Relative function: Nuclear brain imaging in United States courts

Journal of Psychiatry and Law

Volumn 39, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 567-593

  Rushing, Susan E ^a   Langleben, Daniel D ^a,b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^b VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c Neuroscience Graduate Group   (United States)

Author keywords

CT scan; fMRI scan; MRI scan; Nuclear imaging; PET scan; SPECT scan

Indexed keywords

FLUORINE 18; TECHNETIUM 99M;

COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; COURT; FUNCTIONAL MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; GUILT; HUMAN; NEUROIMAGING; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TEST; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; OFFENDER; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PUNISHMENT; REVIEW; SINGLE PHOTON EMISSION COMPUTER TOMOGRAPHY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84866544778     PISSN: 00931853     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/009318531103900404     Document Type: Review

References (79)

1. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-IV-TR). Washington, DC: Author.
2. Ances, B. M., Liebeskind, D. S., Newberg, A. B., Jacobs, D. A., & Alavi, A. (2004). Early uncoupling of cerebral blood flow and metabolism after bilateral thalamic infarction. American Journal of Neuroradiology, 25, 1685-1687.
3. Appelbaum, P. (2009). Through a glass darkly. Psychiatric Services, 60, 21-23.
4. Bergsneider, M., Hovda, D. A., Lee, S. M., et al. (2000). Dissociation of cerebral glucose metabolism and level of consciousness during the period of metabolic depression following human traumatic brain injury. Journal of Neurotrauma, 17, 389-401.
5. Bomanji, J. B., Costa, D. C., & Ell, P. J. (2001). Clinical role of positron emission tomography in oncology. The Lancet Oncology, 2, 157-164.
6. Brown, E., & Barglow, P. (1971). Pseudocyesis: A paradigm for psychophysiological interactions. Archives of General Psychiatry, 24, 221-229.
7. California vs. Miguel Carrizalez. No. VCF 169926C Kelly-Frye hearing. Visalia, California. November 18-19, 2010. Reporter's transcript (1-267, at 261-262).
8. Caro v. Calderon, 165 F.3d 1223 (9th Cir. 1999).
9. Caro v. Woodford, 280 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2002).
10. Castronovo, F. P., Jr. (1975). Technetium-99m: Basic nuclear physics and chemical properties. American Journal of Hospital Pharmacy, 32, 480-488.
11. Chen, W.P., Samuraki, M., Yanase, D., Shima, K., Takeda, N., Ono, K., et al. (2008). Effect of sample size for normal database on diagnostic performance of brain FDG PET for the detection of Alzheimer's disease using automated image analysis. Nuclear Medicine Communications, 29, 270-276.
12. Crimes and Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C. § 3592 (2006).
13. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 43 F.3d 1311 (9th Cir. 1995).
14. Desgranges, B., Baron, J. C., Lalevee, C., Giffard, B., Viader, F., de La Sayette, V., et al. (2002). The neural substrates of episodic memory impairment in Alzheimer's disease as revealed by FDG-PET: Relationship to degree of deterioration. Brain, 125, 1116-1124.
15. Dougall, N. J., Bruggink, S., & Ebmeier, K. P. (2004). Systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of 99mTc-HMPAO-SPECT in dementia. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 12, 554-570.
16. Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960).
17. Fed. Rule Evid. 702 (2000).
18. Fini v. General Motors Corp. et al., 2003 WL 1861025 (Michigan Super. 2003).
19. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 921.141 (1995).
20. Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. ¶ 1923).
21. Greely, H., & Illes, J. (2007). Neuroscience-based lie detection: The urgent need for regulation. American Journal of Law and Medicine, 33, 377-421.
22. Gurley, J. R., & Marcus, D. K. (2008). The effects of neuroimaging and brain injury on insanity defenses. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 26, 85-97.
23. Harris v. U.S. Civil Action NO. 03-6430 in Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Nov. 2, 2005, unreported).
