Neuroimaging, diminished capacity and mitigation

Neuroimaging in Forensic Psychiatry: From the Clinic to the Courtroom

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 163-193

  Edersheim, Judith G ^a,b   Weintraub Brendel, Rebecca ^a,b   Price, Bruce H ^a,c  

^a MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^c MCLEAN HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

Capital punishment; Diminished capacity; Magnetic resonance imaging; Mens rea; Mitigation; Positron emission tomography; Prefrontal cortex; Single photon emission computed tomography

Indexed keywords

EID: 84888663230     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1002/9781119968900.ch10     Document Type: Chapter

References (176)

1. Roper v. Simmons (2005) 543 US 551.
2. Morse, S.J. (2010) Brain Overclaim Syndrome and Criminal Responsibility: A Diagnostic Note. In M.J. Farah (ed.) Neuroethics: An Introduction with Readings. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press pp. 268-280.
3. American Law Institute (1962) Model Penal Code, section 2.02 (2) (a-d).
4. Farah, M.J. (2010) Neuroethics: An Introduction with Readings. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press pp. 212-213.
5. Brower, M. and Price, B.H. (2001) Neuropsychiatry of Frontal Lobe Dysfunction in Violent and Criminal Behavior: A Critical Review. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry, 71, 720-726;1-14.
6. Filley, C.M., Price, B.H., Nell, V., Antoinette, T., Morgan, A.S., Bresnahan, J.F. et al. (2001) Toward an Understanding of Violence: Neurobehavioral Aspects of Unwarranted Physical Aggression: Aspen Neurobehavioral Conference Consensus Statement. Neuropsychiatry Neuropsychol. Behav. Neurol., 14,
7. Mayberg, H.S. (1992) Functional Brain Scans as Evidence in Criminal Court: An Argument for Caution. J. Nuclear Med., 33, 18N-25N.
8. Ahroni, E., Funk, C., Sinnott-Armstrong, W. and Gazzaniga, M. (2008) Can Neurological Evidence Help Courts Assess Criminal Responsibility? Lessons from Law and Neuroscience. Ann. NY Acad. Sci., 1124, 145-160.
9. Batts, S. (2009) Brain Lesions and Their Implications in Criminal Responsibility. Behav. Sci. Law, 27, 261-272.
10. Uttal, W.R. (2001) The New Phrenology: The Limits of Localizing Cognitive Processes In the Brain. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
11. Baskin, J.H., Edersheim, J.G. and Price, B.H. (2007) Is a picture worth a thousand words? Neuroimaging in the courtroom. Am. J. LawMed., 33, 239-269.
12. Dumit, J. (1999) Objective Brains, Prejudicial Images. Science in Context, 12, 173-201; McCabe, D.P. and Castel, A.D. (2008) Seeing is believing: the effect of brain images on judgments of scientific reasoning. Cognition, 107, 343-352; Morse, S.J. (2006) Brain Overclaim Syndrome and Criminal Responsibility: A Diagnostic Note. Ohio State J. Crim., L 3, 397-412; Roskies, A. (2008) Neuroimaging and inferential distance. Neuroethics, 1, 19-30.
13. Tancredi, L.R. and Brodie, J.D. (2007) The Brain and Behavior: Limitations in the Legal Use of Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Am. J. LawMed., 33, 271-294.
14. Gazzaniga, M.S. and Steven, M.S. (2004) Free Will in the 21st Century: a discussion of neuroscience and the law. In B. Garland (ed.) Neuroscience and the Law: Brain, Mind and the Scales of Justice, New York: Dana Press pp. 51-70;
15. Morse, S.J. (2006) Brain Overclaim Syndrome and Criminal Responsibility: A Diagnostic Note. Ohio State J. Crim. Law, 3, 397-412;
16. Morse, S.J. (2004) New Neuroscience, Old Problems. In B. Garland (ed.) Neuroscience and the Law: Brain, Mind and the Scales of Justice, New York: Dana Press pp. 157-198.
