Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T03:05:42.112Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Don’t Ask a Neuroscientist about Phases of the Moon

Applying Appropriate Evidence Law to the Use of Neuroscience in the Courtroom

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 September 2016

KATHERINE SHATS ,
TIMOTHY BRINDLEY  and
JAMES GIORDANO
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Ongoing developments in neuroscientific techniques and technologies—such as neuroimaging—offer potential for greater insight into human behavior and have fostered temptation to use these approaches in legal contexts. Neuroscientists are increasingly called on to provide expert testimony, interpret brain images, and thereby inform judges and juries who are tasked with determining the guilt or innocence of an individual. In this essay, we draw attention to the actual capabilities and limitations of currently available assessment neurotechnologies and examine whether neuroscientific evidence presents unique challenges to existing frameworks of evidence law. In particular, we focus on (1) fundamental questions of relevance and admissibility that can and should be posed before the tests afforded in Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals or Frye v. U.S. are applied and (2) how these considerations fit into the broader contexts of criminal law. We contend that neuroscientific evidence must first be scrutinized more heavily for its relevance, within Daubert and Federal Rule of Evidence 702, to ensure that the right questions are asked of neuroscientists, so as to enable expert interpretation of neuroscientific evidence within the limits of their knowledge and discipline that allows the judge or jury to determine the facts at issue in the case. We use the analogy provided by the Daubert court of an expert on the phases of the moon testifying to an individual’s behavior on a particular night to ensure that we are, in fact, asking the neuroscientific expert the appropriate question.

Keywords

neuroscienceneuroimagingneuroethicsneurolawlawevidenceDaubertFrye
Type
Articles
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 25 , Special Issue 4: Clinical Neuroethics , October 2016 , pp. 712 - 725
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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

Notes

1. Giordano, J. Neurotechnology as demiurgical force: Avoiding Icarus’ folly. In: Giordano, J, ed. Neurotechnology: Premises, Potential and Problems. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2012;1–14.Google Scholar

2. Goodenough, OR, Tucker, M. Law and cognitive neuroscience. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 2010;6:61–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. Aronson, JD. The law’s use of brain evidence. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 2010;6:93–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4. Jones OD, Buckholtz J, Schall JD, Marois R. Brain imaging for legal thinkers: A guide for the perplexed. Stanford Technology Law Review 2009;5; available at http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1563612 (last accessed 13 Jan 2015).

5. Pickersgill, M. Connecting neuroscience and law: Anticipatory discourse and the role of sociotechnical imaginaries. New Genetics and Society 2011;30:27–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6. Farahany NA. Neuroscience and behavioral genetics in US criminal law: An empirical analysis. Journal of Law and the Biosciences 2016;1–25.

7. See note 6, Farahany 2016, at 2.

8. Underwood E. Growing use of neurobiological evidence in criminal trials, new study finds. Science Magazine 2016 Jan 21.

9. Jones, OD, Wagner, AD, Faigman, DL, Raichle, ME. Neuroscientists in court. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2013;14:730–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

10. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 US 579 (1993).

11. Frye v. United States, 293 F 1013 46 (1923).

12. Garland, B, Glimcher, PW. Cognitive neuroscience and the law. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 2006;16:130–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

13. Brindley, T, Giordano, J. Neuroimaging: Correlation, validity, value, and admissibility: Daubert—and reliability—revisited. AJOB Neuroscience 2014;5:48–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14. See note 9, Jones et al. 2013.

15. Brown, T, Murphy, E. Through a scanner darkly: Functional neuroimaging as evidence of a criminal defendant’s past mental states. Stanford Law Review 2009;62:1119.Google ScholarPubMed

16. See, for example, Weisberg, DS, Keil, FC, Goodstein, J, Rawson, E, Gray, JR. The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2008;20:470–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

17. See also McCabe D, Castel AD. Seeing is believing: The effect of brain images on judgments of scientific reasoning. Cognition 2008;107:343–52, which is addressed subsequently in this essay.

18. Advisory committee notes. Federal Evidence Review; available at http://federalevidence.com/node/1335 (last accessed 9 Sept 2014).