24. Hernandez v. Martel, Acting Warden, California State Prison at San Quentin, CASE NO. CV 90-4638 RSWL (August 16, 2011).
25. Hoskins v. State, 702 So.2d 202 (Fla. 1997).
26. Iseki, E., Murayama, N., Yamamoto, R., Fujishiro, H., Suzuki, M., Kawano, M., et al. (2010). Construction of a (18)F-FDG PET normative database of Japanese healthy elderly subjects and its application to demented and mild cognitive impairment patients. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 25, 352-361.
27. Chen, W.P., Samuraki, M., Yanase, D., Shima, K., Takeda, N., Ono, K., et al. (2008). Effect of sample size for normal database on diagnostic performance of brain FDG PET for the detection of Alzheimer's disease using automated image analysis. Nuclear Medicine Communications, 29, 270-276.
28. Crimes and Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C. § 3592 (2006).
29. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 43 F.3d 1311 (9th Cir. 1995).
30. Desgranges, B., Baron, J. C., Lalevee, C., Giffard, B., Viader, F., de La Sayette, V., et al. (2002). The neural substrates of episodic memory impairment in Alzheimer's disease as revealed by FDG-PET: Relationship to degree of deterioration. Brain, 125, 1116-1124.
31. Dougall, N. J., Bruggink, S., & Ebmeier, K. P. (2004). Systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of 99mTc-HMPAO-SPECT in dementia. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 12, 554-570.
32. Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960).
33. Fed. Rule Evid. 702 (2000).
34. Fini v. General Motors Corp. et al., 2003 WL 1861025 (Michigan Super. 2003).
35. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 921.141 (1995).
36. Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. ¶ 1923).
37. Greely, H., & Illes, J. (2007). Neuroscience-based lie detection: The urgent need for regulation. American Journal of Law and Medicine, 33, 377-421.
38. Gurley, J. R., & Marcus, D. K. (2008). The effects of neuroimaging and brain injury on insanity defenses. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 26, 85-97.
39. Harris v. U.S. Civil Action NO. 03-6430 in Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Nov. 2, 2005, unreported).
40. Hernandez v. Martel, Acting Warden, California State Prison at San Quentin, CASE NO. CV 90-4638 RSWL (August 16, 2011).
41. Hoskins v. State, 702 So.2d 202 (Fla. 1997).
42. Iseki, E., Murayama, N., Yamamoto, R., Fujishiro, H., Suzuki, M., Kawano, M., et al. (2010). Construction of a (18)F-FDG PET normative database of Japanese healthy elderly subjects and its application to demented and mild cognitive impairment patients. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 25, 352-361.
43. Ishii, K., Willoch, F., Minoshima, S., Drzezga, A., Ficaro, E. P., Cross, D. J., et al. (2001). Statistical brain mapping of 18F-FDG PET in Alzheimer's disease: Validation of anatomic standardization for atrophied brains. Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 42, 548-557.
44. Jackson v. Calderon, 211 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2000).
45. Jackson v. Indiana, 362 U.S. 402 (1972).
46. Jeong, Y., Cho, S. S., Park, J. M., Kang, S. J., Lee, J. S., Kang, E., et al. (2005). 18F-FDG PET findings in frontotemporal dementia: An SPM analysis of 29 patients. Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 46, 233-239.
47. Juh, R., Kim, J., Moon, D., Choe, B., & Suh, T. (2004). Different metabolic patterns analysis of Parkinsonism on the 18F-FDG PET. European Journal of Radiology, 51, 223-233.
48. Kim, Y. K., Lee, D. S., Lee, S. K., Chung, C. K., Chung, J. K., Lee, M. C. (2002). (18)F-FDG PET in localization of frontal lobe epilepsy: Comparison of visual and SPM analysis. Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 43, 1161-1167.
49. Kim, Y. K., Lee, D. S., Lee, S. K., Kim, S. K., Chung, C. K, Chang, & K. H., et al. (2003). Differential features of metabolic abnormalities between medial and lateral temporal lobe epilepsy: quantitative analysis of (18)F-FDG PET using SPM. Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 44, 1006-1012.
50. Lasden, M. (November, 2004). Mr. Chiesa's brain: Can high-tech scans prove that criminal acts are the result of a damaged brain? California Lawyer, p. 30.
