Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T11:53:17.621Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

18 - Neuroimaging Evidence in US Courts

from IV - Evidence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 April 2021

By
Jane Campbell Moriarty
Edited by
Bartosz Brożek ,
Jaap Hage  and
Nicole Vincent
Bartosz Brożek
Affiliation:
Jagiellonian University, Krakow
Jaap Hage
Affiliation:
Universiteit Maastricht, Netherlands
Nicole Vincent
Affiliation:
Macquarie University, Sydney
Get access

Summary

This chapter provides a detailed consideration of neuroscience and neuroimaging evidence (collectively termed “neuroimaging evidence”) in US federal and state courts. While essentially an explanation of the law and science, the chapter also details ongoing concerns about neuroimaging evidence: issues related to the quality of the underlying science; the potential for an inferential leap from data to courtroom evidence; the lack of recognized clinical use of some neuroimaging technologies; and the problems of appropriate expertise.

The chapter includes several sections. First, it explains the types of neuroimaging that have been used (or excluded) in court, highlighting the foundational concerns about the studies in general and as applied. Second, it addresses the relevant rules of evidence and critical cases that shape courts’ approach to neuroscience evidence. Substantively, the chapter reviews a variety of criminal and, to a lesser extent, civil matters related to neuroimaging evidence. With respect to criminal law, the chapter explores questions of legal competency, insanity and legal responsibility, sentencing, psychopathy, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, and neuroscience lie detection. In addition, the chapter examines the special role that neuroscience has played in the development of juvenile sentencing law. The civil section addresses neuroimaging in relationship to traumatic brain injury. Finally, the chapter considers some of the overarching concerns and potential promises about neuroimaging evidence, urging that more co-creation of standards between scientists and the legal profession take place in order to improve the quality of the neuroimaging evidence in court.

Type
Chapter
Information
Law and Mind
A Survey of Law and the Cognitive Sciences
 , pp. 370 - 411
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abe, N. (2011). How the Brain Shapes Deception. The Neuroscientist 17(5), 560–574.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S. 187, 195 (1959).Google Scholar
Advisory Committee Notes to the Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 702, 2000 Amendment.Google Scholar
Aggarwal, N. K., & Ford, E. (2013). The Neuroethics and Neurolaw of Brain Injury. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 31(6), 789–802.Google Scholar
Aguirre, G. K. (2014). Functional Neuroimaging: Technical, Logical, and Social Perspectives. Hastings Center Report 45, S8–18.Google Scholar
American Law Institute. (1985). Model Penal Code.Google Scholar
Anderson v. Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc., 260 P.3d 857 (Wash. en banc., 2011).Google Scholar
Assaf, Y., & Pasternak, O. (2007). Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI)-based White Matter Mapping in Brain Research: A Review. Journal of Molecular Neuroscience 34(1), 51–61.Google Scholar
Babiak, P. (2007). From Darkness Into the Light: Psychopathy in Industrial and Organizational Psychology. In Hervé, H. & Yuille, J. C. (eds.), The Psychopath: Theory, Research, and Practice (pp. 411–428). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
Belanger, H. G., Vanderploeg, R. D., Curtiss, G., & Warden, D. L. (2007). Recent Neuroimaging Techniques in Mild Traumatic Brain Injury. The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences 19(1), 5–20.Google Scholar
Betz v. Pneumo Abex, LLC., 44 A.3d 27, 53 (PA 2012).Google Scholar
