Law Commons^™

Brain Scans As Evidence: Truths, Proofs, Lies, And Lessons, Owen D. Jones, Francis X. Shen

Owen Jones

This contribution to the Brain Sciences in the Courtroom Symposium identifies and discusses issues important to admissibility determinations when courts confront brain-scan evidence. Through the vehicle of the landmark 2010 federal criminal trial U.S. v. Semrau (which considered, for the first time, the admissibility of brain scans for lie detection purposes) this article highlights critical evidentiary issues involving: 1) experimental design; 2) ecological and external validity; 3) subject compliance with researcher instructions; 4) false positives; and 5) drawing inferences about individuals from group data. The article’s lessons are broadly applicable to the new wave of neurolaw cases now being seen …

The Forensic Community Can Educate Lawyers, Judges, Robert M. Sanger

Robert M. Sanger

Cell Phones, Brain Cancer, And Scientific Outliers In Murray V. Motorola, David H. Kaye

David Kaye

Pending before the District of Columbia's highest court in a case asking whether cell phones can cause cancer is whether to replace the jurisdiction's venerable Frye standard for reviewing the admissibility of scientific evidence with the approach adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow. The author analyzes one aspect of the two evidentiary standards that leads him to question the trial judge's suggestion in Murray v. Motorola that adopting the Daubert perspective would allow greater leeway in excluding the plaintiff's evidence.

Choice And Boundary Problems In Logerquist, Hummert, And Kumho Tire, David H. Kaye

David Kaye

This article, part of a symposium on the opinion of the Arizona Supreme Court in Logerquist v. McVey, questions that court’s rationales for refusing to apply heightened scrutiny to psychiatric testimony about the retrieval of repressed memories. It also challenges the court’s use of a “personal observations” exception to the heightened scrutiny standard of Frye v. United States. It proposes that a better solution to problems of scientific and expert evidence would be to adopt a sliding scale that attends to the use to which the evidence is put and the degree to which it has been shown to be …

Empiricism In Daubert And The California Supreme Court In Sargon, Robert Sanger

Robert M. Sanger

California has become a Daubert state. In Sargon v. The University of Southern California, the California Supreme Court held that judges are the “gatekeepers” with regard to expert or scientific evidence in this state, just as has been the case in the federal system (and many other states) since the decision in Daubert. Now that California is avowedly a Daubert state, it is important to understand why courtroom evidence – scientific, expert or, for that matter, otherwise – is properly grounded in empiricism. Empiricism is the theory that knowledge is derived from experience. Understanding this empirical basis for both Daubert …

Trances, Trials, And Tribulations; Symposium Comparing New York And Federal Evidence Law, Gary Shaw

Gary M. Shaw

A transcript of the author’s remarks at a 1994 symposium comparing New York and Federal Laws regarding hypnosis and witness testimony.

Kumho Tire Co. V. Carmichael: The Supreme Court Follows Up On The Daubert Test, Martin A. Schwartz

Martin A. Schwartz

No abstract provided.