Brain imaging and courtroom evidence: On the admissibility and persuasiveness of fMRI

International Journal of Law in Context

Volumn 2, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 233-255

  Feigenson, Neal ^a  

^a QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85010693265     PISSN: 17445523     EISSN: 17445531     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S174455230600303X     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. Baar Karen (2006) ‘Jurors, Spoiled by TV Dramas, Are Saying, “Show Me the DNA Evidence” ’, Quinnipiac Law 12(1): 17–21.
2. Bastide Françoise (1988) ‘The Iconography of Scientific Texts: Principles of Analysis’ in Lynch Michael and Woolgar Steve (eds.) Representation in Scientific Practice. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, pp. 187–229.
3. Beckman Mary (2004) ‘Crime, Culpability, and the Adolescent Brain’, Science 305: 596–9.
4. Bennett M. R. and Hacker P. M. S. (2003) Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience. Oxford: Blackwell.
5. Ben-shakhar Gershon and Elaad Eitan (2003) ‘The Validity of Psychophysiological Detection of Information with the Guilty Knowledge Test: A Meta-analytic Review’, Journal of Applied Psychology 88: 131–51.
6. Berger Margaret A. (1992) ‘When, If Ever, Does Evidentiary Error Constitute Reversible Error?’, Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 25: 893–908.
7. Bolter Jay David and Grusin Richard (1999) Remediation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8. Brett Matthew, Johnsrude Ingrid S. and Owen Adrian M. (2002) ‘The Problem of Functional Localization in the Human Brain’, Nature Reviews: Neuroscience 3: 243–9.
9. Cacioppo John T., Bernston Gary G., Lorig Tyler S., Norris Catherine J., Rickett Edith and Nusbaum Howard (2003) ‘Just Because You're Imaging the Brain Doesn't Mean You Can Stop Using Your Head: A Primer and Set of First Principles’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85: 650–61.
10. Carey Benedict (2005) ‘Can Brain Scans See Depression?’, The New York Times, sec. F: 1, 6 (18 October).
11. Caudill David S. (2001) ‘Law and Science: An Essay on Links and Socio-Natural Hybrids’, Syracuse Law Review 51: 841–62.
12. Columbia University functional MRI (2005) ‘About functional MRI: The future role of functional MRI in medical applications’, http://www.fmri.org/fmri.htm (last visited 25 April 2006).
13. Constable R. Todd (2006) Private communications between Co-Director, Yale Magnetic Resonance Research Center and author (3 February, 13 April).
14. Daston Lorraine and Galison Peter (1992) ‘The Image of Objectivity’, Representations 40: 81–128.
15. Davis Kenneth (1942). ‘An Approach to Problems of Evidence in the Administrative Process’, Harvard Law Review 55: 364–425.
16. Diamond Shari and Casper Jonathan (1992) ‘Blindfolding the Jury to Verdict Consequences: Damages, Experts, and the Civil Jury’, Law and Society Review 26: 513–63.
17. Dumit Joseph (2004) Picturing Personhood. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
18. Eberhardt Jennifer L. (2005) ‘Imaging Race’, American Psychologist 60: 181–90.
19. Fallow Katherine (2005) Private communication between attorney for plaintiffs in Entertainment Software Association cases and author (23 December).
20. Galison Peter (1997) Image and Logic. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
21. Goodwin Charles (1994) ‘Professional Vision’, American Anthropologist 96: 606–33.
22. Greely Henry (2004) ‘Prediction, Litigation, Privacy, and Property: Some Possible Legal and Social Implications of Advances in Neuroscience’ in Garland Brent (ed.) Neuroscience and the Law. New York: Dana Press, 114–56.
23. Greene Joshua (2003) ‘From Neural “Is” to Moral “Ought”: What Are the Moral Implications of Neuroscientific Moral Psychology?’, Nature Reviews: Neuroscience 4: 847–50.
24. Greene Joshua, Sommerville R. Brian, Nystrom Leigh E., Darley John M. and Cohen Jonathan D. (2001) ‘An fMRI Investigation of Emotional Engagement in Moral Judgment’, Science 293: 2105–8.
25. Hacking Ian (1983) Representing and Intervening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26. Halfon Saul (1988) ‘Collecting, Testing and Convincing: Forensic DNA Experts in the Courts’, Social Studies of Science 28: 801–28.
