Summary
A litigant might use a brain image to show that a person is "brain dead." Or, a litigant might use a brain image to explain a particular loss of function such as paralysis or inability to speak.\n If we reach the point where litigants offer brain-imaging evidence to predict future behavior or to reveal aspects of a person's character, it will be interesting to see if courts will stick to an ad hoc judgment of the science or will exclude the evidence as antithetical to basic principles of responsibility and privacy. Looking at the broader historical picture, it seems clear that, especially since the Supreme Court's decision in Daubert, courts and commentators have devoted tremendous amounts of time and attention to questions concerning the admissibility of expert evidence, particularly scientific evidence, in courtrooms.
See the full content of this document
Extract
Fmri and Bf Meet Fre: Brain Imaging and the Federal Rules of Evidence
I. INTRODUCTION
Picture this: a party to a lawsuit proposes to show jurors images of a human brain to support its claim or defense. The other party objects, and the trial judge must make a ruling. What determines how the judge will rule? That is the question I attempt to address.I begin in Part II by describing very briefly some existing methods of brain imaging-how they work and what they try to do-and cataloging some possible uses of these methods in courtrooms. Part III discusses current legal standards of admissibility of scientific evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE). Part IV examines the particular problem of scientific evidence offered to establish that a person was or was not telling the truth. Part V provides a brief history of some past attempts to introduce brainimaging evidence into courtrooms. The article concludes with some general comments on the issues facing judges when parties to lawsuits offer brainimaging evidence. I will not try to evaluate the science underlying the various brain-imaging methods for the good reason that I am not trained or otherwise competent to do so. I will try to stick to matters of law-to describe court rulings and the approaches and standards derived from those rulings. I will try to avoid making predictions, but I will have to settle for keeping predictions to a minimum.II. SOME EXISTING BRAIN-IMAGING METHODS AND THEIR POSSIBLE USES IN COURTROOMSA. CURRENT METHODS OF BRAIN IMAGINGAlthough I briefly describe below the existing brain-imaging methods I have in mind when discussing legal standards for admissibility as evidence in courtrooms, the goal of this article is not to make predictions about the admissibility of these particular methods as they currently exist or as they develop in the future. Rather, I hope to provide information about and analysis of the more general framework of evidence law by which all these methods, and others not yet developed, have been and will be judged.1. Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI)1The science behind fMRI may be sophisticated, but the basic concept is relatively easy to understand. fMRI involves making a series of brain images to show changes in blood levels in the various areas of the brain over time. Researchers hope that use of fMRI will help them to understand better how the brain operates. The more immediate use of fMRI, however, and the use that has generated the most interest and debate about possible courtroom use, is lie detection. The theory is that blood levels show how hard the brain is wo...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
