Abstract
Neuroscientific evidence is increasingly reaching United States courtrooms in a number of legal contexts. Just in calendar year 2010, the U.S. legal system saw its first evidentiary hearing in federal court on the admissibility of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) lie-detection evidence; the first admission of quantitative electroencephalography (qEEG) evidence contributing in part to a reduced sentence in a homicide case; and a U.S. Supreme Court ruling explicitly citing brain development research. Additional indicators suggest rapid growth. The number of cases in the U.S. involving neuroscientific evidence doubled from 2006 to 2009. And since 2000, the number of English-language law review articles including some mention of neuroscience has increased fourfold. In 2008 and again in 2009, more than 200 published scholarly works mentioned neuroscience. The data clearly suggest that there is growing interest on the part of law professors, and growing demand on the part of law reviews, for scholarship on law and the brain (Shen 2010). In addition, a number of symposia on law and neuroscience have been held in the United States over the past few years, and despite the notable youth of the field, courses in Law and Neuroscience have been taught at a number of U.S. law schools. This vivid interest in neurolaw, from both scholars and practitioners, is born of the technological developments that allow noninvasive detection of brain activities. But despite the rapid increase of legal interest in neuroscientific evidence, it remains unclear how the U.S. legal system – at the courtroom, regulatory, and policy levels – will resolve the many challenges that new neuroscience applications raise. The emerging field of law and neuroscience is being built on a foundation joining: (a) rapidly developing technologies and techniques of neuroscience; (b) quickly expanding legal scholarship on implications of neuroscience; and (c) (more recently) neuroscientific research designed specifically to explore legally relevant topics. With the institutional support of many of the country’s top research universities, as well as the support of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, among other private foundations and public funding agencies, the U.S. is well positioned to continue contributing to international developments in neurolaw. This chapter provides an overview of notable neurolaw developments in the United States. The chapter proceeds in six parts. Section 1 introduces the development of law and neuroscience in the United States. Section 2 then considers several of the evidentiary contexts in which neuroscience has been, and likely will be, introduced. Sections 3 and 4 discuss the implications of neuroscience for the criminal and civil systems, respectively. Section 5 reviews three special topics: lie detection, memory, and legal decision-making. Section 6 concludes with brief thoughts about the future of law and neuroscience in the United States. As judges, lawyers, legislators, and the public become more acquainted with neuroscientific evidence, and as neuroscience continues to produce more legally relevant findings, it is likely that we will see continued expansion of law and neuroscience in the United States.
Preparation of this chapter was supported by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation (Grant # 07-89249-000 HCD), The Regents of the University of California, and Vanderbilt University. Research assistance was provided by Katherine Kuhn and Tim Mitchell.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
As a sampling: in 2008, the Berkman Center for Internet and Society and the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology and Bioethics of Harvard Law School hosted a roundtable panel titled Should Criminal Law be Reconsidered in Light of Advances in Neuroscience?. In 2008, the Initiative on Neuroscience and the Law at Baylor College of Medicine hosted a conference on Neuroscience and Law. In 2008, UC Riverside Extension Law & Science Program and the Gruter Institute for Law and Behavioral Research hosted a Seminar on Law and Neuroscience. In 2008, the University of Akron School of Law hosted a law review symposium on Neuroscience, Law, and Government. In 2009, the MacArthur Foundation Law and Neuroscience Project sponsored a symposium titled Psychopathy and the Law. In 2009, the Stanford Technology Law Review hosted a symposium on Neuroscience and the Courts: The Implications of Advances in Neurotechnology. In 2009, the Vermont Law Review published a special issue, Emotions In Context: Exploring The Interaction Between Emotions And Legal Institutions (which drew heavily on neuroscience research). In 2009, the Gruter Institute for Law and Behavioral Research ran a conference titled Law, Biology and the Brain. In 2010, the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research hosted an event titled Understanding Humans through Neuroscience. In 2010, Mercer University School of Law hosted a conference on The Brain Sciences in the Courtroom. In 2011, the Denver University Law Review hosted a Symposium on Law and Neuroscience; and the Dana Foundation hosted a Law and Neuroscience conference in New York. Also, in 2011 a Neuroscience and the Law forum was co-sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences and the U.K. Royal Society.
- 2.
More information on the Law and Neuroscience Project, and on the Research Network on Law and Neuroscience, is available online at: http://www.lawneuro.org. In addition, two other useful online resources for law and neuroscience information are: (1) the “Neuroethics and Law” blog, maintained by Adam Kolber, at http://kolber.typepad.com; and (2) the Research Network blog at: http://lawneuro.typepad.com.
- 3.
See: Society for Neuroscience, SfN Milestones: 40 Years of Evolution (2009), http://www.sfn.org/skins/main/pdf/annual_report/fy2009/milestones.pdf.
- 4.
