Use of Functional Neuroimaging in Forensic Contexts.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Ethical Justice Chapter One: Ethics in Criminal Justice Professions.
Advertisements

Mental State at the Time of Offense Assessments and the Insanity Defense --- Hawaii State Hospital July 7, 2010 Marvin W. Acklin, PhD, ABPP Board-certified.
“We think they did it… now what?”. In general…  crime is committed  suspect identified  information / evidence collected  enough to establish probable.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS OF FORENSIC SCIENCE CHAPTER 2.
Chapter 6 Defenses to Criminal Liability: Excuse Joel Samaha, 9th Ed.
ETHICAL ISSUES RAISED BY NEUROSCIENCE IN LAW By Walter Sinnott-Armstrong Philosophy Department and Kenan Institute for Ethics at Duke, Uehiro Centre for.
Nature vs. Nurture: Behavioral Genetics and the Law By Kathryn Baker.
TENDENCY AND COINCIDENCE CLASS 9 28 JULY 2014 DANIEL TYNAN – 12 th Floor Wentworth Chambers.
Standard 11: Criminal Trial Procedures I can identify and describe the standard procedures in a criminal jury trial.
Q UINCY COLLEGE Paralegal Studies Program Paralegal Studies Program Interviewing & Investigation LAW-123 Introduction to Interviewing and Investigating.
Evidence Prof. William A. Woodruff Federal Criminal Practice Seminar Nov 2, 2012 Raleigh, NC © 2012.
The Roles of Judge and Jury Court controls legal rulings in the trial Court controls legal rulings in the trial Jury decides factual issues Jury decides.
Alaska Mock Trial Glossary of Terms. Laws Rules created by society to govern the behavior of people in society. Among other things, the laws are one formal.
Doing Social Psychology Research
CJ202: Problems of the Criminal Judiciary The Institution of the Jury Valerie P. Hans.
Trial Procedures & Courtroom Personnel
Tanisha Hill-Jarrett Forensic Neuropsychology July 21, 2014 Diminished Capacity Standards.
Forensic Science and the Law
Trial Preparation Washington & Lee School of Law October 19, 2006.
Reporting & Ethical Standards EPSY 5245 Michael C. Rodriguez.
Chapter is based on two parties battling to win the case, each acting as the adversary of the other. ROLE: to provide a procedure for the parties.
AJ 50 – Introduction to Administration of Justice
Trial advocacy workshop
The Method Skeptic Debate For and Against. Forensic Concepts The nature of expert testimony Admissibility is determined by legal statute and court precedent;
Forensic Science An Introduction to Scientific and Investigative Techniques Stuart H. James and Jon J. Nordby Page 1 Chapter 29 CRC Press: Forensic Science,
Evidential and Legal Burdens. What are they? The evidential burden of proof is a preliminary matter to be decided by the TOL. It is a question of law.
Where we’ve been... ‘Trial by jury is the most transcendent privilege which any citizen can enjoy’ Sir William Blackstone Where we’re going... ‘The trial.
Criminal Trial Process “Innocent until proven guilty”
Basic Evidence and Trial Procedure. Opening Statement  Preview the evidence “The evidence will show”  Introduce theme  Briefly describe the issues,
The Trial. I. Procedures A. Jury Selection 1. Impanel (select) a jury 2. Prosecutors and Defense lawyers pose questions to potential jurors (VOIR DIRE)
The Adversary System.  To provide a procedure for disputing parties to present and resolve their cases in as fair a manner as possible  Controlled by.
© 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. This edition is intended for use outside of the U.S. only, with content that may be different from the U.S.
CJ305 Criminal Evidence Welcome to our Seminar!!! (We will begin shortly) Tonight – Unit 8 (Chapter 10 – The Exclusionary Rule – ID Procedures) (Chapter.
Twelve Angry Men By: Reginald Rose. Discussion What is a jury? How is it chosen? What responsibility does an individual have to accept jury duty? How.
Evidence in Court Holy Trinity Law Audrius Stonkus.
The Criminal Trial Process Section 11 (d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that each person charged with an offence is to be ‘presumed innocent.
1 PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE Learning Domain PURPOSE FOR THE RULES OF EVIDENCE Protect the jury from seeing or hearing evidence that is: (w/b p. 1-3)
Unit 6  What needs to be done this week SeminarSeminar QuizQuiz Discussion boardDiscussion board Unit 9 Analysis and ApplicationUnit 9 Analysis and Application.
“ Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2008 Criminal Evidence Chapter Twelve: Documentary and Scientific Evidence This multimedia product and its contents are protected.
1 What Is Scientific Evidence? Scientific evidence is most often presented in court by an expert witness testifying on expert opinions. It also includes.
ARKANSAS LEGAL AID OCTOBER 17, 2013 BY MICHAEL JOHNSON AND PAULA CASEY EXHIBITS.
Evidence and Expert Testimony. Expert Testimony  Two Types of Witnesses: Fact and Expert  Fact -- have personal knowledge of facts of case  Cannot.
RELEVANT OR IRRELEVANT THAT IS THE QUESTION. RELEVANCE OF AN ITEM MAY DERIVE FROM ITS: (1)Factual Connection to a Legal Element (the intent or act caused.
CJ227: Criminal Procedure Unit 6 Seminar Mary K Cronin.
Comparing the Inquisitorial and Adversarial Systems.
Insanity and Criminal Responsibility
Outline of the U.S. and Arizona Criminal Justice Systems
Forensic Psychology.
Criminal and Civil Competence
Start Figure 7.10 Trial by Jury, p. 183 End.
WHAT IS EVIDENCE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES DOCUMENTS
The Expert Witness in Forensic Psychology
Law of Evidence Burden and standard of proof.
Important Legal Vocabulary for Twelve Angry Men
"Seasoned" Superior Court Judges
Marvin W. Acklin, PhD, ABPP
OBJECTIONS.
Principles of Evidence
Crime Scene Investigation and Evidence Collection
Opinion Testimony, In General
Growth in Recent years is due to:
"Seasoned" Superior Court Judges
Start Figure 7.10 Trial by Jury, p. 183 End.
Character Evidence Rules - In General
Criminal Trial Process
Law 12 Criminal Trial Process.
Trial Procedures & Courtroom Personnel

Welcome to Forensic Science!
The Expert Valuation Witness and the Different Procedural Models in European Court Proceedings . Associate Prof. (Dr. hab. Magdalena Habdas.
Presentation transcript:

Use of Functional Neuroimaging in Forensic Contexts

Functional Neuroimaging in the Courtroom…So Far Establish competence to waive Miranda rights Subjective experience of pain in tort cases Custody determinations Mens rea defenses for fraud, kidnapping, burglary, and murder (even in sentencing phases of capital cases) Inferring past mental state In juvenile cases

Brown & Murphy’s ( ) Opinions 1.Almost certainly more unfairly prejudicial than probative on balance 1.Favor Federal Rule of Evidence 403 to Daubert framework -403: excluding relevant evidence for prejudice, confusion, waste of time, or other reason -Daubert: admissibility of expert witness’ testimony -Allows for individualized assessment of claims -Room to allow the technology to improve and adapt

Functional Neuroimaging for Mens Rea Claims Mens rea – “guilty mind” – Mental state at the time of the crime Distinction between criminal mind v. criminal act Mens rea claims: defenses that attempt to make the prosecution’s case (for requisite mental state) more doubtful, and promote affirmative insanity

Functional Neuroimaging for Mens Rea Claims Steps for waging insanity defense (in most jurisdictions): – Defendant bears initial burden on raising the defense – Then, burden of persuasion shifts to the prosecution – Prosecution has to prove sanity beyond reasonable doubt Often hard for prosecution to do this – Criminal mind can’t be concretely measured – Intent is usually established by indirect measures (e.g., examining behavior surrounding the crime) Use of functional neuroimaging usually raised by defense – Physically difficult for the state to get a brain scan of an unwilling person

Functional Neuroimaging for Mens Rea Claims Working assumptions that aren’t settled: – Brain state vs. mental state – Completeness of cognitive neuroscience knowledge – Accuracy of self-reports/behavioral assessments – Accuracy of technology – Whether a behavioral task or a resting-state scan explanatory enough to establish mens rea

The Science of Functional Neuroimaging Potential confounds can arise along the way in: – Poorly calibrated technology – Behavioral task “…limited…for determining mens rea so long as institutional review boards exist and research ethics are followed” – Issues with data reconstruction – Preprocessing – Stats and thresholds – Semantics of data interpretation (e.g., “activation”, “functional connectivity”) – Lack of reports for individual vs. group findings – Establishing a “baseline” and a “normal”

What would need to be done scientifically to make functional neuroimaging more appropriate for a forensic setting (or will it likely never be)?

Admissibility To be admissible, brain images must be: – Relevant – Authenticated – More probative and prejudicial – Must satisfy tests for expert scientific testimony Not considered direct proof or evidence of mens rea, rather circumstantial demonstrative evidence Essentially never introduced without expert testimony

Relevance Materiality – fit between evidence and case – E.g., impulse control task would not be relevant in CA because doesn’t recognize “irresistible impulse” as a claim for legal insanity Probative value – tendency of evidence to establish the proposition for which it is offered – Must have a reasonable explanation for using it – Must have a probabilistic connection between evidence and proposition seeking to prove

Probative Value Varies For complex mental states and cognitive functions, almost no 1-to-1 mapping of brain region to function Neuroimaging knowledge comes from “forward inference” vs. direct manipulation of healthy brain tissue Most of the time, there could be another explanation for findings, meaning weak probative value Yet to be established for functional imaging are things like prior probabilities and base rates

Probative Value Might be more prejudice than probative because (i.e., why “jurors will likewise succumb to the seduction of fMRI”): – Jurors may view it as the ultimate truth due to its fanciness – Objectivity of brain images is overestimated – No procedure for standardization or replication – The use of colored blobs can make the image more salient and reinforce the memory for it – Jurors might be led to think they are seeing the person’s brain, when it’s actually a warped image – “neuro-essentialism” (brain is viewed as the essence of being human) – CSI

Are there any cases now that functional neuroimaging would be more probative than prejudicial?

Authentication Demonstrative evidence can be admitted into the record if there is sufficient proof that it is what the lawyer claims it to be (FRE 901a/104b) At present, no standard for authenticating functional brain images Issues for authentication: – Image must capture individual’s brain under the same conditions that existed at the time of the crime – Procedure for creating the image must be described in detail – Underlying statistical computer programs must demonstrate reliance on irrefutable scientific principles Basically, right now it’s just important that expert testifies that it only approximates mental state, is correlative in nature, and idiosyncratic decisions can alter what the data ultimately look like

Alternatives Look at the defendant’s behavior around the crime Use behavioral psychology Admit more images rather than fewer, so juror can determine the strength of the overall story

Competency (Ricker, 2012) Might be inappropriate also Mostly because we still don’t know how variables such as demographics can further influence functional neuroimaging Behavior is a stronger approximation

Deception Testing (Ricker, 2012) Two private companies in the US offer fMRI “lie detection” services Has been a shift in this field to do more individual-based analyses Accuracy of classification ~78% (Langleben et al., 2005)

Moral of the story, the authors of both articles think functional neuroimaging is not ready for prime time yet.