The purpose of the survey was to explore the common assumption that judges have a preference for expert testimony from medically trained witnesses. The pattern of admissibility ratings obtained yielded modest support for this assumption; psychiatrists received the highest ratings among six professional groups, and medical groups received higher ratings than did nonmedical groups. However, other planned and post-hoc comparisons indicated that the importance of the medical/nonmedical distinction was moderated somewhat by other factors. In particular, some of the findings were consistent with the alternative hypothesis that judges' admissibility ratings may be influenced by considerations of the proposed witness' demonstrable training and clinical experience in psychopathology, regardless of his or her having a medical/nonmedical degree. Alternative explanations for the data were discussed, and suggestions for future research are indicated. (Publisher abstract)