Overruled on other grounds, 6 N.Y.3d 119, 843 N.E.2d 727, 2005 N.Y. LEXIS 3389 (2005).
- 5.
We do not review here the science of fMRI, and its many limitations, but refer interested readers to Jones et al. (2009) for an accessible discussion of the technology. For more general introductions to other cognitive neuroscience methods, see Gazzaniga et al. (2009), Ward (2009), and Purves et al. (2008).
- 6.
In addition, a number of websites have emerged as forums for discussing neuroethics and related bioethics issues: Dana Foundation (http://www.dana.org/); University of Pennsylvania (http://www.neuroethics.upenn.edu/); President’s Council on Bioethics (http://www.bioethics.gov/); Center for Cognitive Liberty & Ethics (http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/); Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics (http://bioethics.stanford.edu/); National Institutes of Health Bioethics Resources on the Web (http://bioethics.od.nih.gov/).
- 7.
Given the institutional design of the United States criminal justice system, the admissibility of neuroscientific evidence will not be uniform across the country. This is because the United States has multiple, overlapping criminal jurisdictions (Barkow 2011). Local, state, and federal authorities can all bring criminal charges (Barkow 2011; Stuntz 2008). Of particular note for understanding the admissibility of neuroscientific evidence is that the evidentiary rules that apply in the federal system may be different than those that apply in each of the 50 state systems. While there are many similarities across the 50 states, each state criminal code is unique and each state crafts, within Constitutional limits, its own admissibility standards for scientific evidence. Thus, it should be kept in mind that although we discuss (for brevity) only the Federal rules, in practice neuroscientific evidence will be evaluated by many different standards.
- 8.
It is noted by commentators that scientific evidence, such as fMRI, may be offered to prove an “adjudicative fact” (e.g., determining mental capacity or for diagnosing a brain injury), or to prove a “legislative fact” (e.g., that there is a general relationship between exposure to violent video games and aggressive behavior) (Feigenson 2006; Davis 1942).
- 9.
At the state level, some states have adopted the Daubert approach; some states still rely primarily on a general acceptance test based on Frye v. United States (1923); and some states have blended the two.
- 10.
Our discussion of the Semrau case here is derived, in part, from Shen and Jones (2011).
- 11.
In evaluating the admissibility of the evidence, the federal judge performed a two-prong gatekeeping role for expert scientific evidence, first evaluating the reliability and then the relevance of the testimony. Because the Court did not find the proffered testimony in Semrau to be reliable, it did not reach the relevance prong.
- 12.
United States v. Semrau, Report & Recommendation, p. 31 (2010).
- 13.
Because of the United States’s federal system, each of the fifty states can, within Constitutional limitations, set its own mens rea requirements. As we did in discussing evidentiary standards, we will focus here solely on the federal system.
- 14.
More generally, U.S. society is now being exposed to explicitly brain-based advertisements related to the developing brain. An ad created by the All-State Insurance company features an illustrated brain, sitting on a pedestal labeled “16-year-old brain”. One area of the brain is missing, and the ad reads: “Why do most 16-year-olds drive like they’re missing a part of their brain? Because they are.” The ad, which encourages readers to contact their legislators and support Good Driving Laws, is illustrative of the ways by which brain-based evidence may affect society and policymaking even outside of the court system. See: http://www.allstate.com/content/refresh-attachments/Brain-Ad.pdf.
- 15.
See: National Association of Drug Court Professionals, http://www.nadcp.org/learn/what-are-drug-courts/history.
- 16.
National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University (2010). Behind Bars II: Substance Abuse and America's Prison Population. NCJ 230327.
- 17.
Petersilia (2003), p. 48.
- 18.
Stone (1993), p. 23.
- 19.
Allen v. Bloomfield Hills (2008), p. 57.
- 20.
One option, often rejected by courts, is to allow an expert witness to testify to the limitations of memory. In rejecting this option, courts may point out that it is the purpose of the jury to make its own estimation of the reliability of the witness’ memory (United States v. Rodriguez-Berrios 2009).
- 21.
The bibliography is available online at: http://www.lawneuro.org.
- 22.
For more information on the Society for Evolutionary Analysis in Law (SEAL), see: http://www.sealsite.org.
- 23.
Emphasis added. Quoted in: Gehrman (2007).
