LRW Lobes in Robes
LRW Lobes in Robes
LRW Lobes in Robes
Lobes in Robes: The Use of Neuroscientific Evidence in the United States Legal System
Abstract
the United States justice system. The author begins by discussing the history of scientific
discoveries that have been adopted into the lives of the American people through both social and
legal means by the nature nature debate and DNA based exonerations, respectively. The
implications of scientific integration are broken down through the affected aspects of the justice
system: founding evidentiary standards, psychiatric assessments, and the philosophical basis of
perceived guilt. Finally, case law from all levels of the court system are used to provide a look
Lobes in Robes: The Use of Neuroscientific Evidence in the United States Legal System
The United States Legal System is one of the oldest institutions in the nation and decides
the ultimate fate of so many each day. As the culture and society of the country grow and adapt,
the courts seem to fall behind and make slow changes to the standards and proceedings of
everyday decisions. The invisible health of each individual is one of the driving forces of the
21st century in regards to the culture of the newest adults. With adulthood comes an increased
criminal responsibility as one can be tried as an adult but as the generation of progressive society
begins to infiltrate the working world, there will be a shift in expectations of the United States
Justice System to reflect the beliefs of the people, specifically in terms of mental health. The
integration of innovative neuroscientific evidence and psycho scientific assessments has the
potential to alter the perception of criminal activity within the courtroom in regards to increased
cognitive awareness; however, the lack of legal recognition of mental incapacities through the
scope of neurological and physiological activity inhibits the progression of the court system.
Nature vs Nurture
While the behaviors of humans are continually under scrutiny by society itself, the
decisive debate over the specific influences of such behavior is a newer concept which has
overcome the study of evolutionary psychology for the past century. Evolutionary psychology, as
principles to understand behavior with the applied theory of focus on the adaptation of evolved
biological systems (2018). With increased studies on the effects of serotonin concentration in
neurotransmission, inverse correlations between serotonin levels and aggression have appeared
LOBES IN ROBES 4
through a number of experiments; however, correlation does not equate to causation in the field
of psychology.
DNA Exonerations
Beginning in the late 1970’s, DNA exonerations slowly started to change how people
viewed the justice system because this was the first time the United States had used the
ever-growing field of science to uncover the ills of the institutionalized system of punish
ingrained within the society. With an increase in exonerations over the past half century, the list
of causes for exonerations grows alongside the exoneration rate. DNA finds itself among five
other general causes that lead people to be wrongfully convicted, many of which are for violent
crimes causing these innocent citizens to spend an average of 14 years in prison before being
released (LaPorte, 2017). The first DNA exoneration happened only after the judge presiding
over the case refused to acknowledge the exculpatory scientific evidence presented in the appeal
leading to the defendant’s, Gary Dotson, return to prison. Hyperspecific discoveries have
become rampant in the world of science so much so that the Federal Bureau of Investigation is
having to enforce forensic DNA laboratories to take at least 20 specialized locations on genes
when running tests to identify matches in an attempt to reduce the probability of positive
matches on a machine but negative matches in the genes (Starr, 2016). Nevertheless, one of the
oldest institutions in the United States was able to adapt and accept the integration of this
revolutionary evidence into its most strict standards and has since worked to ensure that the lives
of the exonerees were not taken by the system that failed them to begin with.
LOBES IN ROBES 5
Standard of Evidence
The nature of legal evaluations is inherently subjective through the lens of the judge who
presides over the trial, whether there is an abundance of precedent or lack thereof. The empirical
conclusions that scientific data result in do not influence the admissibility of evidence; however,
the abundance of such data that decreases the percent error of the conclusions does, in fact,
increase the chance of a judge’s discretion to fall on the counsel introducing the evidence
(Harrington v. State of Iowa, 2003). The standard in civil trials must only satisfy the
preponderance of evidence which tips the weight of the scales to be a simple majority. In regards
to the overarching standards of evidence that span all categories of law, the prosecution, in
criminal proceedings, and the plaintiff, in civil trials, must be able to prove that the evidence
being presented to the court has a great probability of being accurate (Justia, 2010). The two
distinct classes of evidence include circumstantial and direct. Direct evidence is such that is
stated as a fact rather than a variable correlation causation statement, such as an eyewitness
testifying against the defendant, or even a recording of the defendant confessing to the crime.