19. See note 10, Daubert 1993, at 591.

20. See note 1, Giordano 2012.

21. Jotterand, F, Giordano, J. Real-time functional magnetic resonance imaging (rtfMRI)—brain computer interfacing in the assessment and treatment of psychopathy: Potential and challenges. In: Clausen, J, ed. Handbook of Neuroethics. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2015:763–81.Google Scholar

22. Roskies AL. Neuroimaging and inferential distance. 1 Neuroethics 2008;1:19–30.

23. VanMeter, J. Neuroimaging. In: Giordano, J, Gordijn, B, eds. Scientific and Philosophical Perspectives in Neuroethics. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2010:230–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24. Giordano, J. Neuroimaging in psychiatry: Approaching the puzzle as a piece of the bigger picture(s). AJOB Neuroscience 2012;3:54–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25. DeCharms, RC. Applications of real-time fMRI. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2008;9:720–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

26. See note 21, Jotterand, Giordano 2014.

27. Adelsheim, C. Functional magnetic resonance detection of deception: Great as fundamental research, inadequate as substantive evidence. Mercer Law Review 2010;62:885.Google Scholar

28. See note 15, Brown, Murphy 2009.

29. See note 27, Adelsheim 2010.

30. See note 27, Adelsheim 2010.

31. Greely, H. Law and the revolution in neuroscience: An early look at the field. Akron Law Review 2009;42:687.Google Scholar

32. Caria, A, Sitaram, R, Birbaumer, N. Real-time fMRI: A tool for local brain regulation. Neuroscientist 2012;18:487–501.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

33. See note 21, Jotterand, Giordano 2014.

34. Faigman DL, Monahan J, Slobogin C. Group to individual (G2i) inference in scientific expert testimony. University of Chicago Law Review 2013;81(2); available at http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2298909 (last accessed 15 Jan 2015).

35. Schweitzer, N, Saks, MJ. Neuroimage evidence and the insanity defense. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 2011;29:592–607.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

36. See note 24, Giordano 2012.

37. Giordano, J, Kulkarni, A, Farwell, J. Deliver us from evil? The temptation, realities, and neuroethico-legal issues of employing assessment neurotechnologies in public safety initiatives. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 2014;35:73–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

38. Uttal, WR. Mind and Brain: A Critical Appraisal of Cognitive Neuroscience. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

39. Farahany, NA, Coleman, JE Jr. Genetics, neuroscience, and criminal responsibility. In: The Impact of Behavioral Sciences on Criminal Law. New York: Oxford University Press; 2009:183–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

40. See note 39, Farahany, Coleman 2009.

41. Morse S. Lost in translation? An essay on law and neuroscience. Law and Neuroscience, Current Legal Issues 2011;13:529; available at http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1904488 (last accessed 15 Jan 2015).

42. Giordano, J. The human prospect(s) of neuroscience and neurotechnology: Domains of influence and the necessity—and questions—of neuroethics. Human Prospect 2014;3:2–19.Google Scholar

43. Giordano, J, Rossi, J, Benedikter, R. Addressing the quantitative and qualitative: A view to complementarity—from the synaptic to the social. Open Journal of Philosophy 2013;3:1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

44. See note 34, Schweitzer, Saks 2011.

45. See note 34, Schweitzer, Saks 2011.

46. See note 17, McCabe, Castel 2008.

47. See note 34, Schweitzer, Saks 2011.

48. Farah, MJ, Hook, C. The seductive allure of “seductive allure.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 2013;8:88–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

49. See note 16, Weisberg et al. 2008.

50. See note 48, Farah, Hook 2013.

51. Jones OD, et al. Brain imaging for judges: An introduction to law and neuroscience. Court Review 2014;50:44.

52. See note 2, Goodenough, Tucker 2010.

53. See note 4, Jones et al. 2009.

54. U.S. v. Hinckley, 525 F Supp 1342 (1981).

55. People v. Weinstein, 156 Misc 2d 34 (1992).

56. Lockett v. Ohio, 438 US 586 (1978).

57. McNamara v. Borg, 923 F.2d 862 (1991).

58. For example, see People v. Holt, 15 Cal 4th 619 (1997); People v. Kraft, 5 P 3d 68 (2000).

59. See note 11, Frye 1923, at 1013–14.

60. See note 34, Faigman et al. 2013.

61. Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 702.

62. See note 12, Garland, Glimcher 2006.

63. Berger, MA. The admissibility of expert testimony. In: Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2011:11–36.Google Scholar

64. See note 63, Berger 2011.

65. See note 4, Jones et al. 2009.

66. See note 10, Daubert 1993, at 593.

67. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 137 (1999).

68. U.S. v. Mezvinsky, 206 F Supp 2d 661 (2002).

69. U.S. v. Erskine, 588 F 2d 721 (1978).

70. State v. Anderson, 79 SW 3d 420 (2002).

71. See note 10, Daubert 1993, at 592.

72. See note 10, Daubert 1993, at 591.

73. See note 38, Uttal 2011.

74. See note 24, Giordano 2012.

75. Farahany NA. The Impact of Behavioral Sciences on Criminal Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009.

76. U.S. v. Semrau, 693 F 3d 510 (2012).

77. See note 76, U.S. v. Semrau 2012, at 523.

78. See note 76, U.S. v. Semrau 2012, at 523.

79. See note 15, Brown, Murphy 2009.

80. See note 17, McCabe, Castel 2008.