References
Abrams K, Keren H (2010) Who's afraid of law and the emotions? Minn Law Rev 94:1997–2074
Aharoni E, Funk C, Sinnott-Armstrong W, Gazzaniga M (2008) Can neurological evidence help courts assess criminal responsibility? Lessons from law and neuroscience. Ann NY Acad Sci 1124:145–160
Alexander A (2006) Functional magnetic resonance imaging lie detection: is a “brainstorm” heading toward the “gatekeeper”? Houston J Health Law Pol 7:1–56
Allen v. Bloomfield Hills School District (2008) 281 Mich App 49; 760 N.W.2d 811
Annas GJ (2007) Foreword: imagining a new era of neuroimaging, neuroethics, and neurolaw. Am J Law Med 33:163–170
Appelbaum PS (2007) The new lie detectors: neuroscience, deception, and the courts. Psychiatr Serv 58:460–462
Aronson JD (2007) Brain imaging, culpability and the juvenile death penalty. Psychol Pub Pol Law 13:115–142
Aronson JD (2009) Neuroscience and juvenile justice. Akron Law Rev 42:917–930
Aronson JD (2010) The law’s use of brain evidence. Annu Rev Law Soc Sci 6:93–108
Arrigo BA (2007) Punishment, freedom, and the culture of control: the case of brain imaging and the law. Am J Law Med 33:457–482
Atkins v. Virginia (2002) 536 U.S. 304
Baird AA (2009) The developmental neuroscience of criminal behavior. In: Farahany NA (ed) The impact of behavioral sciences on criminal law. Oxford University Press, New York, p. 81–123
Barkow RE (2011) Federalism and criminal law: what the feds can learn from the states. Mich Law Rev 109:519–580
Barth AS (2007) A double-edged sword: the role of neuroimaging in federal capital sentencing. Am J Law Med 33:501–522
Baskin JH, Edersheim JG, Price BH (2007) Is a picture worth a thousand words? Neuroimaging in the courtroom. Am J Law Med 33:239–269
Bazan EB (2005) Capital punishment: an overview of federal death penalty statutes. CRS Report for Congress RL30962
Beecher-Monas E, Garcia-Rill E (2003) Danger at the edge of chaos: predicting violent behavior in a post-daubert world. Cardozo Law Rev 24:1845–1901
Bennett CM, Baird AA, Miller MB, Wolford GL (2010) Neural correlates of interspecies perspective taking in the post-mortem atlantic salmon: an argument for multiple comparisons correction. J Serend Unexpect Result 1:1–5
Berman DA, Bibas S (2008) Engaging capital emotions. Nw Univ Law Rev Colloquy 102:355–364
Bernstein DM, Loftus EF (2009) How to tell if a particular memory is true or false. Perspect Psychol Sci 4:370–374
Bizzi E, Hyman SE, Raichle ME, Kanwisher N, Phelps EA, Morse SJ, Sinnott-Armstrong W, Rakoff JS, Greely HT (2009) Using imaging to identify deceit: scientific and ethical questions. Am Acad Art Sci. http://www.amacad.org/pdfs/deceit.pdf.
Blitz MJ (2010) Freedom of thought for the extended mind: cognitive enhancement and the constitution. Wisconsin Law Rev 2010:1049–1117
Blumoff TY (2010) How (some) criminals are made. In: Freeman M (ed) Law and neuroscience: current legal issues. Oxford University Press, New York, p. 171–192
Bonnie RJ (2002) Responsibility for addiction. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 30:405–413
Borden S (2011) Concussion suit seeks better health monitoring, New York Times, 20 August 2011
Borg JS, Hynes C, Van Horn J, Grafton S, Sinnott-Armstrong W (2006). Consequences, action, and intention as factors in moral judgments: an fMRI investigation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 18:803–817
Boyd v. Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Players Retirement Plan (2005) 410 F.3d 1173
Brown T, Murphy E (2010) Through a scanner darkly: functional neuroimaging as evidence of a criminal defendant's past mental states. Stan Law Rev 62:1119–1208
Buckholtz JW, Asplund CL, Dux PE, Zald DH, Gore JC, Jones OD, Marois R (2008) The neural correlates of third-party punishment. Neuron 60:930–940
Cacioppo JT, Berntson GG, Lorig TS, Norris CJ, Rickett E, Nusbaum H (2003) Just because you’re imaging the brain doesn’t mean you can stop using your head: a primer and set of first principles. J Pers Soc Psychol 85:650–661
Caldwell MF, Skeem J, Salekin R, Van Rybroek GJ (2006) Treatment response of adolescent offenders with psychopathy features: a 2-year follow-up. Crim Just Behav 33:571–596
Caldwell MF, McCormick DJ, Umstead D, Van Rybroek GJ (2007) Evidence of treatment progress and therapeutic outcomes among adolescents with psychopathic features. Crim Just Behav 34:573–587
Chorvat T, McCabe K (2004) The brain and the law. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 359:1727–1736
Coe v. State (2000) 17 S.W.3d 193
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993) 509 U.S. 579
