Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Admissibility (1)
- Bioscience (1)
- Brain scans (1)
- Daubert (1)
- EEG (1)
-
- FMRI (1)
- Frye (1)
- Law and neuroscience (1)
- Law and neuroscience; psychology; neurolaw; criminal responsibility; tort liability; evidence; brain; fMRi; expert witnesses; neuroethics; sentencing (1)
- Law and the brain (1)
- Lie detection (1)
- Neurolaw (1)
- Neuroscience and law (1)
- Polygraph (1)
- Scientific evidence (1)
- Semrau (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Neuroscientists In Court, Owen D. Jones, Anthony D. Wagner, David L. Faigman, Marcus E. Raichle
Neuroscientists In Court, Owen D. Jones, Anthony D. Wagner, David L. Faigman, Marcus E. Raichle
Owen Jones
Neuroscientific evidence is increasingly being offered in court cases. Consequently, the legal system needs neuroscientists to act as expert witnesses who can explain the limitations and interpretations of neuroscientific findings so that judges and jurors can make informed and appropriate inferences. The growing role of neuroscientists in court means that neuroscientists should be aware of important differences between the scientific and legal fields, and, especially, how scientific facts can be easily misunderstood by non-scientists,including judges and jurors.
This article describes similarities, as well as key differences, of legal and scientific cultures. And it explains six key principles about neuroscience that …
Brain Scans As Evidence: Truths, Proofs, Lies, And Lessons, Owen D. Jones, Francis X. Shen
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 …