Bigler, E. D., Allen, M., & Stimac, G. K. (2012). MRI and Functional MRI. In Simpson, J. R. (ed.), Neuroimaging in Forensic Psychiatry: From the Clinic to the Courtroom. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 27–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bigler, E. D., Jantz, P. B., Freedman, D., & Woods, G. W. (2015). Structural Neuroimaging in Forensic Settings. University of Missouri-Kansas City Law Review 84, 311–313.Google Scholar
Blume, J. H., Freedman, H., Vann, L., & Hritz, A. C. (2020). Death by Numbers: Why Evolving Standards Compel Extending Roper’s Categorical Ban Against Executing Juveniles From 18 to 21. Texas Law Review 98, 921–951.Google Scholar
Blume, J. H., & Paavola, E.C. (2011). Life, Death, and Neuroimaging: The Advantages and Disadvantages of the Defense’s Use of Neuroimages in Capital Cases – Lessons from the Front. Mercer Law Review 62, 909–931.Google Scholar
Brouard v. Convery, 70 N.Y.S.3d. 820 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018).Google Scholar
Brown, T., & Murphy, E. (2010). Through a Scanner Darkly: Functional Neuroimaging as Evidence of a Criminal Defendant’s Past Mental States. Stanford Law Review 62, 1119–1208.Google ScholarPubMed
Button, K. S., Ioannidis, J. P., Mokrysz, C. et al. (2013). Power Failure: Why Small Sample Size Undermines the Reliability of Neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 14(5), 365–376.Google Scholar
Chisholm v. Champion Ent. Inc., 2003 WL 25685508, *4 (D.C. Wyo. 2003).Google Scholar
Clark v. Arizona, 548 U. S. 735 (2006).Google Scholar
C.W. and E.W., ex rel. Wood v. Textron, Inc., 807 F.3d 827, 832 (7th Cir. 2015).Google Scholar
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1993).Google Scholar
Davis, K. D., Flor, H., Greely, H.T., et al. (2017). Brain Imaging Tests for Chronic Pain: Medical, Legal and Ethical Issues and Recommendations. Nature Reviews Neurology 13(10), 624–638.Google Scholar
Denno, D. W. (2015). The Myth of the Double-Edged Sword: An Empirical Study of Neuroscience Evidence in Criminal Cases. Boston College Law Review 56, 493–551.Google Scholar
Denno, D. W. (2017). Concocting Criminal Intent. Georgetown Law Journal 105, 323–378.Google Scholar
Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (1975).Google Scholar
Donald, B. B., & Bakies, E. (2016). A Glimpse Inside the Brain’s Black Box: Understanding the Role of Neuroscience in Criminal Sentencing. Fordham Law Review 85, 481–502.Google Scholar
Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 402 (1960).Google Scholar
Elonis v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2001, 2010 (2015).Google Scholar
Entertainment Software Association v. Blagojevich, 404 F. Supp. 2d 1051 (N.D. Ill. 2005), aff’d, 469 F.3d 641 (7th Cir. 2006).Google Scholar
Eskridge, S. L., Macera, C. A., Galarneau, M. R. et al. (2012). Injuries From Combat Explosions in Iraq: Injury Type, Location, and Severity. Injury 43(10), 1678–1682.Google Scholar
Espinoza, F. A., Vergara, V. M., Reyes, D., et al. (2018). Aberrant Functional Network Connectivity in Psychopathy from a Large (N = 985) Forensic Sample. Human Brain Mapping 39(6), 2624–2634.Google Scholar
Faigman, D. L., Cheng, E. K., Mnookin, J., et al. (2018–2019). Modern Scientific Evidence, §8.2 Mens rea and mental disorder – “Diminished Capacity.” Thomson West.Google Scholar
Faigman, D. L., Slobogin, C., and Monahan, J. (2016). Gatekeeping Science: Using the Structure of Scientific Research to Distinguish Between Admissibility and Weight in Expert Testimony. Northwestern Law Review 110, 859–904.Google Scholar
Farah, M. J., Hutchinson, J., Phelps, E. A., & Wagner, A. D. (2014). Functional MRI-Based Lie Detection: Scientific and Societal Challenges. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 15(4), 123–131.Google ScholarPubMed
Farahany, N. A. (2015). Neuroscience and Behavioral Genetics in US Criminal Law: An Empirical Analysis. Journal of Law and the Biosciences 2, 485–509.Google ScholarPubMed