17. Greene, J. and Cohen, J. (2004) For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci., 359, 1775-1785.
18. O'Hara, E.A. (2004) How neuroscience might advance the law. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci., 359, 1677-1684
19. Silva, J.A. (2009) Forensic Psychiatry, Neuroscience and the Law. J. Am. Acad. Psychiatry Law, 37, 489-502.
20. Fed. R. Evid. 401; Oregon Revised Statutes § 40.150 (2009).
21. Fed. R. Evid. 403; Oregon Revised Statutes § 40.160 (2009).
22. Frye v. US (1923) 293 F. 1013, 1014 (DC Cir. 1923).
23. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical Inc. (1993) 509 U.S. 579.
24. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael (1999) 526 US 137, 149 (quoting Daubert at 592).
25. Redding, R.E. (2006) The Brain-Disordered Defendant: Neuroscience and Legal Insanity in the Twenty-First Century. American Univ. L. Rev., 56, 51-127; Reeves, D., Mills, M.J., Billick, S.B. and Brodie, J.D.(2003) Limitations of Brain Imaging in Forensic Psychiatry. J. Am. Acad. Psychiatry Law, 31, 89-96.
26. Patel, P., Meltzer, C.C., Mayberg, H.S. and Levine, K. (2007) The Role of Imaging in United States Courtrooms. Neuroimaging Clin. N. Am., 17, 557-567.
27. City of Tuscaloosa v. Harcros Chemical, Inc., 158 F.3d 548, 563 (11th Cir.).
28. Giorgi-Guarnieri, D., Janofsky, J., Keram, E., Lawsky, S., Merideth, P., Mossman, D., et al. (2002) AAPL practice guideline for forensic psychiatric evaluation of defendants raising the insanity defense. J. Am. Acad. Psychiatry Law, 30(2 Supp), S3-40 (p. S23).
29. Morse, S.J. (1984) Undiminished Confusion in Diminished Capacity. J. Crim. L. Criminology, 75(1), 1-55.
30. Morse, S.J. (2007) The Uneasy Entente Between Legal Insanity and Mens Rea: Beyond Clark v. Arizona. J. Crim. L. Criminology, 97(2), 1071-1149.
31. Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. §17 (1984); Clark v. Arizona (2006) 548 US 735. Restricting clinical opinion testimony on mens rea to the presentation of an insanity defense is Constitutional, however 'observation evidence' relevant to mens rea must always be admitted.
32. United States v. Pohlot, 827 F.2d 889 (3d Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1011 (1988).
33. Thus far prosecutors do not use neuroscience to establish mens rea or the capacity of a defendant to perform a criminal act, because it would require proving the content of a mental state, and implicates constitutional rights if mandatory neuroimaging were required. Ahroni, E., Funk, C., Sinnott-Armstrong, W. and Gazzaniga, M. (2008) Can Neurological Evidence Help Courts Assess Criminal Responsibility? Lessons from Law and Neuroscience. Ann.NY Acad. Sci., 1124, 145-160; Tovino, S. (2010) Regulating Neuroimaging. In M.J. Farah (ed.) Neuroethics: An Introduction with Readings. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press pp. 201- 210.
34. Melton, G.B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N.G. and Slobogin, C. (2007) Psychological Evaluations for the Courts: A Handbook for Mental Health Professionals and Lawyers. New York: The Guilford Press.
35. Slovenko, R. (2009) Psychiatry in Law/Law in Psychiatry. New York: Routledge pp. 227-228.
36. Melton, G.B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N.G. and Slobogin, C. (2007) Psychological Evaluations for the Courts: A Handbook for Mental Health Professionals and Lawyers. New York: The Guilford Press.
37. Ely, E. (1995) The Physiology of Insight. Psychiatric Times, 12, 9.
38. Farah, M.J. (ed.) (2010) Neuroethics: An Introduction with Readings. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; Silva, J.A. (2009) Forensic Psychiatry, Neuroscience and the Law. J. Am. Acad. Psychiatry Law, 37, 489-502.