a conclusion (Division for Public Education, 2013). This type of evidence may include brain
scans, finger prints, or any other science based evidence which requires one final step in the
attempt to prove to a jury that the defendant is either guilty or innocent: inferences that connect
correlation to direct causation. The Daubert test is the latest adoption of admissibility rules
directed by Supreme Court which emphasizes the factor of scientific validity in regards to the
specific testimony of a motioned expert witness. Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which replaced
LOBES IN ROBES 6
the vague yet incredibly strict Frye test in 1975, stated that expert witnesses had to meet four
qualifications. For an expert witness to testify before a jury under the former Rule 702, the court
must have established that the testimony would prove to be useful, is based on substantive
scientific principles that are accepted within the scientific community, and that the expert can
thoroughly connect the circumstantial evidence to the facts of the case. Federal Rules of
Evidence are ultimately the guidelines by which neuroscience diagnostic tests must pass and
adhere to in order for the evidence to transform into conclusion before the eyes of any jury
enigmatic fields of study, can be used to detect neurological disease as well as the causation of
behavior of psychiatric patients without a diagnosable disease. According to Dr. Sanders and Dr.
Keshavan, the authors of The Neurological Examination in Adult Psychiatry, “The neurologic
exam should be regarded as a collection of neurobiologic probes rather than a single irreducible
variable” (1998). The study of psychology is founded on the idea that correlation between two
variables in a study does not equate to the causation of one variable’s effect on the other which is
through the use of an examination even have two categories of positive results: hard signs and
soft signs. Hard signs include the considerably obvious neurological detriment of a patient that
can be identified by the doctor while soft signs vary greatly and may not be signs of a
LOBES IN ROBES 7
neurological disease but can assist in identifying alternative development problems. (Sanders and
Keshavan, 1998). Neurological specific testing can detect lesions, reptures, network
malfunctions, and an entire array of brain impairments that can range from being very serious to
barely noticeable. Imaging tests can spot difference variances of these debilitating dysfunctions
but their relationships with one another in regards to the effect on the individual depict the
Frontal lobe dysfunction and brain lesions. The structure of the brain is divided
into individual lobes that are distinct in their function and can be analyzed to determine
malfunctioning properties as an affect on the other portions of the body’s three pound regulator.
The frontal lobe is distinct in its focus on decision making and it's slow development is the
reason for many death penalty debates. Until the early 20s, the prefrontal cortex of the frontal
lobe of adolescents produces an overabundance of gray matter that is then continues to prune
when not used. Only after this process is white matter produced which provides protection for
brain circuits leading to higher level cognition (American Bar Association, 2004). Studies done
by California Institute of Technology depict the impairment in decision making and behavioral
control when damage, or lesions, is present in the frontal lobe. The study defines the key
differences between decision making and behavioral control as the action of choosing to do
something and the control of conscious responsibility centers that cause us to make decisions,
respectively. Lesion mapping allows scientists to identify areas of the brain that are required for
particular tasks such as decision making and behavioral control. The study concluded in
depicting specific regions of the frontal lobes that are necessary for each action; however, the
study was not able to identify which areas of those particular regions are most important for
LOBES IN ROBES 8
determining the impairments one would come in contact with. This identification that the study
was not able to complete is crucial because many times lesions impair the brain’s function in one
lobe but the rest of the brain will be able to makeup in function through neuroplasticity where the
brain is able to form new neural connections that compensate for a damaged cortex. In cases
where the brain does not adapt to this under functionality, specific human abilities may be
cognition and decision making are controlled through the vital relationship between the
prefrontal cortex in the frontal lobe and the amygdala in the limbic system. The prefrontal cortex
is specifically responsible for general cognition while the amygdala remains in control of
neurotransmission, the behavioral reaction to the biological process is much more complex due
to the individual bodily reaction and threshold for emotion that varies from person to person;
however, the systems of cognitive expression of emotion and physical expression of emotion are
interdependent on one another to synthesize the central nervous system (Salzman and Fusi,
2011). Dr. Kent Kiehl, the executive science officer and director of The Mind Research Network,
neurons in inmates with psychopathic traits. He specifically focused on imaging of the amygdala
and of the prefrontal cortex when the inmates were shown controversial images while in an MRI.
The neuroimaging results depicted a correlation between psychopathic traits and areas of the
neurotransmitters which control emotions, actions, and movements. Connectivity between lobes
require proper functioning of these control networks and lack thereof causes a loss in behavioral
control found in ranges depending on the severity of the abnormality (Mayer, Hanlon, Dodd,
Legal responsibility and positive law. Legal responsibility in the United States justice
system holds unwavering until the defendant can prove their actions were in response to extreme
duress or insanity. Legal order was founded on the idea that citizens who violate laws
representative of the population’s general values should be punished for their actions. Lipinsky
and Ivanova (2017) discuss the relationship between social and legal responsibility as one is the
general foundation of understanding of the other to create the idea of positive legal
responsibility. The authors define legal responsibility as “the basis of common characteristics of
social responsibility” while identifying the difference between statutory responsibility and the
societal idea of legal responsibility. The conceptions of acceptable conduct are reflected in legal
responsibility that is expressed through court decisions; however, legal responsibility is not the
mental capacity of the defendant and their comprehension of the actions they took to be charged
with a crime. The insanity defense is a rare case to make but one that may fit the defendant’s
needs but the defendant cannot truly be charged with the crime if excluded from responsibility. If
LOBES IN ROBES 10
violence is biologically ingrained in an individual being charged with a crime, the courts must
decide what risks might it impose if the defendant is not charged with a violation of morality.
Decision making and free will. Grant Shield’s article in The Review of
Philosophy and Psychology, “ Neuroscience and Causation: Has Neuroscience Shown that We
Cannot Control Our Own Actions?” (2014), reviews the contemporary neuroscientific agreement
that the universal concept of free will is false as no one can knowingly control their actions while
being completely liable. The purpose of the article is to explore parallel realms of research that
can alternatively interpret the data which scientists and philosophers created the consensus that
free will is null and void. The presentation of the position refrains from altering or arguing
against the accepted concept of free will and the philosophical debates that such an idea is the
center of. While the review attempts to create a singular thesis against the agreement of
biological causation, it restricts itself from creating a discussion regarding a more broad concept
of free will and focuses on the scope of current neuroscientific knowledge of free will. Shield’s
analysis of the research that shaped the idea that individuals lack free will includes the
alongside thoughts and actions. The focus of the position indicates that consequential free will
compared to determinism free will is not a methodological explanation for the lack of free will in
directly alongside factual evidence, their results will be null and void rather than the perception
of free will. The review concludes with the evolution of consciousness and the inability of
contemporary neuroscientific research to accurately create the concept of a lack of free will.
LOBES IN ROBES 11
Potential misuse. Many DNA exoneration cases can be found alongside the name of a
knowingly being paid by the prosecution. Underlying biases such as these undetectable
laboratories can cause rifts in the proper application of scientific evidence being admitted into
the courtroom. Witness testimonies on behalf of scientific research can create unnerving
conclusions with data which in turn, become precedent. The increase in evidence flexibility
poses a myriad of hurdles but ones that have been addressed by those doing research and finding
the cause of wrongful convictions that have occurred by the thousands since the 1980’s.