Davis KC (1942) An approach to problems of evidence in the administrative process. Harv Law Rev 55:364–425
Denno DW (2002) Crime and consciousness: science and involuntary acts. Minn Law Rev 87:269–389
Droback JA (2006) “Developing capacity”: adolescent “consent” at work, at law, and in the sciences of the mind. UC Davis J Juv Law Pol 10:1–68
Eagleman DM (2008) Neuroscience and the law. Houston Lawyer 16:36–40
Entertainment Software Ass’n. v. Blagojevich (2005), 404 F. Supp. 2d 1051
Erickson SK (2010) Blaming the brain. Minn J Law Sci Tech 11:27–77
Faigman DL (2002) Is science different for lawyers? Science 297:339–340
Faigman DL (2010) Evidentiary incommensurability: a preliminary exploration of the problem of reasoning from general scientific data to individualized legal decision-making. Brooklyn Law Rev 75:1115–1136
Faigman DL, Kaye DH, Saks MJ, Sanders J (2011) Modern scientific evidence: the law and science of expert testimony, 2010–2011 edn. West Publishing Co., New York
Farah MJ (2002) Emerging ethical issues in neuroscience. Nat Neurosci 11:1123–1129
Farah MJ (2005) Neuroethics: the practical and the philosophical. Trends Cognitive Sci 9:34–40
Farah MJ, Illes J, Cook-Deegan R, Gardner H, Kandel E, King P, Parens E, Sahakian B, Wolpe PR (2004) Neurocognitive enhancement: what can we do and what should we do? Neuroscience 5:421–425
Farahany NA, Coleman JE, Jr. (2009) Genetics, neuroscience, and criminal responsibility. In: Farahany NA (ed) The impact of behavioral sciences on criminal law. Oxford University Press, New York, p. 183–240
Farahany NA (2009a) Cruel and unequal punishments. Wash Univ Law Rev 86:859–915
Farahany NA (ed) (2009b) The impact of behavioral sciences on criminal law. Oxford University Press, New York
Farahany NA (2011) An empirical study of brains and genes in U.S. Criminal Law, Vanderbilt University Law School
Feigenson N (2006) Brain imaging and courtroom evidence: on the admissibility and persuasiveness of fMRI. Int J Law Context 2:233–255
Ferrell v. State (2005) 918 So.2d 163
Fini v. General Motors Corp (2003) 2003 WL 1861025 (Mich. App.)
Fox D (2008) Brain imaging and the bill of rights: memory detection technologies and American criminal justice. Am J Bioethics 8:1–4
Fox D (2009) The right to silence as protecting mental control. Akron Law Rev 42:763–801
Freeman M, Goodenough OR (eds) (2009) Law, mind, and brain. Ashgate, Surrey, England
Freeman M (ed) (2011) Law and neuroscience: current legal issues volume 13. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Frye v. United States (1923) 293 F. 1013
Ganis G, Keenan JP (2009) The cognitive neuroscience of deception. Soc Neurosci 4:465–472
Garland B (ed) (2004) Neuroscience and the law: brain, mind, and the scales of justice. Dana Press, New York
Garland B, Glimcher PW (2006) Cognitive neuroscience and the law. Curr Opin Neurobiol 16:130–134
Gazzaniga MS (2008) The law and neuroscience. Neuron 60:412–415
Gazzaniga MS, Ivry RB, Mangum GR (2009) Cognitive neuroscience: the biology of the mind. 3rd edn. W.W. Norton & Company, New York
Gehrman E (2007) From neuroscience to childhood policy. 7 December 2007. http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2007/12/from-neuroscience-to-childhood-policy/
General Electric Co. v. Joiner (1997) 522 U.S. 136
Gillet GR (2009) The subjective brain, identity, and neuroethics. Am J Bioethics 9:5–13
Goodenough OR (2001) Mapping cortical areas associated with legal reasoning and moral intuition. Jurimetrics J 41:429–442
Goodenough OR, Tucker M (2010) Law and cognitive neuroscience. Annu Rev Law Soc Sci 6:61–92
Graham v. Florida (2010), 130 S.Ct. 2011
Greely HT (2004) Prediction, litigation, privacy, and property: some possible legal and social implications of advances in neuroscience. In: Garland B (ed) Neuroscience and the law: brain, mind, and the scales of justice. Dana Press, New York, p. 114–156
Greely HT (2006) Neuroethics and ELSI: similarities and differences. Minn J Law Sci Tech 7:599–614
Greely HT, Illes J (2007) Neuroscience-based lie detection: the urgent need for regulation. Am J Law Med 33:377–431
Greely HT, Sahakian B, Harris J, Kessler RC, Gazzaniga M, Campbell P, Farah MJ (2008) Towards responsible use of cognitive-enhancing drugs by the healthy. Nature 456:702–705
Greely HT, Wagner AD (Forthcoming) Reference guide on neuroscience. In: Federal judicial center reference manual on scientific evidence, 3rd edn., Federal Judicial Center, Washington, DC
Greene J, Cohen J (2004) For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything. Phil Trans Royal Soc B Biol Sci 359:1775–1785