39. Ahroni, E., Funk, C., Sinnott-Armstrong, W. and Gazzaniga, M. (2008) Can Neurological Evidence Help Courts Assess Criminal Responsibility? Lessons from Law and Neuroscience. Ann. NY Acad. Sci., 1124, 145-160.
40. Gazzaniga, M.S. and Steven, M.S. (2005) Neuroscience and the Law. Sci. Am. Mind, 42-45; Grafton, S.T., Sinnott-Armstrong, W.P., Gazzaniga, S.I. and Gazzaniga, M.S. (2006) Brain Scans go Legal. Sci. Am. Mind, 30-37.
41. Batts, S. (2009) Brain Lesions and Their Implications in Criminal Responsibility. Behav. Sci. Law, 27, 261-272.
42. President's Council on Bioethics Staff (2010) An Overview of the Impact of Neuroscience Evidence in Criminal Law. In M.J. Farah (ed.) Neuroethics: An Introduction with Readings. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press pp. 220-231.
43. A search was conducted on Westlaw for cases using terms including: 'diminished capacity,' 'neuroimage,' 'PET scan,' 'SPECT scan,' and 'MRI scan.'
44. US v Mezvinsky (2002) 206 F.Supp.2d 661, 669-76 (ED Pa 2002). Mezvinsky asserted that his bipolar disorder and previous use of Lariam (an antimalarial medication) contributed to his inability to form specific intent, contentions that were discounted by the trial judge after a four-day evidentiary hearing.
45. US v Mezvinsky (2002) 206 F.Supp.2d 661, 674 (ED Pa 2002).
46. People v. Ford (2005) WL 236487 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005).
47. People v. Ford (2005) WL 236487 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005).
48. People v. Ford (2005) WL 236487, 5 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005).
49. Lasden, M. (2004) Mr Chiesa's Brain: Can High-Tech Scans Prove that Criminal Acts are the Result of a Damaged Brain? Calif. Lawyer, 26-30, 61-63.
50. Lasden, M. (2004) Mr Chiesa's Brain: Can High-Tech Scans Prove that Criminal Acts are the Result of a Damaged Brain? Calif. Lawyer, 26-30, 61-63.
51. People v. Protsman (2001) 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 819.
52. People v. Protsman (2001) 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 819, 821.
53. Commonwealth v. Yancy (2003) 440 Mass, 234.
54. Commonwealth v. Yancy (2003) 440 Mass, 234, 241.
55. Commonwealth v. Yancy (2003) 440 Mass, 234, 242.
56. Commonwealth v. Yancy (2003) 440 Mass, 234, 244.
57. People v. Jones (1994) 210 A.D.2d 904 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994).
58. Trapp v. Spencer (2007) 470 F.3d 53 (1st Cir. 2007).
59. Trapp v. Spencer (2007) 470 F.3d 53, 57 (1st Cir. 2007).
60. People v. Coombs (2004) 43 Cal. 4th 821 (Cal. 2004).
61. People v. Coombs (2004) 43 Cal. 4th 821, 851 (Cal. 2004).
62. People v. Yum (2003) 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 855 (Cal Ct. App 2003).
63. People v. Yum (2003) 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 855, 857 (Cal Ct. App 2003).
64. People v. Yum (2003) 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 855, 857 (Cal Ct. App 2003).
65. State v. Marshall (2001) 27 P.3d 192 (Wa. 2001).
66. State v. Marshall (2001) 27 P.3d 192, 200 (Wa. 2001).
67. State v. Marshall (2001) 27 P.3d 192, 196 (Wa. 2001). Note that experts testified to multiple impairments in this case, including 'organic brain damage', 'atrophy in the temporal and frontal lobes', low IQ testing scores, abnormalities on neuropsychological testing and previously diagnosed bipolar disorder, schizophrenia and depression with psychotic features.