27. Heeger David J., Huk Alex C., Geisler Wilson S. and Albrecht Duane G. (2000) ‘Spikes Versus BOLD: What Does Neuroimaging Tell Us About Neuronal Activity?’, Nature Neuroscience 3: 631–3.
28. Heeger David J. and Ress David (2002) ‘What Does fMRI Tell Us About Neuronal Activity?’, Nature Reviews: Neuroscience 3: 142–51.
29. Henson R. (2005) ‘What Can Functional Neuroimaging Tell the Experimental Psychologist?’, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A 58: 193–233.
30. Hoffmann Roald and Laszlo Pierre (1989) ‘Representation in Chemistry’, Diogenes 147: 23–51.
31. Honts Charles R., Raskin David C. and Kircher John C. (2002) ‘The Scientific Status of Research on Polygraph Techniques: The Case For Polygraph Tests’ in Faigman David, et al(eds.), Science in the Law: Forensic Science Issues. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing, 573–609.
32. Huettel Scott A., Song Allen W. and McCarthy Gregory (2004) Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, Inc.
33. Iacono William G. and Lykken David T. (2002) ‘The Scientific Status of Research on Polygraph Techniques: The Case Against Polygraph Tests’ in Faigman David, et al(eds.), Science in the Law: Forensic Science Issues. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing, 609–63.
34. Illes Judy and Racine Eric (2005) ‘Imaging or Imagining? A Neuroethics Challenge Informed by Genetics’, American Journal of Bioethics 5(2): 1–14.
35. Jarvik Elaine (2004) ‘Group Fighting Porn – Via MRIs’, Deseret Morning News, p. xx (5 May).
36. Jasanoff Sheila (1993) ‘What Judges Should Know About the Sociology of Science’, Judicature 77: 77–82.
37. Keckler Charles (2002) ‘Cross-examining the Brain: Legal Analysis of Neural Imaging for Credibility Impeachment’, George Mason University School of Law, Law and Economics Working Paper Series (available SSRN).
38. Kevles Bettyann (1997) Naked to the Bone. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
39. Kosslyn Stephen M. (1994) Image and Brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
40. Kulynych Jennifer (1997) ‘Psychiatric Neuroimaging Evidence: A High-tech Crystal Ball?’, Stanford Law Review 49: 1249–70.
41. Langleben D. D., Schroeder L., Maldjian A., Gur R., McDonald S., Ragland J. D., O'Brien C. P. and Childress A. R. (2002) ‘Brain Activity During Simulated Deception: An Event-related Functional Magnetic Resonance Study’, Neuroimage 15: 727–32.
42. Latour Bruno (1987) Science in Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
43. Latour Bruno (1999) Pandora's Hope. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
44. Latour Bruno and Woolgar Steve (1986) Laboratory Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
45. Lee Tatia M. C., Liu Ho-Ling, Tan, Li-hai Chan, Chetwyn C. H., Mahankali Srikanth, Feng Ching-Mei, Hou Jinwen, Fox Peter T. and Gao Jia-Hong (2002) ‘Lie Detection by Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging’, Human Brain Mapping 15: 157–64.
46. Mauet Thomas A. and Wolfson Warren D. (2005) Trial Evidence. New York: Aspen (revised edn).
47. Merlino Mara L., Murray Colleen I. and Richardson James T. (2005) ‘The Social Construction of the Admissibility of Toxicology, Damages, and Psychological/Psychiatric Testimony After Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc.’ (unpublished paper).
48. Mnookin Jennifer (2003) ‘Fingerprints: Not a Gold Standard’, Issues in Science and Technology 20: 47–54.
49. Mobbs Dean (2006) ‘The Implications of Brain Imaging Studies for the Law’, paper presented at Law, Mind and Brain interdisciplinary colloquium, University College London (13 February).
50. Morse Stephen (2004) ‘New Neuroscience, Old Problems’ in Garland Brent (ed.) Neuroscience and the Law. New York: Dana Press, pp. 157–98.
51. Mueller Christopher B. and Kirkpatrick Laird C. (2003) Evidence. New York: Aspen (3rd edn).
52. Mukamel Roy, Gelbard Hagar, Arieli Amos, Hasson Uri, Fried Itzhak and Malach Rafael (2005) ‘Coupling Between Neuronal Firing, Field Potentials, and fMRI in Human Auditory Cortex’, Science 309: 951–4.