Greene J, Haidt J (2002) How (and where) does moral judgment work? Trends Cogn Sci 6:517–523
Greene JD, Paxton JM (2009) Patterns of neural activity associated with honest and dishonest moral decisions. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106:12506–12511
Grey BJ (2011) Neuroscience and emotional harm in tort law: rethinking the American approach to free-standing emotional distress claims. In: Freeman M (ed) Law and neuroscience. Oxford University Press, New York, p. 203–230
Gruber SA, Yurgelun-Todd DA (2006) Neurobiology and the law: a role in juvenile justice? Ohio St J Crim Law 3:321–340
Hafemeister TL, Stockey NA (2010) Last stand? the criminal responsibility of war veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with posttraumatic stress disorder. Ind Law J 85:87–141
Haider A (2006) Roper v Simmons: the role of the science brief. Ohio St J Crim Law 3:369–377
Haidt J (2001) The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychol Rev 108:814–834
Halliburton CM (2007) Letting Katz out of the bag: cognitive freedom and fourth amendment fidelity. Hastings Law J 59:309–368
Hariri AR (2009) The neurobiology of individual differences in complex behavioral traits. Annu Rev Neurosci 32:225–247
Harrington v. State (2003) 659 N.W.2d 509
Hawkins Hon MD (2010) Coming home: accommodating the special needs of military veterans to the criminal justice system. Ohio St J Crim Law 7:563–573
Hora PF, Stalcup T (2008) Drug treatment courts in the twenty-first century: the evolution of the revolution in problem-solving courts. Georgia L Rev 42:717–811
Hughes V (2010) Science in court: head case. Nature 464:340–342
Illes J (2003) Neuroethics in a new era of neuroimaging. AJNR 24:1739–1741
Illes J (ed) (2006) Neuroethics: defining the issues in theory, practice, and policy. Oxford University Press, New York
Illes J, Sahakian BJ, eds. (2011) Oxford handbook of neuroethics. Oxford University Press, New York
Jones OD (1999) Law, emotions, and behavioral biology. Jurimetrics 39:283–289
Jones OD (2004) Law, evolution and the brain: applications and open questions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 359:1697–1707
Jones OD, Buckholtz JW, Schall JD, Marois R (2009) Brain imaging for legal thinkers: a guide for the perplexed. Stan Tech Law Rev 2009:5–53
Jones OD, Schall JD, Shen FX (Forthcoming) Law and neuroscience. Aspen Publishers, New York.
Kahan DM (2008) Two conceptions of emotion in risk regulation. Univ Penn Law Rev 156:741–766
Katner DR (2006) The mental health paradigm and the MacArthur study: emerging issues challenging the competence of juveniles in delinquency systems. American Journal of Law and Medicine 32:503–583
Kennedy D (2004) Neuroscience and neuroethics. Science 306:373
Kensinger EA, Schacter DL (2006) When the Red Sox shocked the Yankees: comparing negative and positive memories. Psychon Bull Rev 13:757–763
Kiehl KA (2006) A cognitive neuroscience perspective on psychopathy: evidence for paralimbic system dysfunction. Psychiatry Res 142:107–128
Kiehl KA (2008) Without morals: the cognitive neuroscience of criminal psychopaths. In: Sinnott-Armstrong W (ed) Moral psychology. Vol. 3. The MIT Press, Cambridge, p. 119–149
Kiehl KA, Hoffman MB (Forthcoming) The criminal psychopath: history, neuroscience, treatment, and economics. Jurimetrics
Kluger J (2011) Football searches for the cause of another tragedy. TIME Magazine. February 23, 2011
Knabb JJ, Welsh RK, Ziebell JG, Reimer KS (2009) Neuroscience, moral reasoning, and the law. Behav Sci Law 27:219–236
Koenigs M, Young L, Adolphs R, Tranel D, Cushman F, Hauser M, Damasio A (2007) Damage to the prefrontal cortex increases utilitarian moral judgements. Nature 446:908–911
Kolber AJ (2006) Therapeutic forgetting: the legal and ethical implications of memory dampening. Vand Law Rev 59:1561–1626
Kolber AJ (2007) Pain detection and the privacy of subjective experience. Am J Law Med 33:433–456
Kolber AJ (2011) The experiential future of the law. Emory Law Journal 60: 585–652
Kulynych JJ (2007) The regulation of MR neuroimaging research: disentangling the Gordian knot. Am J Law Med 33:295–317
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael (1999) 526 U.S. 137
Loftus EF (2005) Planting misinformation in the human mind: a 30-year investigation of the malleability of memory. Learn Mem 12:361–366
Logothetis NK (2008) What we can do and what we cannot do with fMRI. Nature 453:869–878
Marchant G (2008) Brain scanning and the courts: criminal cases. Presentation to the Research Network on Legal Decision Making, MacArthur Foundation Law and Neuroscience Project, 11 Oct 2008