68. US v. Erskine (1978) 588 F.2d 721 (9th Cir. 1978).
69. US v. Erskine (1978) 588 F.2d 721, 723 (9th Cir. 1978).
70. US v. Aramony (1996) 88 F.3d 1369 (4th Cir. 1996); Miller, B. (1994) Brain Atrophy Raised in United Way Case. The Washington Post, December 10; Sinclair, M. (2002) William AramonyIs Back On the Streets. The Non-Profit Times, March 1, available at http://www.nptimes.com/ Mar02/npt2.html. Accessed May 22, 2011.
71. President's Council on Bioethics Staff (2010) An Overview of the Impact of Neuroscience Evidence in Criminal Law. In M.J. Farah (ed.) Neuroethics: An Introduction with Readings. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press pp. 220-231.
72. Jackson v. Calderon (2000) 211 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2000).
73. Cal. Penal Code, Section 28(a).
74. Jackson v. Calderon (2000) 211 F.3d 1148, 1165 (9th Cir. 2000).
75. Jackson v. Calderon (2000) 211 F.3d 1148, 1165 (9th Cir. 2000).
76. State v. Johnson (2009) 208 P.3d 1265 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
77. State v. Johnson (2009) 208 P.3d 1265, 1271 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
78. State v. Holmes (2009) 5 So.3d 42 (La. 2009).
79. The trial court excluded this testimony during the guilt phase of the trial, holding that the defendant could not present evidence of a mental defect unless dually pleading not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity, as diminished mental capacity was not a recognized defense in Louisiana.
80. State v. Holmes (2009) 5 So.3d 42, 46 (La. 2009).
81. State v. Holmes (2009) 5 So.3d 42, 48 (La. 2009).
82. US v. Sandoval-Mendoza (2006) 472 F.3d 645 (9th Cir. 2006).
83. US v. Sandoval-Mendoza (2006) 472 F.3d 645, 653 (9th Cir. 2006).
84. US v. Sandoval-Mendoza (2006) 472 F.3d 645, 654 (9th Cir. 2006).
85. US v. Sandoval-Mendoza (2006) 472 F.3d 645, 655 (9th Cir. 2006).
86. Burns, J.M. and Swerdlow, R.H. (2003) Right Orbitofrontal Tumor with Pedophilia Symptom and Constructional Apraxia Sign. Arch. Neurol., 60, 437-440; Mobbs, D., Lau, H.C., Jones, O.D. and Frith, C.D. (2007) Law, Responsibility and the Brain. PLOS Biology, 5(4), 693- 700.
87. Seiden, J.A. (2004) The Criminal Brain: Frontal Lobe Dysfunction Evidence in Capital Proceedings. Cap. Defense J., 16(2), 395-420; Sinnott-Armstrong,W., Roskies, A., Brown, T. and Murphy, E. (2008) Brain Images as Legal Evidence. Episteme, 5, 359-373.
88. People v. Weinstein (1992) 591 N.Y.S.2d 715 (N.Y. 1992).
89. People v. Weinstein (1992) 591 N.Y.S.2d 715, 725 (N.Y. 1992).
90. Melton, G.B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N.G. and Slobogin, C. (2007) Psychological Evaluations for the Courts: A Handbook for Mental Health Professionals and Lawyers. New York: The Guilford Press.
91. US v Mezvinsky (2002) 206 F.Supp.2d 661, 669-76 (ED Pa 2002).
92. Acker, J.R. and Lanier, C.S. (1994) In Fairness and Mercy: Statutory Mitigating Factors in Capital Punishment Laws. Crim. L. Bull., 30(4), 299-345.
93. Atkins v. Virginia (2002) 536 US 304.
94. Roper v. Simmons (2005) 543 US 551.
95. Lockett v. Ohio (1978) 438 US 589.
96. Eddings v. Oklahoma (1982) 455 US 104.
97. 18 U.S.C. §3592(a-c) (2006).
98. Kansas v. Marsh (2006) 548 US 163; Slovenko, R. (2009) Psychiatry in Law/Law in Psychiatry. New York: Routledge p. 228.
99. Melton, G.B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N.G. and Slobogin, C. (2007) Psychological Evaluations for the Courts: A Handbook for Mental Health Professionals and Lawyers. New York: The Guilford Press p. 288.
