR PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING AS WELL AS THE PSYCHOLOGIST'S INTERPRETATION OF SUCH TESTS. (RCB)