Marks JH (2007) Interrogational neuroimaging in counterterrorism: a “No-Brainer” or a human rights hazard? Am J Law Med 33:483–500
Maroney TA (2006) Law and emotion: a proposed taxonomy of an emerging field. Law Hum Behav 30:119–142
Maroney TA (2010) The false promise of adolescent brain science in juvenile justice. Notre Dame Law Rev 85:89–176
Martell DA (1996) Causal relation between brain damage and homicide: the prosecution. Semin Clin Neuropsychiatry 1:184–193
McCabe DP, Castel AD (2008) Seeing is believing: the effect of brain images on judgments of scientific reasoning. Cognition 107:343–352
McCabe DP, Castel AD, Rhodes MG (2011) The influence of fMRI lie detection evidence on juror decision making. Behav Sci Law 29:566–577
McMurtey v. Ryan (2008), 539 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2008)
Meilaender G (2003) Why remember? First Things 135:20–24
Meszaros J (2011) Achieving peace of mind: the benefits of neurobiology evidence for battered women defendants. Yale J Law Femin 23:117–177
Miller FG, Mello MM, Jaffe S (2008) Incidental findings in human subjects research: what do investigators owe research participants? J Law Med Ethics 36:271–279
Milner B, Squire LR, Kandel ER (1998) Cognitive neuroscience and the study of memory. Neuron 20:445–453
Mobbs D, Lau HC, Jones OD, Frith CD (2007) Law, responsibility, and the brain. PLoS Biol 5:693–700
Mobley v. The State (1995), 265 Ga. 292
Monahan J (2006) A jurisprudence of risk assessment: forecasting harm among prisoners, patients, and patients. Va Law Rev 92:391–435
Moreno JD (2003) Neuroethics: an agenda for neuroscience and society. Nat Rev Neurosci 2:149–153
Moriarty JC (2008) Flickering admissibility: neuroimaging evidence in the U.S. courts. Behav Sci Law 26:29–49
Moriarty JC (2009) Visions of deception: neuroimages and the search for truth. Akron Law Rev 42:739–761
Morse SJ (1996) Brain and blame. Geo Law J 84:527–546
Morse SJ (2006) Brain overclaim syndrome and criminal responsibility: a diagnostic note. Ohio St J Crim Law 3:397–412
Morse SJ, Hoffman MB (2007) The uneasy entente between legal insanity and mens rea: beyond Clark v. Arizona
Morse SJ (2008a) Psychopathy and criminal responsbility. Neuroethics 1:205–212
Morse SJ (2008b) Determinism and the death of folk psychology: two challenges to responsibility from neuroscience. Minn. J.L. Sci. & Tech. 9:1–35
Morse SJ, Roskies AL, eds. (Forthcoming) MacArthur primer on law & neuroscience. Oxford University Press, New York
Nadel L, Sinnott-Armstrong W (2010) Conscious will and responsibility. Oxford University Press, New York
Nadelhoffer T, Bibas S, Grafton S, Kiehl KA, Mansfield A, Sinnott-Armstrong W, Gazzaniga MS (2010) Neuroprediction, violence, and the law: setting the stage. Neuroethics. doi:10.1007/s12152-010-9095-z: 1-33
National Research Council (2003) The polygraph and lie detection: executive summary
New JG (2008) If you could read my mind: implications of neurological evidence for twenty-first century criminal jurisprudence. J Legal Med 29:179–198
O’Hara EA (2004) How neuroscience might advance the law. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 359:1677–1684
Oregon v. Kinkel (2002) 56 P.3d 463
Ovalle D (2010) Miami-Dade killer gets life sentence for murder, stabbings, rape. Miami Herald, 2 December 2010
Pardo MS, Patterson D (2010) Philosophical foundations of law and neuroscience. Univ Illinois Law Rev 2010:1211–1250
Patel P, Levine K, Mayberg H, Meltzer C (2007) The role of imaging in United States courtrooms. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 17:557–567
People v. Goldstein (2004) 786 N.Y.S.2d 428
People v. Morgan (1999) 719 N.E.2d 681 (Ill. 1999)
People v. Weinstein (1992) 591 N.Y.S.2d 715
Petersilia J (2003) When prisoners come home: parole and prisoner reentry. Oxford University Press, New York
Pettit Jr, M (2007) fMRI and BF meet FRE: brain imaging and the federal rules of evidence. Am J Law Med 33:319–340
Phelps EA (2004) Human emotion and memory: interactions of the amygdala and hippocampal complex. Curr Opin Neurobiol 14:198–202
Poldrack RA, Fletcher PC, Henson RN, Worsley KJ, Brett M, Nichols TE (2008) Guidelines for reporting an fMRI study. NeuroImage 40:409–414
Posner EA (2000) Law and the emotions. Geo Law J 89:1977–2012
Powell v. State of Texas (1968) 392 U.S. 514
President’s Council on Bioethics (2003) Beyond therapy: biotechnology and the pursuit of happiness. Regan Books, New York
Purves D, Brannon EM, Cabeza R, Huettel SA, LaBar KS, Platt ML, and Woldorff MG (2008) Principles of cognitive neuroscience. Sinauer, Sunderland
Pustilnik AC (2009) Violence on the brain: a critique of neuroscience in criminal law. Wake Forest Law Rev 44:183–237