100. Slovenko, R. (2000) Psychiatric Opinion without Examination. J. Psychiatry Law, 28, 103-143.
101. Melton, G.B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N.G. and Slobogin, C. (2007) Psychological Evaluations for the Courts: A Handbook for Mental Health Professionals and Lawyers. New York: The Guilford Press.
102. Garvey, S.P. (1998) Aggravation and Mitigation in Capital Cases: What do Jurors Think? Columb. L. Rev., 98, 1538-1576.
103. Snead, O.C. (2007) Neuroimaging and the "Complexity" of Capital Punishment. NY Univ. L. Rev., 82(5), 1265-1339.
104. Edersheim, J.G. and Beck, J.C. (2005) Commentary: Expert Testimony as a Potential Asset in Defense of Capital Sentencing Cases. J. Am. Acad. Psychiatry Law, 33, 519-522.
105. Garvey, S.P. (1998) Aggravation and Mitigation in Capital Cases: What do Jurors Think? Columb. L. Rev., 98, 1538-1576.
106. Gurley, J.R. and Marcus, D.K. (2008) The Effects of Neuroimaging and Brain Injury on Insanity Defenses. Behav. Sci. Law, 26, 85-97.
107. Kulynych, J. (1997) Psychiatric Neuroimaging Evidence: A High-Tech Crystal Ball? Stan. L. Rev., 49(5), 1249-1270.
108. Blume, J.H., Johnson, S.L. and Sundby, S.E. (2008) Competent Capital Representation: The Necessity of Knowing and Heeding What Jurors Tell Us About Mitigation. Hofstra L. Rev., 36, 1035-1066.
109. Snead, O.C. (2007) Neuroimaging and the "Complexity" of Capital Punishment. NY Univ. L. Rev., 82(5), 1265-1339.
110. Seiden, J.A. (2004) The Criminal Brain: Frontal Lobe Dysfunction Evidence in Capital Proceedings. Cap. Defense J., 16(2), 395-342.
111. World Health Organization (1992) Manual of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Injuries, and Causes of Death. Vol. 1, 10th revision.
112. American Psychiatric Association (2000) DSM-IV-TR: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition, text revision. Washington, D.C.
113. Redding, R.E. (2006) The Brain-Disordered Defendant: Neuroscience and Legal Insanity in the Twenty-First Century. Am. Univ. L. Rev., 56, 110; Uttal, W.R. (2001) The New Phrenology: The Limits of Localizing Cognitive Processes In the Brain. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
114. Hoskins v. State (1997) 702 So.2d 202 (Fla. 1997).
115. Hoskins v. State (1999) 735 So.2d 1281 (Fla. 1999).
116. People v. Morgan (1999) 719 N.E.2d 681 (Ill. 1999).
117. People v. Morgan (1999) 719 N.E.2d 681, 695 (Ill. 1999).
118. People v. Holt (1997) 15 Cal.4th 619 (Cal. 1997).
119. People v. Holt (1997) 15 Cal.4th 619, 646 (Cal. 1997).
120. People v. Holt (1997) 15 Cal.4th 619, 648 (Cal. 1997).
121. Sexton v. State (2000) 775 So.2d 923 (Fla. 2000).
122. Sexton v. State (2000) 775 So.2d 923, 936 (Fla. 2000).
123. Sexton v. State (2000) 775 So.2d 923, 936 (Fla. 2000).
124. Cooper v. State (1999) 739 So.2d 82 (Fla, 1999).
125. Cooper v. State (1999) 739 So.2d 82, 87 (Fla, 1999).
126. Ahroni, E., Funk, C., Sinnott-Armstrong, W. and Gazzaniga, M. (2008) Can Neurological Evidence Help Courts Assess Criminal Responsibility? Lessons from Law and Neuroscience. Ann. NY Acad. Sci., 1124, 145-160.
127. State v. Reid (2006) 213 S.W.3d 792 (Tenn. 2006).
128. Rogers v. State (2001) 783 So.2d 980 (Fla. 2001).
129. Rogers v. State (2001) 783 So.2d 980, 997 (Fla. 2001).
130. Ex parte Simpson (2004) 136 S.W.3d 660 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004).
131. Gill v. State (2009) 14 So.3d 946 (Fla. 2009).
132. Gill v. State (2009) 14 So.3d 946, 964 (Fla. 2009).
133. Gill v. State (2009) 14 So.3d 946, 957(Fla. 2009).
134. McNamara v. Borg (1991) 923 F.2d 862 (9th Cir. 1991); President's Council on Bioethics Staff (2010) An Overview of the Impact of Neuroscience Evidence in Criminal Law. In M.J. Farah (ed.) Neuroethics: An Introduction with Readings. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press pp. 220-231.
135. Lasden, M. (2004) Mr Chiesa's Brain: Can High-Tech Scans Prove that Criminal Acts are the Result of a Damaged Brain? Calif. Lawyer, 26-30, 61-63; President's Council on Bioethics Staff (2010) An Overview of the Impact of Neuroscience Evidence in Criminal Law. In M.J. Farah (ed.) Neuroethics: An Introduction with Readings. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press pp. 220-231.
136. US v. Battle (2003) 264 F.Supp.2d 1088 (N.D. Ga. 2003).
137. US v. Battle (2003) 264 F.Supp.2d 1088, 1167 (N.D. Ga. 2003).
138. Benjamin, C. (1998) Natural Born Killer? Las Vegas Rev. J., August 30; Farah, M.J. (2010) Neuroethics: An Introduction with Readings. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
139. Stewart v. State (2010) 37 So.3d 243 (Fla. 2010).
140. Stewart v. State (2010) 37 So.3d 243, 249 (Fla. 2010).
141. State v. Mercer (2009) 672 S.E.2d 556 (S.C. 2009).
142. Ferrell v. State (2005) 918 So.2d 163 (Fla. 2005).
143. Robinson v. State (1999) 761 So.2d 269 (Fla. 1999).
144. Robinson v. State (1999) 761 So.2d 269, 272 (Fla. 1999).
145. Robinson v. State (1999) 761 So.2d 269, 276 (Fla. 1999).
146. Robinson v. State (1999) 761 So.2d 269, 276 n.8 (Fla. 1999).
147. Efron, S. (1999) Judge OK's UCI Brain Scan of Ramon Salcido. Los Angeles Times, October 12: Metro 1.
148. Schoenwetter v. State (2010) 46 So.3d 535 (Fla. 2010).
149. Bottoson v. State (2002) 813 So.2d 31 (Fla. 2002).
150. Bottoson v. State (2002) 813 So.2d 31, 34 n.4 (Fla. 2002).
151. US v. Battle (2003) 264 F.Supp.2d 1088 (N.D. Ga. 2003); Ferrell v State (2005) 918 So.2d 163 (Fla. 2005); Stewart v. State (2010) 37 So.3d 243 (Fla. 2010).
152. Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 US 668.
153. Roper v. Simmons (2005) 543 US 551.
154. Snead, O.C. (2007) Neuroimaging and the "Complexity" of Capital Punishment. NY Univ. L. Rev., 82(5), 1265-1339.
155. Snead, O.C. (2007) Neuroimaging and the "Complexity" of Capital Punishment. NY Univ. L. Rev., 82(5), 1265-1339.
156. Felix, N. and Wolbert, R. (2007) Intoxication and Settled Insanity: A Finding of Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity. J. Am. Acad. Psychiatry Law, 35, 172-182.
157. Marlowe, D.B., Lambert, J.B. and Thompson, R.G. (1999) Voluntary Intoxication and Criminal Responsibility. Behav. Sci. Law, 17(2), 195-217.
158. Seiden, J.A. (2004) The Criminal Brain: Frontal Lobe Dysfunction Evidence in Capital Proceedings. Cap. Defense J., 16(2), 395-420.
159. Farahany, N.A., Greely, H.T. and Coleman, J.E. (2009) Genetics, Neuroscience, and Criminal Responsibility. In N.A. Farahany (ed.) The Impact of Behavioral Sciences on Criminal Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press pp. 183-214.
160. People v. Mertz (2006) 842 N.E. 2d 618, 666 (Ill. App. 2006).
161. Everitt, B.J., Dickinson, A. and Robbins, T.W. (2001) The neuropsychological basis of addictive behavior. Brain Res. Rev., 36, 129-138.
162. Lubman, D.I., Yucel, M. and Pantelis, C. (2004) Addiction, a Condition of Compulsive Behavior? Neuroimaging and Neuropsychological Evidence of Inhibitory Dysregulation. Addiction, 99, 1491-1502.
163. Goldstein, R.Z. and Volkow, N.D. (2002) Drug Addiction and Its Underlying Neurobiological Basis: Neuroimaging Evidence for the Involvement of the Frontal Cortex. Am. J. Psychiatry, 159, 1642-1652.
164. Kalivas, P.W. and Volkow, N.D. (2005) The Neural Basis of Addiction: A Pathology of Motivation and Choice. Am. J. Psychiatry, 162(8), 1403-1413.
165. Hyman, S.E. (2010) The Neurobiology of Addiction: Implications for the Control of Voluntary Behavior. In M.J. Farah (ed.) Neuroethics: An Introduction with Readings. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press pp. 259-267.
166. Morse, S.J. (2009) Addiction, Science and Criminal Responsibility. In N.A. Farahany (ed.) The Impact of Behavioral Sciences on Criminal Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press pp. 277.
167. Morse, S.J. (2009) Addiction, Science and Criminal Responsibility. In N.A. Farahany (ed.) The Impact of Behavioral Sciences on Criminal Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press pp. 241- 289.
168. Greely, H.T. (2004) Prediction, Litigation, Privacy and Property: Some Possible Legal and Social Implications of Advances in Neuroscience. In B. Garland (ed.) Neuroscience and the Law: Brain, Mind and the Scales of Justice. New York: Dana Press pp. 114-156.
169. Kiehl, K.A. (2006) A Cognitive Neuroscience Perspective on Psychopathy: Evidence for Paralimbic System Dysfunction. Psychiatry Res., 142, 107-128; Kiehl, K.A., Bates, A.T., Laurens, K.R., Hare, R.D. and Liddle, P.F. (2006) Brain Potentials Implicate Temporal Lobe Abnormalities in Criminal Psychopaths. J. Abnormal. Psychol., 115(3), 443-453.
170. Gao, Y., Glenn, A.L., Schug, R.A., Yang, Y. and Raine, A.R. (2009) The Neurobiology of Psychopathy: A Neurodevelopmental Perspective. Can. J. Psychiatry, 54(12), 815.
171. Pustilnick, A.C. (2009) Violence on the Brain: A Critique of Neuroscience in Criminal Law.Wake Forest L. Rev., 44, 183-237; Redding, R.E. (2006) The Brain-Disordered Defendant: Neuroscience and Legal Insanity in the Twenty-First Century. Am. Univ. L. Rev., 56, 51-127.
172. Fabian, J.M. (2009) Forensic Neuropsychological Assessment and Death Penalty Litigation. Champion, 33, 24-34.
173. Gutowski, C. (2009) Judge to Decide Whether Dugan Jury Will Hear Controversial Science.Daily Herald, October 27; Gutowski, C. (2009) Dugan Doc: Brain Testimony Not "Junk Science," Daily Herald, November 4.
174. Gutowski, C. (2009) Strange Mind of A Killer: Researcher Says Dugan Rare Psychopath. Daily Herald, November 6.
175. Miller, G. (2009) fMRI Evidence Used in Murder Sentencing. Science Insider, available at http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/11/fmri-evidence-u.html. Accessed May 22, 2011.
176. Jones, O.D., Buckholtz, J.W., Schall, J.D. and Marois, R. (2009) Brain Imaging for Legal Thinkers: A Guide for the Perplexed. Stan. Tech. L. Rev., 5. Available at http://stlr.stanford.edu/ pdf/jones-brain-imaging.pdf. Accessed May 22, 2011.