51. Lockett vs. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978).
52. Mehr, S. H., & Gerdes, S. L. (2001). Medicolegal applications of PET scans. NeuroRehabilitation, 16, 87-92.
53. Moriarty, J. (2008). Flickering admissibility: Neuroimaging evidence in the U.S. courts. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 26, 29-49.
54. Morse, S. (2011). Mental disorder and criminal law. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 101, 885-968.
55. Necib, H., Garcia, C., Wagner, A., Vanderlinden, B., Emonts, P., Hendlisz, A., et al. (2011). Detection and characterization of tumor changes in 18F-FDG PET patient monitoring using parametric imaging. Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 52, 354-361.
56. Newberg, A. B., & Alavi, A. (2005). The role of PET imaging in the management of patients with central nervous system disorders. Radiologic Clinics of North America, 43, 49-65.
57. Palazzolo v. Hoffman la Roche Inc., 2010 WL 363834 (N.J.Super.A.D. 2010).
58. Penney v. Praxair Inc., 116 F.3d 330 (8th Cir. 1997).
59. People v. Goldstein, 843 N.E.2d 727 (N.Y.Ct.App. 2005).
60. People v. Weinstein, 591 N.Y.S.2d 715 (N.Y. Sup. 1992).
61. Provenzano, F.A., Jordan, B., Tikofsky, R.S., Saxena, C., Van Heertum, R.L., & Ichise, M. (2010). F-18 FDG PET imaging of chronic traumatic brain injury in boxers: A statistical parametric analysis. Nuclear Medicine Communications, 31, 952-957.
62. Rao, N., Turski, P., Polcyn, E., Nickels, R., & Flynn, M. (1984). 18F positron emission tomography in closed head injury. Archives of Physical Medicine Rehabilitation, 65, 780-785.
63. Resnick, S. M., Karp, J. S., Turetsky, B., & Gur, R. E. (1993). Comparison of anatomically-defined versus physiologically-based regional localization: Effects on PET-FDG quantitation. Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 34, 2201-2207.
64. Rhilinger v. Jancsics et al., No. 93223, 1998 WL 1182058 (Mass. Super. 1998)
65. Rosen, J. (2007, March 11). The brain on the stand. The New York Times. Retrieved January 30, 2012 from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/11/magazine/ 11Neurolaw.t.html?pagewanted=all.
66. Ruff, R. M., Crouch, J. A., Troster, A. L., et al. (1994). Selected cases of poor outcome following minor brain trauma: Comparing neuropsychological and positron emission tomography assessment. Brain Injury, 8, 297-308.
67. Shepp, L. A., & Logan, B. F. (1974). The Fourier reconstruction of a head section. IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, 21, 21-43
68. Silverman, D. H., & Alavi, A. (2005). PET imaging in the assessment of normal and impaired cognitive function. Radiologic Clinics of North America, 43, 67-77.
69. Smith v. Mullin, 379 F.3d 919 (10th Cir. 2004).
70. Sneed, C. (June, 2006). Neuroimaging and the courts: Standards and illustrative case index. Paper presented at the Emerging Issues in Neuroscience Conference for State and Federal Judges, Washington, DC.
71. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).
72. Summers v. Missouri Pacific Railroad System, 897 F.Supp. 533 (E.D. Okla. 1995).
73. Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274 (2004).
74. Tukington, T., & Gilland, D. (2003). Basics of SPECT scanning emission and transmission. In G. K. von Schulthess (Ed.), Clinical molecular anatomic imaging: PET, PET/CT, and SPECT/CT, pp. 40-50. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
75. United States v. Mezvinsky, 206 F.Supp.2d 661 (E.D.Pa. 2002).
76. U.S. v. Montgomery, 635 F.3d 1074 (2011).
77. Westera, G. (2003). SPECT radiopharmaceuticals for perfusion, tumor, and inflammation localization. In G. K. von Schulthess (Ed.), Clinical molecular anatomic imaging: PET, PET/CT, and SPECT/CT, pp. 121-124. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
78. Zaidi, H., & Hasegawa, B. (2006). Overview of nuclear medical imaging: Physics and instrumentation. In H. Zaidi (Ed.), Quantitative analysis in nuclear medicine imaging, pp. 1-34. Singapore: Springer Science.
79. Zhang, J., Mitsis, E. M., Chu, K., Newmark, R. E., Hazlett, E. A., & Buchsbaum, M. S. (2010). Statistical parametric mapping and cluster counting analysis of [18F] FDG-PET imaging in traumatic brain injury. Journal of Neurotrauma, 27, 35-49.