Racine E, Bar-Ilan O, Illes J (2005) fMRI in the public eye. Nat Rev Neurosci 6:159–164
Rakoff J (2008) Science and the law: uncomfortable bedfellows. Seton Hall Law Rev 38:1379–1393
Redding RE (2006) The brain-disordered defendant: neuroscience and legal insanity in the twenty-first century. Am Univ Law Rev 56:51–127
Relkin N, Plum F, Mattis S, Eidelberg D, Tranel D (1996) Impulsive homicide associated with an arachnoid cyst and unilateral frontotemporal cerebral dysfunction. Semin Clin Neuropsychiatry 1:172–183
Richardson HS (2008) Incidental findings and ancillary-care obligations. J Law Med Ethics 36:256–270
Rissman J, Greely H, Wagner AD (2010) Detecting individual memories through the neural decoding of memory states and past experience. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107:9849–9854
Robinson v. State of California (1962) 370 U.S. 660
Rogers KG, DuBois A (2009) The present and future impact of neuroscience evidence on criminal law. APR Champion 33:18–23
Rojas-Burke J (1993) PET scans advance as tools in insanity defense. J Nuclear Med 34:13N–26N
Roper v. Simmons (2005) 543 U.S. 551
Rosen J (2007) The brain on the stand. New York Times Sunday Magazine, 11 March 2007
Roskies A (2002) Neuroethics for the new millennium. Neuron 35:21–23
Roskies A (2008) Neuroimaging and inferential distance. Neuroethics 1:19–30
Russell RT (2009) Veterans treatment court: a proactive approach. N Eng J Crim Civ Confinement 35:357–372
Saks MJ (2000) The aftermath of Daubert: an evolving jurisprudence of expert evidence. Jurimetrics J 40:229–241
Salerno JM, Bottoms BL (2009) Emotional evidence and jurors’ judgments: the promise of neuroscience for informing psychology and law. Behav Sci Law 27:273–296
Sapolsky R (2004) The frontal cortex and the criminal justice system. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 359:1787–1796
Schacter DL (2002) The seven sins of memory: how the mind forgets and remembers. Mariner Books, New York
Schacter DL, Slotnick SD (2004) The cognitive neuroscience of memory distortion. Neuron 44:149–160
Schauer F (2010) Can bad science be good evidence? Lie detection, neuroscience and the mistaken conflation of legal and scientific norms. Cornell Law Rev 95:1191–1220
Schleim S, Spranger TM, Erk S, Walter H (2010) From moral to legal judgment: the influence of normative context in lawyers and other academics. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci 6:48–57
Schwarz A (2010) Case will test NFL teams’ liability in dementia. New York Times, 5 April 2010
Schweitzer NJ, Saks M, Murphy E, Roskies A, Sinnott-Armstrong W, Gaudet L (2011) Neuroimages as evidence in a mens rea defense: no impact. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 17:357–392
Schweitzer NJ, Saks M (2011) Neuroimage evidence and the insanity defense. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 29:592–607
Scott ES, Steinberg L (2008) Rethinking juvenile justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Sharot T, Martorella EA, Delgado MR, Phelps EA (2007) How personal experience modulates the neural circuitry of memories of September 11. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104:389–394
Shen FX (2010) Monetizing memory science: neuroscience and the future of PTSD litigation. Paper presented at the Memory and Law Conference, Tucson Arizona, January 2010
Shen FX (2010) The law and neuroscience bibliography: navigating the emerging field of neurolaw. International Journal of Legal Information 38:352–399
Shen FX, Jones OD (2011) Brain scans as evidence: truths, proofs, lies, and lessons. Mercer L. Rev 62:861–884
Simon D (2011) The limited diagnosticity of criminal trials. Vanderbilt Law Rev 64:143–223
Simpson JR (2008) Functional MRI lie detection: too good to be true? J Am Acad Psychiatry law 36:491–498
Sinnott-Armstrong W, Roskies A, Brown T, Murhpy E (2008) Brain images as legal evidence. Episteme 5:359–373
Sip KE, Roepstorff A, McGregor W, Frith CD (2007) Detecting deception: the scope and limits. Trend Cogn Sci 12:48–53
Smith DM (2009) The disordered and discredited plaintiff: psychiatric evidence in civil litigation. Cardozo Law Rev 31:757–771
Snead OC (2006) Neuroimaging and the courts: standard and illustrative case index. http://www.ncsconline.org/d_research/stl/June06/Snead.doc. Accessed 15 July 2010
Snead OC (2007) Neuroimaging and the “complexity” of capital punishment. NY Univ Law Rev 82:1265–1339
Sousa D (2009) How brain science can make you a better lawyer. American Bar Association, Chicago
