Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-14T06:45:15.563Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2007

Neal Feigenson
Neal Feigenson*
Affiliation:
Quinnipiac University School of Law
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is currently the most advanced technique for measuring and depicting brain function. Functional MRI studies abound in neuroscience, psychiatry and psychology. Inevitably, fMRI-based evidence will be offered in court as proof of matters involving parties’ mental states and capabilities. This paper analyses the likely admissibility of fMRI testimony and images. Cases involving other types of functional neuroimaging (PET and SPECT), which may shed light on judges’ receptivity to fMRI evidence, are briefly surveyed. The conceptual and methodological underpinnings of fMRI are then explored, prompting basic questions about the evidentiary reliability and relevance of fMRI results. The first reported case involving fMRI evidence, which raises several of these questions, is described. Finally, the admissibility and probative value of the fMRI images themselves are discussed. Assuming that the expert testimony that the images are offered to illustrate is admissible, it is argued that the law can obtain the benefits of fMRI science while minimising the judgmental risks by allowing triers of fact to see the images and encouraging experts and lawyers to educate the triers to interpret the images properly.

Type
Research Article
Information
International Journal of Law in Context , Volume 2 , Issue 3 , September 2006 , pp. 233 - 255
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baar, Karen (2006) ‘Jurors, Spoiled by TV Dramas, Are Saying, “Show Me the DNA Evidence” ’, Quinnipiac Law 12(1): 17–21.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Beckman, Mary (2004) ‘Crime, Culpability, and the Adolescent Brain’, Science 305: 596–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bennett, M. R. and Hacker, P. M. S. (2003) Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, Margaret A. (1992) ‘When, If Ever, Does Evidentiary Error Constitute Reversible Error?’, Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 25: 893–908.Google Scholar
Berry v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 709 So. 2d 552 (Fla. App. 1998).Google Scholar
Blodgett-McDeavitt v. University of Nebraska, 2004 Neb. App. LEXIS 329.Google Scholar
Bolter, Jay David and Grusin, Richard (1999) Remediation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, Benedict (2005) ‘Can Brain Scans See Depression?’, The New York Times, sec. F: 1, 6 (18 October).Google Scholar
Caudill, David S. (2001) ‘Law and Science: An Essay on Links and Socio-Natural Hybrids’, Syracuse Law Review 51: 841–62.Google Scholar
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).Google Scholar
Commonwealth v. Frangipane, 433 Mass. 527 (2001).Google Scholar
Constable, R. Todd (2006) Private communications between Co-Director, Yale Magnetic Resonance Research Center and author (3 February, 13 April).Google Scholar
Craig v. Orkin Exterminating Co., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19240.Google Scholar
Daston, Lorraine and Galison, Peter (1992) ‘The Image of Objectivity’, Representations 40: 81–128.Google Scholar
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993), on remand, 43 F.3d 1311 (9th Cir. 1995).Google Scholar
Davis, Kenneth (1942). ‘An Approach to Problems of Evidence in the Administrative Process’, Harvard Law Review 55: 364–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dumit, Joseph (2004) Picturing Personhood. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eberhardt, Jennifer L. (2005) ‘Imaging Race’, American Psychologist 60: 181–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elam v. Lincoln Electric Co., 362 Ill. App. 3d 884 (2005).Google Scholar
Entertainment Software Association et al. v. Blagojevich (2005a), 404 F. Supp. 2d 1051 (N.D. Ill.).Google Scholar
Entertainment Software Association et al. v. Blagojevich (2005b), case no. 05 C 4265 (N.D. Ill.) (transcript of hearing on preliminary injunction (14–15 November).Google Scholar
Entertainment Software Association et al. v. Granholm, 404 F. Supp. 2d 978 (E.D. Mich. 2005) (preliminary injunction), case no. 05-73634 (filed 31 March 2006) (permanent injunction).Google Scholar
Falksen v. Secretary of Department of Health and Human Services, 2004 U.S. Claims LEXIS 74.Google Scholar
Fallow, Katherine (2005) Private communication between attorney for plaintiffs in Entertainment Software Association cases and author (23 December).Google Scholar
Federal Rules of Evidence (2006). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.Google Scholar
Feria v. Dyangraphics Co., 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 2366.Google Scholar
Friedrich v. Intel Corp., 181 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 1999).Google Scholar
Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).Google Scholar
Galison, Peter (1997) Image and Logic. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
General Electric v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997).Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles (1994) ‘Professional Vision’, American Anthropologist 96: 606–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Green v. K-Mart Corp., 849 So. 2d 814 (La. App. 2003).Google Scholar
Greene, Joshua (2003) ‘From Neural “Is” to Moral “Ought”: What Are the Moral Implications of Neuroscientific Moral Psychology?’, Nature Reviews: Neuroscience 4: 847–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hacking, Ian (1983) Representing and Intervening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halfon, Saul (1988) ‘Collecting, Testing and Convincing: Forensic DNA Experts in the Courts’, Social Studies of Science 28: 801–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrington v. State of Iowa, 659 N.W.2d 509 (Iowa Sup. Ct. 2003).Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heeger, David J. and Ress, David (2002) ‘What Does fMRI Tell Us About Neuronal Activity?’, Nature Reviews: Neuroscience 3: 142–51.Google ScholarPubMed
