Psychiatrists are uneasy in contributing psychiatric knowledge under the restrictions of legal procedures. The author reviews the bases for this discomfort. One objection is the use of stratagems to attack the credibility of expert witnesses; these could well be dropped in the interest of focusing on the psychological complexities of the case. The author also analyzes the psychiatrist's difficulty in estimating the "wrongness or rightness" of the accused's judgment. He concludes that psychiatrists should modify their rigid medical posture in order to best serve their purpose in court.