Faul, M., Wald, M. M., Wu, L., & Coronado, V. G. (2010). Traumatic Brain Injury in the United States: Emergency Department Visits, Hospitalizations, and Deaths, 2002–2006. Atlanta, GA: CDC. www.cdc.gov/traumaticbraininjury/pdf/blue_book.pdfGoogle Scholar
The Federal Death Penalty Act, 18 U.S.C. §3591 (2012).Google Scholar
Federal Rule of Evidence 401Google Scholar
Federal Rule of Evidence 403Google Scholar
Federal Rule of Evidence 602Google Scholar
Federal Rule of Evidence 701Google Scholar
Federal Rule of Evidence 702Google Scholar
Federal Rule of Evidence 703Google Scholar
Federal Rule of Evidence 1101Google Scholar
Fisher v. Ciba Specialty Chemicals Corp., 2007 WL 2302470 (S.D. Ala. 2007).Google Scholar
Fox, A. R., Kvaran, T. H., & Fontaine, R. G. (2013). Psychopathy and Culpability: How Responsible Is the Psychopath for Criminal Wrongdoing? Law & Social Inquiry 38(01), 1–26.Google Scholar
Frye v. United States, 293 F.101346 (D.C. App. 1923).Google Scholar
Ganis, G., Rosenfeld, J. P., Meixner, J., Kievit, R. A., & Schendan, H. E. (2011). Lying in the Scanner: Covert Countermeasures Disrupt Deception Detection by Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging. NeuroImage 55(1), 312–319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gaudet, L. M., & Marchant, G. E. (2016). Under the Radar: Neuroimaging Evidence in the Criminal Courtroom. Drake Law Review 64, 577–661.Google Scholar
General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 118 S. Ct. 512, 139 L. Ed. 2d 508 (1997).Google Scholar
Gertner, N. (2010). A Short History of American Sentencing: Too Little Law, Too Much Law, or Just Right. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 100, 691–707.Google Scholar
Gertner, N. (2016). Neuroscience and Sentencing. Fordham Law Review 85, 533–546.Google Scholar
Gertner, N. (2018). Against These Guidelines. University of Missouri-Kansas City Law Review 87 49–59.Google Scholar
Giannelli, P., Imwinkelried, E. J., Roth, A., Moriarty, J. C., & Beety, V. E. (2020). Scientific Evidence, 6th ed. New York: LexisNexis.Google Scholar
Gilmore, R. O., Diaz, M., Wyble, B., & Yarkoni, T. (2017). Progress Toward Openness, Transparency, and Reproducibility in Cognitive Neuroscience. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1396, 5–18.Google Scholar
Godman, M., & Jefferson, A. (2014). On Blaming and Punishing Psychopaths. Criminal Law and Philosophy 11(1), 127–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goeb v. Tharaldson, 615 N.W.2d 800 (Minn. 2000).Google Scholar
Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010).Google Scholar
Granacher, R. P. (2008). Commentary: Applications of Functional Neuroimaging to Civil Litigation of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 36, 323–328, 326.Google Scholar
Granacher, R. P. (2012). Traumatic Brain Injury. In Simpson, J. R. (ed.), Neuroimaging in Forensic Psychiatry: From the Clinic to the Courtroom. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 43–65.Google Scholar
Greely, H. T., & Farahany, N. A. (2019). Neuroscience and the Criminal Justice System. Annual Review of Criminology, 2, 451–471. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-011518–024433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greely, H. T., & Illes, J. (2007). Neuroscience-Based Lie Detection: The Urgent Need for Regulation. American Journal of Law & Medicine 33(2–3), 377.Google Scholar
Greely, H. T., & Wagner, A. D. (2011). Reference Guide on Neuroscience. In National Research Council, Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence: Third Edition Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Greene, J., & Cohen, J. (2004). For the Law, Neuroscience Changes Nothing and Everything. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 359, 1775.Google Scholar
Grey, B., Marchant, G., & Tyszka, C. (2015). Biomarkers for Concussion Susceptibility and Effects. SciTech Lawyer 11(2), 12–16.Google Scholar
Grey, B. J. (2018). Aging in the 21st Century: Using Neuroscience to Assess Competency in Guardianships. Wisconsin Law Review, 735–780.Google Scholar
Gur, R. C., Gur, O. M., Gur, A. E., & Gur, A. G. (2016). A Perspective on the Potential Role of Neuroscience in the Court. Fordham Law Review 85, 547–572.Google Scholar
Gurley, J. R., & Marcus, D. K. (2008). The Effects of Neuroimaging and Brain Injury on Insanity Defenses. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 26(1), 85–97.Google Scholar
Hare, R. D. (1998). Psychopaths and Their Nature: Implications for the Mental Health and Criminal Justice Systems. In Millon, T., Simonsen, E., Birket-Smith, M., & Davis, R. D. (eds.), Psychopathy: Antisocial, Criminal, and Violent Behavior. New York: The Guilford Press, pp. 188–212.Google Scholar
Hughes, V. (2010). Science in Court: Head Case. Nature 464(7287), 340–342. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1038/464340aGoogle Scholar
Indiana v. Edwards, 128 S.Ct. 2379, 2383 (2008).Google Scholar
Insanity Defense Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. §17 (1984).Google Scholar
Jarvis v. Secretary of the Dept. of Health and Human Services, 99 Fed. Cl. 47, 57 (2011).Google Scholar
Johnson, L. S. M., Partridge, B., & Gilbert, F. (2015). Framing the Debate: Concussion and Mild Traumatic Brain Injury. Neuroethics 8(1), 1–4.Google Scholar
Jones, O. D., Schall, J. D., & Shen, F. X. (2014). Law and Neuroscience. New York: Wolter Kluwer Law & Business.Google ScholarPubMed
Kansas v. Marsh, 548 U.S. 163, 171 (2006).Google Scholar
Kiehl, K. A., & Hoffman, M. B. (2011). The Criminal Psychopath: History, Neuroscience, Treatment, and Economics. Jurimetrics Journal 51(4), 355–397.Google Scholar
Kiehl, K. A., Smith, A. M., Hare, R. D. et al. (2001). Limbic Abnormalities in Affective Processing by Criminal Psychopaths as Revealed by Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Biological Psychiatry 50(9), 677–684.Google Scholar
Kolber, A. J. (2007). Pain Detection and the Privacy of Subjective Experience. American Journal of Law & Medicine 33(2–3), 433–456.Google Scholar
Korponay, C., Pujara, M., Deming, P., et al. (2017). Impulsive-Antisocial Psychopathic Traits Linked to Increased Volume and Functional Connectivity Within Prefrontal Cortex. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 12(7), 1169–1178.Google Scholar
Kuhn v. Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corp., 14 P.3d 1170, 1179 (Kan. 2000).Google Scholar
Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 119 S. Ct. 1167, 143 L. Ed. 2d 238 (1999).Google Scholar
Kwong, K. K., Belliveau, J. W., Chesler, D. A., et al. (1992). Dynamic Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Human Brain Activity During Primary Sensory Stimulation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 89(12), 5675–5679.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156, 165 (2012).Google Scholar
Langleben, D. D., Hakun, J. G., Seelig, D., et al. (2016). Polygraphy and Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Lie Detection: A Controlled Blind Comparison Using the Concealed Information Test. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 77(10), 1372–1380. https://doi.org/10.4088/JCP.15m09785CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Langleben, D. D., & Moriarty, J. C. (2013). Using Brain Imaging for Lie Detection: Where Science, Law, and Policy Collide. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 19(2), 222–234. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0028841Google Scholar
Langleben, D. D., Willard, D. F. X., & Moriarty, J. C. (2012). MRI and Functional MRI. In Simpson, J. R. (ed.), Neuroimaging in Forensic Psychiatry: From the Clinic to the Courtroom. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 217–236.Google Scholar
Le Bihan, D. (2014). Diffusion MRI: what water tells us about the brain. EBMO Molecular Medicine 4, 1–5.Google Scholar
Lee v. United States, 137 S.Ct. 1958, 1964 (2017).Google Scholar
Levin, H. S., & Diaz-Arrastia, R. R. (2015). Diagnosis, Prognosis, and Clinical Management of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury. The Lancet Neurology 14(5), 506–517.Google Scholar
Litton, P. (2007). Responsibility Status of the Psychopath: On Moral Reasoning and Rational Self-Governance. Rutgers Law Review 39, 349–392.Google Scholar
Liu, C. A. (2015). Scanning the Evidence: The Evidentiary Admissibility of Expert Witness Testimony on MRI Brain Scans in Civil Cases in the Post-Daubert Era. New York University Annual Survey of American Law 70, 479–535.Google Scholar
Logothetis, N. K. (2008). What We Can Do and What We Cannot Do With fMRI. Nature 453, 869–878.Google Scholar
The MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Law and Neuroscience (2016). www.lawneuro.org/Google Scholar
Maoz, U., & Yaffe, G. (2016). What Does Recent Neuroscience Tell Us About Criminal Responsibility? Journal of Law and the Biosciences 3(1), 120–139. https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsv051CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marcus, P. (2016). The United States Supreme Court (Mostly) Gives up Its Review Role with Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Cases. Minnesota Law Review 100, 1745–1768.Google Scholar
Maroney, T. A. (2009). The False Promise of Adolescent Brain Science in Juvenile Justice. Notre Dame Law Review 85 89–176.Google Scholar
Mayberg, H. S. (2014). Neuroimaging and Psychiatry: The Long Road from Bench to Bedside. Hastings Center Report 44, n.2, s31–s36.Google Scholar
McClain v. Metabolife Int’l, Inc. 401 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2005).Google Scholar
McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U. S. 279, 753 F.2d 877 (1987).Google Scholar
McCord, D., & Bennett, M. W. (2014). The Proposed Capital Penalty Phase Rules of Evidence. Cardozo Law Review 36 417, 420–421.Google Scholar
Meixner, J. B. (2012). Liar, Liar, Jury’s the Trier? The Future of Neuroscience-Based Credibility Assessment in the Court. Northwestern University Law Review 106, 1451–1488.Google Scholar
Meixner, J. B. (2017). Neuroscience and Mental Competency: Current Uses and Future Potential. Albany Law Review 81, 995–1026.Google Scholar
Melville, J. D., & Naimark, D. (2002). Punishing the Insane: The Verdict of Guilty but Mentally Ill. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 30, 553–555.Google Scholar
Menon, D. K., Schwab, K., Wright, D. W., & Maas, A. (2010). Working Group on Demographics and Clinical Assessment of the International Interagency Initiative toward Common Data Elements for Research in TBI and Psychological Health. Position Statement: Definition of Traumatic Brain Injury. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 91(11), 1637–1640.Google Scholar
Meltzer, C. C., Sze, G., Rommelfanger, K. S., Kinlaw, K., Banja, J. D., & Wolpe, P. R. (2014). Guidelines for the Ethical Use of Neuroimages in Medical Testimony: Report of a Multidisciplinary Consensus Conference. American Journal of Neuroradiology 35(4), 632–637.Google Scholar
Miller v. Alabama (2012).Google Scholar
Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S.Ct. 718, 733 (2016).Google Scholar
Moran, R. (1981). Knowing Right From Wrong: The Insanity Defense of Daniel McNaughtan. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Moriarty, J. C. (2008). Flickering Admissibility: Neuroimaging Evidence in the US Courts. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 26(1), 29–49.Google Scholar
Moriarty, J. C. (2009). Visions of Deception: Neuroimages and the Search for Truth. Akron Law Review 42, 739–761.Google Scholar
Moriarty, J. C. (2016). Seeing Voices: Potential Neuroscience Contributions to a Reconstruction of Legal Insanity. Fordham Law Review 86, 599–618.Google Scholar
Moriarty, J. C. (2018). Deceptively Simple: Framing, Intuition and Judicial Gatekeeping of Forensic Feature-Comparison Methods Evidence. Fordham Law Review 86, 1687–1708.Google Scholar
Moriarty, J. C., & Langleben, D. D. (2018). Who Speaks for Neuroscience? Neuroimaging Evidence and Courtroom Expertise, Case Western Reserve Law Review 68, 783–804.Google Scholar
Moriarty, J. C., Langleben, D. D., & Provenzale, J. M. (2013). Brain Trauma, PET Scans and Forensic Complexity. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 31(6), 702–720.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 252 (1952).Google Scholar
Morse, S. J. (1996). Brain and Blame. Georgetown Law Review 84, 527–549.Google Scholar
Morse, S. J. (2007). Criminal Responsibility and the Disappearing Person. Cardozo Law Review 28, 2545–2575.Google Scholar
Morse, S. J. (2008). Psychopathy and Criminal Responsibility. Neuroethics 1(3), 205–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morse, S. J. (2011). Mental Disorder and Criminal Law. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 101, 885–968.Google Scholar
Morse, S. J., & Hoffman, M. B. (2007). The Uneasy Entente Between Insanity and Mens Rea: Beyond Clark v. Arizona. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 97, 1071–1149.Google Scholar
Mueller, C. B., & Kirkpatrick, L. C. (2018). Federal Evidence, 4th ed. Egan, MN: Thomson Reuters.Google Scholar
Murphy, E. (2016). Neuroscience and the Civil Criminal Divide. Fordham Law Review 85, 619–639.Google Scholar
National Research Council. (2009). Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States. 11.Google Scholar
Nicholls, T. L., Ogloff, J. R. P., Brink, J., & Spidel, A. (2005). Psychopathy in Women: a Review of Its Clinical Usefulness For Assessing Risk For Aggression and Criminality. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 23(6), 779–802.Google Scholar
Niogi, S. N., & Mukherjee, P. (2010). Diffusion Tensor Imaging of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation 25(4), 241–255.Google Scholar
Ogawa, S., Lee, T. M., Kay, A. R., & Tank, D. W. (1990). Brain Magnetic Resonance Imaging With Contrast Dependent on Blood Oxygenation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the Unites States of America 87(24), 9868–9872.Google Scholar
Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses, FRE 701 section year.Google Scholar
O’Donnell, L. J., & Westin, C.-F. (2011). An Introduction to Diffusion Tensor Image Analysis. Neurosurgery Clinics of North America 22(2), 185–196. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.nec.2010.12.004Google Scholar
Pardo, M. S. (2005). Neuroscience Evidence, Legal Culture, and Criminal Procedure. American Journal of Criminal Law 33(301), 321–336.Google Scholar
Pardo, M. S., & Patterson, D.M. (2013). Minds, Brains, and Law: the Conceptual Foundations of Law and Neuroscience. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
People v. Daveggio and Michaud, 415 P.3d 717, 749 (Cal. 2018).Google Scholar
People v. Schreck, 22 P.3d 68 (Colo. en banc, 2001).Google Scholar
Perlin, M. L. (1994). The Jurisprudence of the Insanity Defense. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
Perlin, M. L., & Lynch, A. (2016). In the Wasteland of Your Mind: Criminology, Scientific Discoveries and the Criminal Process. Virginia Journal of Criminal Law 4(2), 304–360.Google Scholar
Phillips, K. D. (2013). Empathy for Psychopaths: Using fMRI Brain Scans to Plead for Leniency in Death Penalty. Law & Psychology Review 37, 1.Google Scholar
President’s Council of Advisors on Sci. & Tech., Exec.Office of the President. (2016). Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods 46.Google Scholar
Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle, 136 S.Ct. 1863, 1871 (2016).Google Scholar
Pustilnik, A. C. (2012). Pain as Fact and Heuristic: How Pain Neuroimaging Illuminates Moral Dimensions of Law. Cornell Law Review 97, 801–847.Google Scholar