Henson, R. (2005) ‘What Can Functional Neuroimaging Tell the Experimental Psychologist?’, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A 58: 193–233.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoffmann, Roald and Laszlo, Pierre (1989) ‘Representation in Chemistry’, Diogenes 147: 23–51.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Hose v. Chicago Northwestern Transp. Co., 70 F.3d 698 (8th Cir. 1995).Google Scholar
Huettel, Scott A., Song, Allen W. and McCarthy, Gregory (2004) Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, Inc.Google ScholarPubMed
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.Google Scholar
Illes, Judy and Racine, Eric (2005) ‘Imaging or Imagining? A Neuroethics Challenge Informed by Genetics’, American Journal of Bioethics 5(2): 1–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
In re Guardianship of Schiavo, 2005 WL 465405 (Fla. Cir. Ct.).Google Scholar
Jarvik, Elaine (2004) ‘Group Fighting Porn – Via MRIs’, Deseret Morning News, p. xx (5 May).Google Scholar
Jackson v. Calderon, 211 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2000).Google Scholar
Jasanoff, Sheila (1993) ‘What Judges Should Know About the Sociology of Science’, Judicature 77: 77–82.Google Scholar
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).Google Scholar
Kevles, Bettyann (1997) Naked to the Bone. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Kosslyn, Stephen M. (1994) Image and Brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kulynych, Jennifer (1997) ‘Psychiatric Neuroimaging Evidence: A High-tech Crystal Ball?’, Stanford Law Review 49: 1249–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LaMasa v. Bachman, 2005 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1164.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Latour, Bruno (1987) Science in Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno (1999) Pandora’s Hope. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno and Woolgar, Steve (1986) Laboratory Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, Tatia M. C., LiuHo-Ling, Tan 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mauet, Thomas A. and Wolfson, Warren D. (2005) Trial Evidence. New York: Aspen (revised edn).Google Scholar
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).Google Scholar
Mnookin, Jennifer (2003) ‘Fingerprints: Not a Gold Standard’, Issues in Science and Technology 20: 47–54.Google Scholar
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).Google Scholar
Morse, Stephen (2004) ‘New Neuroscience, Old Problems’ in Garland, Brent (ed.) Neuroscience and the Law. New York: Dana Press, pp. 157–98.Google Scholar
Mueller, Christopher B. and Kirkpatrick, Laird C. (2003) Evidence. New York: Aspen (3rd edn).Google ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nisbett, Richard and Ross, Lee (1980) Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997).Google Scholar
Palmer, Stephen E. (1999) Vision Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
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).Google Scholar
Penney v. Praxair, Inc., 116 F.3d 330 (8th Cir. 1997).Google Scholar
People v. Protsman, 88 Cal. App. 4th 509 (2001).Google Scholar
People v. Weinstein, 591 N.Y.S.2d 715 (Sup. Ct. 1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
People v. Williams, 2004 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 3213 (Ct. App. 2004).Google Scholar
People v. Yum, 111 Cal. App. 4th 635 (2003).Google Scholar
PET Scans Advance As Tool in Insanity Defense (1993), Journal of Nuclear Medicine 34(1): 13N–16N, 25N–26N.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Podlas, Kimberlane (2006) ‘ “The CSI Effect”: Exposing the Media Myth’, Fordham Intellectual Property, Media, and Entertainment Law Journal 16: 429–65.Google Scholar
Podolski, Lisa and Feigenson, Neal (in press) ‘Digitally Processed Images in Connecticut After Swinton’, Connecticut Trial Lawyers Association Forum.Google Scholar
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).Google Scholar
Prince v. Thomas, 25 F. Supp. 2d 1045 (N.D. Cal. 1997).Google Scholar
Rhilinger v. Jancsics, 8 Mass. L. Rep. 373 (Super. Ct. 1998).Google Scholar
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).Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005); Brief for Respondent, 2004 U.S. Supreme Court Briefs LEXIS 559; Brief Amicus Curiae of the American Bar Association, 2004 U.S. Supreme Court Briefs LEXIS 425.Google Scholar
Saks, Michael J. and Koehler, Jonathan J. (2005) ‘The Coming Paradigm Shift in Forensic Identification Science’, Science 309: 892–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Siebert v. Standard Insurance Co., 220 F. Supp. 2d 1128 (C.D. Cal. 2002).Google Scholar
Smith, Vicki (1991) ‘Prototypes in the Courtroom: Lay Representations of Legal Concepts’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 61: 857–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Vicki (1993) ‘When Prior Knowledge and Law Collide: Helping Jurors Use the Law’, Law and Human Behavior 17: 507–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google ScholarPubMed
State of Delaware v. Red Dog, 1993 Del. Super. LEXIS 93.Google Scholar
State of Connecticut v. Swinton, 268 Conn. 781 (2004).Google Scholar
Stockwell, Jamie (2005) ‘Defense, Prosecution Play to New “CSI” Savvy’, The Washington Post, p. A1 (22 May).Google Scholar
Tancredi, Laurence (2004) ‘Neuroscience Developments and the Law’ in Garland, Brent (ed.) Neuroscience and the Law. New York: Dana Press, pp. 71–113.Google Scholar
United States v. Gigante, 982 F. Supp. 140 (E.D.N.Y. 1997).Google Scholar
United States v. Hinckley, 525 F. Supp. 1324 (D.D.C. 1981).Google Scholar
United States v. Mezvinsky, 206 F. Supp. 2d 661 (E.D. Pa. 2002).Google Scholar
United States v. Seifert, 351 F. Supp. 2d 926 (D. Minn. 2005).Google Scholar
Vidmar, Neil and Diamond, Shari (2001) ‘Juries and Expert Evidence’, Brooklyn Law Review 66: 1121–80.Google Scholar
Video Software Dealers Association et al. v. Maleng, 325 F. Supp. 2d 1180 (W.D. Wash. 2004).Google Scholar
Video Software Dealers Association et al. v. Schwarzenegger, 401 F. Supp. 2d 1034 (N.D. Cal. 2005).Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed