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.
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $4.92 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Rent or Buy article
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
State of Florida v. Grady Nelson No. F05-00846 (11th Fla. Cir. Ct., 4 Dec 2010).
United States of America v. Lorne Allan Semrau 07–10074, opinion by Judge Pham. http://www.tnwd.uscourts.gov/JudgePham/opinions/659.pdf (2010).
Shen, F. X. & Jones, O. D. Brain scans as evidence: truth, proofs, lies and lessons. Mercer Law Rev. 62, 861–883 (2011).
Mackintosh, N. et al. Brain Waves 4: neuroscience and the law. The Royal Society [online], (2011).
Farahany, N. A. The Impact of Behavioral Sciences on the Criminal Law (Oxford Univ. Press, 2009).
Jones, O. D. & Shen, F. X. in International Neurolaw: a Comparative Analysis (ed. Spranger, T.) 349–380 (Springer, 2011).
Rosen, J. The brain on the stand. The New York Times (11 March 2007).
Davis, K. Brain trials: neuroscience is taking a stand in the courtroom. ABA J. (2012).
Morse, S. J. & Roskies, A. L. (eds) A Primer on Criminal Law and Neuroscience (Oxford Univ. Press, 2013).
Spranger, T. (ed). International Neurolaw: a Comparative Analysis (Springer, 2011).
Garland, B. Neuroscience and the Law: Brain, Mind, and The Scales of Justice (American Association for the Advancement of Science and Dana Press, 2004).
Freeman, M. D. A. & Goodenough, O. R. (eds) Law, Mind and Brain (Ashgate, 2009).
Zeki, S. & Goodenough, O. R. Law and the Brain (Oxford Univ. Press, 2006).
Jones, O. D., Buckholtz, J. W., Schall, J. D. & Marois, R. Brain imaging for legal thinkers: a guide for the perplexed. Stanford Technol. Law Rev. 5 (2009).
Greely, H. T. & Wagner, A. D. in Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence 3rd edn 747–812 (The National Academies, 2011).
Gazzaniga, M. S. The law and neuroscience. Neuron 60, 412–415 (2008).
Aharoni, E., Funk, C., Sinnott-Armstrong, W., Gazzangia, M. Can neurological evidence help courts assess criminal responsibility? Lessons from law and neuroscience. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 1124, 145–160 (2008).
Brown, T. & Murphy, E. Through a scanner darkly: functional neuroimaging as evidence of a criminal defendant's past mental states. Stanford Law Rev. 62, 1119–1208 (2010).
Buckholtz, J. W. & Marois, R. The roots of modern justice: cognitive and neural foundations of social norms and their enforcement. Nature Neurosci. 15, 655–661 (2013).
Jones, O. D. in Neurosciences and the Human Person: New Perspectives on Human Activities (eds Battro, A., Dehaene, S. & Singer, W.) (Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 2013).
Jones, O. D., Schall, J. D. & Shen, F. X. Law and Neuroscience (Aspen, in the press).
Farahany, N. A. Memories and lies in law (Presentation). Colloquium Law Neurosci. Crim. Justice (2013).
Greene, J. & Cohen, J. For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything. Phil. Trans. R Soc. Lond. B 359, 1775–1785 (2004).
Sapolsky, R. M. The frontal cortex and the criminal justice system. Phil. Trans. R Soc. Lond. B 359, 1787–1796 (2004).
Morse, S. J. in Law and Neuroscience: Current Legal Issues (ed. Freeman, M.) 529–562 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2010).
Morse, S. J. Avoiding irrational neurolaw exuberance: a plea for neuromodesty. Mercer Law Rev. 62, 837–859 (2011).
Jones, O. D. & Goldsmith, T. H. Law and behavioral biology. Columbia Law Rev. 105, 405–502 (2005).
Morse, S. J. Brain overclaim syndrome and criminal responsibility: a diagnostic note. Ohio State J. Crim. Law 3, 397–412 (2006).
Morse, S. J. Determinism and the death of folk psychology: two challenges to responsibility from neuroscience. Minnesota J. Law Sci. Technol. 9, 1–36 (2008).
Morse, S. J. New therapies, old problems, or, a plea for neuromodesty. AJOB Neurosci. 3, 60–64 (2012).
Morse, S. J. in Neuroimaging in Forensic Psychiatry: From the Clinic to the Courtroom (ed. Simpson, J. R.) 341–357 (Wiley-Blackwell, 2012).
Pustilnik, A. C. Violence on the brain: a critique of neuroscience in criminal law. Wake Forest Law Rev. 44, 183–237 (2009).
Opderbeck, D. W. The problem with neurolaw. Seton Hall Public Law Research Paper No. 2214601 (2013).
Pardo, M. S. & Patterson, D. Neuroscience evidence, legal culture, and criminal procedure. Am. J. Crim. Law 33, 301–337 (2006).
Pardo, M. S. & Patterson, D. Philosophical foundations of law and neuroscience. Univ. Illinois Law Rev. 2010, 1211–1250 (2010).
Pardo, M. S. & Patterson, D. More on the conceptual and the empirical: misunderstandings, clarifications, and replies. Neuroethics 4, 215–222 (2011).
Pardo, M. S. & Patterson, D. Minds, brains, and norms. Neuroethics 4, 179–190 (2011).
Pardo, M. S. & Patterson, D. in The Future of Punishment (ed. Nadelhoffer, T.) 133–154 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2013).
Weisberg, D. S., Keil, F. C., Goodstein, J., Rawson, E. & Gray, J. R. The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 20, 470–477 (2008).
Discover [online], (2013).
Uttal, W. R. The New Phrenology: the Limits of Localizing Cognitive Processes in the Brain (MIT Press, 2003).
Legrenzi, P., Umilta, C. & Anderson, F. Neuromania: on the Limits of Brain Science (Oxford Univ. Press, 2011).
Tallis, R. Aping Mankind: Neuromania, Darwinitis and the Misrepresentation of Humanity (Acumen, 2011).
Shen, F. X. Neuroscience, mental privacy, and the law. Harvard J. Law Public Policy 36, 653–713 (2013).
Shen, F. X. Mind, body, and the criminal law. Minnesota Law Rev. 97, 2036–2175 (2013).
Satel, S. & Lilienfeld, S. O. Brainwashed: the Seductive Appeal of Mindless Neuroscience (Basic Books, 2013).
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005).
Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. ___ (2010).
Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. ___ (2012).
National Research Council. The Age of Expert Testimony: Science in the Courtroom (The National Academies, 2002).
Faigman, D. L. Legal Alchemy: the Use and Misuse of Science in the Law (W. H. Freeman, 2000).
Faigman, D. L. et al. (eds) Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony (West Publishing Co., 2013).
Shuman, D. W., Champagne, A. & Whitaker, E. Juror assessments of the believability of expert witnesses: a literature review. Jurimetrics J. 36, 371–382 (1996).
Shuman, D. W., Champagne, A. & Whitaker, E. Assessing the believability of expert witnesses: science in the jurybox. Jurimetrics J. 37, 23–33 (1996).
Shuman, D. W., Champagne, A. & Whitaker, E. An empirical examination of the use of expert witnesses in the courts — part II: a three city study. Jurimetrics J. 34, 193–208 (1994).
Ivkovic, S. K. & Hans, V. P. Jurors' evaluations of expert testimony: judging the messenger and the message. Law Soc. Inquiry 28, 441–482 (2003).
Robertson, C. T. & Yokum, D. V. The effect of blinded experts on juror verdicts. J. Empir. Leg. Stud. 9, 765–794 (2012).
Sanders, J., Saks, M., & Schweitzer, N. in Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony (eds Faigman, D. L. et al.) 191–264 (West Publishing Co., 2013).
Frye v. United States, 293 F1013 (D. C. Cir. 1923).
Rule 702 of Federal Rules of Evidence. uscourts.gov [online], (2010).
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997).
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999).