Raine, A., Buchsbaum, M., & Lacasse, L. (1997). Brain Abnormalities in Murderers Indicated by Positron Emission Tomography. Biological Psychiatry 42(6), 495–508.Google Scholar
Raine, A., Meloy, J. R., Bihrle, S., et al. (1998). Reduced Prefrontal and Increased Subcortical Brain Functioning Assessed Using Positron Emission Tomography in Predatory and Affective Murderers. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 16(3), 319–332.Google Scholar
Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 482 (2000).Google Scholar
Roozenbeek, B., Maas, A. I. R., & Menon, D. K. (2013). Changing Patterns in the Epidemiology of Traumatic Brain Injury. Nature Reviews Neurology 9(4), 231–236.Google Scholar
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 568 (2005).Google Scholar
Rosenfeld, J. (1999). P300 Scalp Amplitude Distribution as an Index of Deception in a Simulated Cognitive Deficit Model. International Journal of Psychophysiology 33(1), 3–19.Google Scholar
Rosenfeld, J. P., Soskins, M., Bosh, G., & Ryan, A. (2004). Simple, Effective Countermeasures to P300-Based Tests of Detection of Concealed Information. Psychophysiology 41(2), 205–219.Google Scholar
Ruppel v. Kucanin. (2011) WL 2470621 (D.C. N.D. Ind. 2011) (unreported).Google Scholar
Rushing, S. E., Pryma, D. A., & Langleben, D. D. (2012). PET and SPECT. In Simpson, J. R. (ed.), Neuroimaging in Forensic Psychiatry: From the Clinic to the Courtroom. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Scarpazza, C., Ferracuti, S., Miolla, A., & Sartori, G. (2018). The Charm of Structural Neuroimaging in Insanity Evaluations: Guidelines to Avoid Misinterpretation of the Findings. Translational Psychiatry 8(1), 227–228.Google Scholar
Schauer, F. (2010). Lie-Detection, Neuroscience, and the Law of Evidence. Cornell Law Review 95, 1191–1219.Google Scholar
Schweitzer, N. J., & Saks, M. J. (2011). Neuroimage Evidence and the Insanity Defense. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 29(4), 592–607.Google Scholar
Schweitzer, N. J., Saks, M. J., Murphy, E. R., et al. (2011). Neuroimages as Evidence in a Mens Rea Defense: No Impact. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 17(3), 357–393.Google Scholar
Seaman, J. A. (2013). A Tale of Two Dauberts. Georgia Law Review 47, 889–922.Google Scholar
Shen, F. X. (2013). Legislating Neuroscience: The Case of Juvenile Justice. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 46, 985, 994–995.Google Scholar
Shen, F. X. (2014). Neuroscience, Mental Privacy, and the Law. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 36, 653, 692–707.Google Scholar
Shen, F. X. (2016). The Overlooked History of Neurolaw. Fordham Law Review 85, 667, 685–687.Google Scholar
Shen, F. X., & Jones, O. D. (2011). Brain Scans as Evidence: Truths, Proofs, Lies, and Lessons. Mercer Law Review 62, 861–883.Google Scholar
Shenton, M. E., Price, B. H., Levin, L. & Edersheim, J. G. (2018). Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: Is DTI Ready for the Courtroom? International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 61, 50–63.Google Scholar
Shetty, V. S., Reis, M. N., Aulino, J. M., et al. (2016). ACR Appropriateness Criteria Head Trauma. Journal of the American College of Radiology 13(6), 668–679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2016.02.023Google Scholar
Silva, M. A., See, A. P., Essayed, W. I., Golby, A. J., & Tie, Y. (2018). Challenges and Techniques for Presurgical Brain Mapping with Functional MRI. NeuroImage: Clinical 17, 794–803.Google Scholar
Slobogin, C. (1985). The Guilty but Mentally Ill Verdict: An Idea Whose Time Should Not Have Come. George Washington Law Review 53, 494–527.Google Scholar
Slobogin, C. (2000). Doubts about Daubert: Psychiatric Anecdata as a Case Study. Washington and Lee Law Review 57, 919–948.Google Scholar
Slobogin, C. (2007). Proving the Unprovable: the Role of Law, Science, and Speculation in Adjudicating Culpability and Dangerousness. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Slobogin, C. (2017). Neuroscience Nuance: Dissecting the Relevance of Neuroscience in Adjudicating Criminal Culpability. Journal of Law and the Biosciences 4(3), 577–593.Google Scholar