Squire LR (2004) Memory systems of the brain: a brief history and current perspective. Neurobiol Learn Mem 82:171–177
State v. Nelson (2010) 11th Fl Cir. Ct., F05-846
Stoller SE, Wolpe PR (2007) Emerging neurotechnologies for lie detection and the fifth amendment. Am J Law Med 33:359–375
Stone AA (1993) Posttraumatic stress disorder and the law: critical review of the new frontier. Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law 21:23–36
Stuntz WJ (2008) Unequal justice. Harv Law Rev 121:1969–2040
Tancredi LR, Brodie JD (2007) The brain and behavior: limitations in the legal use of functional magnetic resonance imaging. Am J Law Med 33:271–294
Taylor J (1995) Neurolaw: towards a new medical jurisprudence. Brain Inj 9:745–751
Taylor E (2006) A new wave of police interrogation? Brain fingerprinting, the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination, and hearsay jurisprudence. Univ Illinois J Law Technol Pol 2006:287–312
Tovino SA (2005) The confidentiality and privacy implications of functional magnetic resonance imaging. J Law Med Ethics 33:844–848
Tovino SA (2007a) Functional neuroimaging and the law: trends and directions for future scholarship. Am J Bioethics 7:44–56
Tovino SA (2007b) Functional neuroimaging information: a case for neuro exceptionalism? Fla St Univ Law Rev 34:415–489
Trout JD (2008) Seduction without cause: uncovering explanatory neurophilia. Trends Cogn Sci 12:281–282
U.S. v. Scheffer (1998) 523 U.S. 303
United States v. Gigante (1997) 982 F. Supp. 140
United States v. Kasim (2008) 2008 WL 4822291 (N.D.Ind.)
United States v. Rodriguez-Berrios (2009), 573 F.3d 55
United States v. Semrau (2010), U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, No. 07–10074
Uttal WR (2003) The new phrenology: the limits of localizing cognitive processes in the brain. The MIT Press, Cambridge
Uttal WR (2008) Neuroscience in the courtroom: what every lawyer should know about the mind and the brain. Lawyers & Judges Publishing, Danvers
Van Middlesworth v. Century Bank & Trust Co. (2000) 2000 WL 33421451 (Mich.App.)
Viens AM (2007) The use of functional neuroimaging technology in the assessment of loss and damages in tort law. The American Journal of Bioethics 7:63–65
Volkow ND, Li T (2004) Drug addiction: the neurobiology of behavior gone awry. Nat Rev Neurosci 5:963–970
Vul E, Harris C, Winkielman P, Pashler H (2009) Puzzlingly high correlations in fMRI studies of emotion, personality, and social cognition. Perspect Psychol Sci 4:274–290
Wagner AD (2010) Can neuroscience identify lies? In: Gazzaniga M (ed) A judge's guide to neuroscience, SAGE Center, University of California, Santa Barbara, p. - 13–25
Ward J (2009) The student’s guide to cognitive neuroscience, 2nd edn. Psychology Press, Hove
Weber S, Habel U, Amunts K, Schneider F (2008) Structural brain abnormalities in psychopaths: a review. Behav Sci Law 26:7–28
Weinstein J, Weinstein R (2005) “I know better than that”: the role of emotions and the brain in family law disputes. J Law Fam Stud 7:351–403
Weisberg DS, Keil FC, Goodstein J, Rawson E, Gray JR (2008) The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. J Cogn Neurosci 20:470–477
Weiss Z (1996) The legal admissibility of positron emission tomography scans in criminal cases: People v Spyder Cystkopf. Semin Clin Neuropsychiatry 1:202–210
Wilson v. Corestaff (2010) Kings County, Supreme Court of the State of New York, Index No. 32996/07
Wixted JT (2004) The psychology and neuroscience of forgetting. Annu Rev Psychol 2004:235–269
Wolf SM, Paradise J, Caga Anan C (2008) The law of incidental findings in human subjects research: establishing researchers’ duties. J Law Med Ethics 26:361–383
Wolpe PR, Foster KR, Langleben DD (2005) Emerging neurotechnologies for lie-detection: promises and perils. Am J Bioeth 5:39–49
Young G, Kane AW, Nicholson K (eds) (2006) Causality: psychological knowledge in court: PTSD, pain, and TBI. Springer, New York
Young L, Bechara A, Tranel D, Damasio H, Hauser M, Damasio A (2010) Damage to ventromedial prefrontal cortex impairs judgment of harmful intent. Neuron 65:845–851
Zeki S, Goodenough OR (eds) (2006) Law and the brain. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Jones, O.D., Jones, O.D., Shen, F.X. (2012). Law and Neuroscience in the United States. In: Spranger, T. (eds) International Neurolaw. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21541-4_19
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21541-4_19
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-21540-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-21541-4
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)