Berger, M. A. in Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence. 3rd edn 11–36 (The National Academies, 2011).
Faigman, D. L. The Daubert revolution and the birth of modernity: managing scientific evidence in the age of science. UC Davis Law Rev. 46, 893–930 (2013).
Rule 403 of Federal Rules of Evidence (as amended in 2011). federalevidence.com [online], (2011).
Hughes, V. Science in court: head case. Nature 464, 340–342 (2010).
Saks, M. J., Schweitzer, N. J., Aharoni, E. & Kiehl, K. The impact of neuroimages in the sentencing phase of capital trials. J. Empir. Leg. Stud. (in the press).
Schweitzer, N. J. & Saks, M. J. Neuroimage evidence and the insanity defense. Behav. Sci. Law 29, 592–607 (2011).
Brodsky, S. L. The Expert Expert Witness: More Maxims and Guidelines for Testifying in Court (American Psychological Association, 1999).
Brodsky, S. L. Testifying in Court: Guidelines and Maxims for the Expert Witness (American Psychological Association, 1991).
Couture, W. G. & Haynes, A. W. (eds) Litigators on Experts: Strategies for Managing Expert Witnesses from Retention through Trial (American Bar Association, 2010).
Gutheil, T. G. The Psychiatrist as Expert Witness (American Psychiatric Press, 1998).
Kuhne, C. C. A Litigator's Guide to Expert Witnesses (American Bar Association, 2007).
Lubet, S. Expert Testimony: a Guide for Expert Witnesses and the Lawyers Who Examine Them (National Institute for Trial Advocacy, 1998).
Matson, J. V. Effective Expert Witnessing: a Handbook for Technical Professionals (Lewis, 1990).
Neal, T. M. S. Expert witness preparation: what does the literature tell us? Jury Expert 21, 44–52 (2009).
Warren, R. A. The Effective Expert Witness: Proven Strategies for Successful Court Testimony (Gaynor, 1997).
Scarrow, A. M. & Scarrow, M. R. Medicolegal issues: providing expert witness testimony. Surg. Neurol. 57, 278–283 (2002).
Model Penal Code, Section 2.02, Uniform Laws Annotated (1962).
Poldrack, R. A. Inferring mental states from neuroimaging data: from reverse inference to large-scale decoding. Neuron. 72, 692–697 (2011).
Faigman, D. L. Evidentiary incommensurability: a preliminary exploration of the problem of reasoning from general scientific data to individualized legal decision-making. Brooklyn Law Rev. 75, 1115–1136 (2010).
Faigman, D. L., Monahan, J. & Slobogin, C. Group to individual (G2i) inference in scientific expert testimony. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2298909 (2013).
Fienberg, S. E., Faigman, D. L. & Dawid, P. Fitting science into legal contexts: assessing effects of causes or causes of effects? Sociol. Meth. Res. (in the press).
Sanders, J. Applying Daubert inconsistently? Proof of individual causation in toxic tort and forensic cases. Brooklyn Law Rev. 75, 1367–1404 (2010).
Miller, G. Brain exam may have swayed jury in sentencing convicted murderer. ScienceInsider [online], (2010).
Wagner, A. in A Judge's Guide to Neuroscience: a Concise Introduction (eds Gazzaniga, M. & Rakoff, J.) 13–25 (SAGE Center for the Study of the Mind, 2010).
The authors are members of The MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Law and Neuroscience, Vanderbilt Law School, Nashville, Tennessee, USA. Preparation of this article was supported, in part, by a grant from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation to Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA. Its contents reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of either the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation or The MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Law and Neuroscience. We are grateful for helpful comments from N. Farahany, D. Kaye, M. Saks and F. Shen.
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
About this article
Cite this article
Jones, O., Wagner, A., Faigman, D. et al. Neuroscientists in court. Nat Rev Neurosci 14, 730–736 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3585
The charm of structural neuroimaging in insanity evaluations: guidelines to avoid misinterpretation of the findings
Translational Psychiatry (2018)
Ethik in der Medizin (2018)