Smith, S. F. (2010). Taking Strickland Claims Seriously. Marquette Law Review 93, 515–544.Google Scholar
Snead, O. C. (2007). Neuroimaging and the Complexity of Capital Punishment. New York University Law Review 82(1265), 1292–1293.Google Scholar
State v. Smith, 32 A.3d 59 (Md. 2011).Google Scholar
Steinberg, L. (2017). Adolescent Brain Science and Juvenile Justice Policymaking. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 23(4), 410–420.Google Scholar
Stith, K., & Cabranes, J. A. (1997). Judging Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Northwestern University Law Review 91, 1247–1283.Google Scholar
Stocchetti, N., & Zanier, E. R. (2016). Chronic Impact Of Traumatic Brain Injury On Outcome And Quality Of Life: A Narrative Review. Critical Care 20(1). DOI: http:/doi.org/10.1186/s13054-016-1318-1Google Scholar
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984).Google Scholar
Taylor, J. S. (2015). Neurolaw and Traumatic Injury: Principles for Trial Lawyers. University of Missouri-Kansas City Law Review 84, 397–409.Google Scholar
Taylor, C. A., Bell, J. M., Breiding, M. J., & Xu, L. (2017). Traumatic Brain Injury–Related Emergency Department Visits, Hospitalizations, and Deaths – United States, 2007 and 2013. MMWR. Surveillance Summaries 66(9), 1–16.Google Scholar
Telis, M. (2014). Playing Through the Haze: The NFL Concussion Litigation and section 301 Preemption. Georgetown Law Journal 102, 1841–1868.Google Scholar
Texas Penal Code Annotated §8.01(a) (West, 2015).Google Scholar
Torres v. Lynch, 136 S. Ct. 1619, 1630 (2016).Google Scholar
Turlington, S. (2008). Completely Unguided Discretion: Admitting Non-Statutory Aggravating and Non-Statutory Mitigating Evidence in Capital Sentencing Trial. Pierce Law Review 6, 469–483.Google Scholar
United Laundries Co. v. Bradford, 105 A. 303 (Md. 1918).Google Scholar
United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual, §5H1.3. Mental and Emotional Conditions (Policy Statement) (2018).Google Scholar
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 237 (2005).Google Scholar
United States v. Charley, 189 F. 3d 1251, 1267 (10th Cir. 1999).Google Scholar
United States v. Hinckley, 672 F.2d 115 (D.C. Cir. 1982).Google Scholar
United States v. Montgomery, 635 F.3d 1074 (8th Cir. 2011).Google Scholar
United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 313–14 (1998).Google Scholar
United States v. Semrau, 693 F.3d 510 (6th Cir. 2012)Google Scholar
United States v. Sherlin, 67 F.3d 1208 (6th Cir. 1995).Google Scholar
Vincent, N. A. (2009). On the Relevance of Neuroscience to Criminal Responsibility. Criminal Law and Philosophy 4(1), 77–98.Google Scholar
Vincent, N. A. (2013). A Compatibilist Theory of Legal Responsibility. Criminal Law and Philosophy 9(3), 477–498.Google Scholar
Ward v. Carnival Corporation, volume source page (D.C. S.D. Fl. 2019).Google Scholar
Westberry v. Gislaved Gummi AB, 178 F.3d 257, 262–63 (4th Cir. 1999).Google Scholar
Wilson v. Corestaff, 900 N.Y.S.2d 639, 28 Misc.3d 425 (2010).Google Scholar
Wolpe, P. R., Foster, K. R., & Langleben, D. D. (2005). Emerging Neurotechnologies for Lie-Detection: Promises and Perils. The American Journal of Bioethics 5(2), 39–49.Google Scholar
Woodmansee, M. A. (1996). The Guilty but Mentally Ill Verdict: Political Expediency at the Expense of Moral Principle. Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics, & Public Policy 10(341), 341–387.Google Scholar
Zeki, S., Goodenough, O. R., Spence, S. A., et al. (2004). A Cognitive Neurobiological Account of Deception: Evidence From Functional Neuroimaging. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 359(1451), 1755–1762. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1555Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×