53. Nisbett Richard and Ross Lee (1980) Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
54. Palmer Stephen E. (1999) Vision Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
55. Parry A. and Matthews P. M. (2002) ‘Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI): A “Window” Into the Brain’, http://www.fmrib.ox.ac.uk/fmri_intro/fmri_intro.php (last visited 25 April 2006).
56. PET Scans Advance As Tool in Insanity Defense (1993), Journal of Nuclear Medicine 34(1): 13N–16N, 25N–26N.
57. Phelps Elizabeth A. (1999) ‘Brain Versus Behavioral Studies of Cognition’ in Sternberg Robert (ed.) The Nature of Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 297–322.
58. Podlas Kimberlane (2006) ‘ “The CSI Effect”: Exposing the Media Myth’, Fordham Intellectual Property, Media, and Entertainment Law Journal 16: 429–65.
59. Podolski Lisa and Feigenson Neal (in press) ‘Digitally Processed Images in Connecticut After Swinton’, Connecticut Trial Lawyers Association Forum.
60. President's Council on Bioethics (2004) ‘An Overview of the Impact of Neuroscience Evidence in Criminal Law’, http://www.bioethics.gov/background/neuroscience_evidence.html (last visited 26 April 2006).
61. Robinson Richard (2004) ‘fMRI Beyond the Clinic: Will It Ever Be Ready for Prime Time?’, PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, 6(2), http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/ (last visited 26 April 2006).
62. Robinson Robert J., Keltner Dacher, Ward Andrew and Ross Lee (1995) ‘Actual Versus Assumed Differences in Construal: “Naïve Realism” in Intergroup Perception and Conflict’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 68: 404–17.
63. Saks Michael J. and Koehler Jonathan J. (2005) ‘The Coming Paradigm Shift in Forensic Identification Science’, Science 309: 892–5.
64. Sarter Martin, Bernston Gary G. and Cacioppo John T. (1996) ‘Brain Imaging and Cognitive Neuroscience: Toward Strong Inference in Attributing Function to Structure’, American Psychologist 51: 13–21.
65. Sherwin Richard, Feigenson Neal and Spiesel Christina (in press) ‘Law in the Digital Age: How Visual Communication Technologies are Transforming the Practice, Theory, and Teaching of Law’, Boston University Journal of Science and Technology Law.
66. Smith Vicki (1991) ‘Prototypes in the Courtroom: Lay Representations of Legal Concepts’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 61: 857–72.
67. Smith Vicki (1993) ‘When Prior Knowledge and Law Collide: Helping Jurors Use the Law’, Law and Human Behavior 17: 507–35.
68. Spence Sean A., Hunter Mike D., Farrow Tom T. D., Green Russell D., Leung David H., Hughes Catherine J. and Ganesan Venkatasubramanian (2004) ‘A Cognitive Neurobiological Account of Deception: Evidence from Functional Neuroimaging’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 359: 1755–62.
69. Stockwell Jamie (2005) ‘Defense, Prosecution Play to New “CSI” Savvy’, The Washington Post, p. A1 (22 May).
70. Tancredi Laurence (2004) ‘Neuroscience Developments and the Law’ in Garland Brent (ed.) Neuroscience and the Law. New York: Dana Press, pp. 71–113.
71. Vidmar Neil and Diamond Shari (2001) ‘Juries and Expert Evidence’, Brooklyn Law Review 66: 1121–80.
72. Wexler Bruce (2004) ‘Using fMRI to Study the Mind and Brain’ in Shulman Robert G. and Rothman Douglas L. (eds.) Brain Energetics and Neuronal Activity: Applications to fMRI and Medicine. New York: Wiley.
73. Willingham Daniel T. and Dunn Elizabeth W. (2003) ‘What Neuroimaging and Brain Localization Can Do, Cannot Do, and Should Not Do for Social Psychology’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85: 662–71.
74. Wolpe Paul, Foster Kenneth R. and Langleben Daniel D. (2005) ‘Emerging Neurotechnologies for Lie-detection: Promises and Perils’, American Journal of Bioethics, 5(2), 1–11.