IN ADVOCATING THE LIMITATION OF PSYCHIATRIC TESTIMONY DURING THE PUNISHMENT STAGE OF TEXAS CAPITAL MURDER CASES, THE TEXAS DEATH PENALTY AND ITS APPLICATION ARE ANALYZED. THE TEXAS STATUTE IS UNIQUE IN ITS RELIANCE ON SEVERAL DOCTRINES WHICH CAN MAKE A LIFE-OR-DEATH DIFFERENCE FOR THE DEFENDANT. ONE SUCH AREA IS THE APPARENT ASSUMPTION THAT PSYCHIATRISTS ARE QUALIFIED TO DETERMINE, 'WHETHER THERE IS A PROBABILITY THAT THE DEFENDANT WOULD COMMIT CRIMINAL ACTS OF VIOLENCE THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE A CONTINUING THREAT TO SOCIETY.' JURIES WHICH MUST DECIDE WHETHER TO APPLY THE DEATH PENALTY OR IMPOSE LIFE IMPRISONMENT USUALLY FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE 'EXPERTS' CONCERNING FUTURE DANGEROUSNESS OF DEFENDANTS. UNFORTUNATELY, JUDGES AND LEGISLATORS SEEM UNAWARE OF THE PROFESSIONAL LITERATURE QUESTIONING THE VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY OF PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATIONS OF PREDICTIONS. AN OVERVIEW OF TEXAS LAW INDICATES THE LEGISLATURE CONSIDERS PSYCHIATRIC TESTIMONY TO BE RELEVANT TO SENTENCING, BUT THAT A MINORITY OF JUDGES QUESTION THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF SUCH TESTIMONY. REPORTED STUDIES REVEAL THAT RESEARCH TEAMS HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO RELY ON PSYCHIATRISTS' JUDGMENTS, EVEN IN DIAGNOSING ONGOING SCHIZOPHRENIA, MUCH LESS FUTURE DISORDERS. THE USE OF PSYCHIATRY IS HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE WHEN THE OUTCOME IS A HUMAN LIFE. NEVERTHELESS, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, IN UPHOLDING THE TEXAS STATUTE IN JUREK V. TEXAS (1976), STATED THAT THE FINDING OF FUTURE DANGEROUSNESS WAS ESSENTIAL IN THE JURY'S DETERMINATION OF THE PROPER SENTENCE. FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED. (TWK)