Case Law
Frye v. the United States The first case of the implementation of evidentiary standards is
found in 1923 with an appeals court’s refusal to admit scientific evidence into trial. The
deception test took the individual’s blood pressure while being asked a series of questions thus
creating a correlation as to whether or not the person was being deceptive when answering. The
court decided not to admit the test into trial due to its lack of scientific backing throughout the
community at that point in time. This case solidified the necessity of scientific evidence to have
an overwhelming backing within its community of research and discussion (Hanna and Mazza,
2006).
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc (1993) altered the standard of expert witnesses testifying to
link the presentation of circumstantial, scientific evidence to the conclusion trying to be reached
by the counsel. Before this case stood before the Supreme Court, the trial court judge held the
Harrington v. State of Iowa The 2003 case of Harrington v. State of Iowa was an appeal
of the original 1977 first degree murder conviction of Terry Harrington who killed a security
guard in Iowa. The case was appealed on the basis of new brain fingerprinting evidence, the
prosecution’s main witness, and a newfound suspect which the police department failed to
report. Due to Iowa’s three year statute of limitations, the Supreme Court of Iowa was
technically not able to grant him a new trial; however, the court agreed to hear the appeal in
terms of the due process violation that occurred with the lack of police report presentation and
granted Harrington a new trial. The new trial was granted also on the grounds of newly
discovered evidence which could not have been presented to the state of Iowa within the time
restraints of the statute of limitations. This newly discovered evidence was the brain
fingerprinting; however, the Supreme Court of Iowa refused to review the neuro evidence as it
was not necessary to reach the conclusion of the appeal. This evidence highlighted the validity of
Harrington’s alibi through the patterns of brain activity tested as well as the lack of information
about the actual murder, decreasing his possible involvement or guilt. Because of the abundant
due process claims brought by Harrington against the prosecution, the brain fingerprinting
evidence was considered less valuable to determining the weight of the two issues at hand:
whether or not the trial court violated his rights by not granting the appellant a new trial on the
basis of new evidence or whether or not the prosecution violated the appellant's due process by
not presenting the entire police report, therefore withholding significant information from the
defense. The court eventually remanded and reversed the original first degree murder case back
Discussion
The integration of science has a long history of controversy and misinterpretation but
without the understanding of internal systems, behavioral control becomes an oppressive system
to those that can’t follow the social regards of their peers. With our institution of punishment
rather than rehabilitation, the country finds itself in a position of neglect for those who need the
most attention. The invisible health of each individual is one of the driving forces of the 21st
century in regards to the culture of the newest adults. With adulthood comes an increased
criminal responsibility as one can be tried as an adult but as the generation of progressive society
begins to infiltrate the working world, there will be a shift in expectations of the United States
Justice System to reflect the beliefs of the people, specifically in terms of mental health. The
integration of innovative neuroscientific evidence and psycho scientific assessments has the
potential to alter the perception of criminal activity within the courtroom in regards to increased
cognitive awareness; however, the lack of legal recognition of mental incapacities through the
scope of neurological and physiological activity inhibits the progression of the court system.
LOBES IN ROBES 14
References
Amirian, J. (2013). Weighing the admissibility of fMRI technology under FRE 403: For the law,
fMRI changes everything -- and nothing [PDF]. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 41( 2),
https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&http
sredir=1&article=2510&context=ulj
Artene, D. A. (2014). Some considerations regarding the legal responsibility and the social
responsibility. Juridical Tribune Journal, 4(2), 13-21. Retrieved from Proquest Central
Barnes, D. W. (2004). General acceptance versus scientific soundness: Mad scientists in the
courtroom. Florida State University Law Review, 31(2), 303-332. Retrieved from
https://ir.law.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1317&context=lr
Catley, P., & Claydon, L. (2015). The use of neuroscientific evidence by those accused of
criminal offenses in England and Wales. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 2(3),
510-549. https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsv025
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved December 13, 2018, from
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1992/92-102
Division for Public Education. (2013, December 2). How courts work: Evidence. Retrieved
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_
network/how_courts_work/evidence/
LOBES IN ROBES 15
Downes, S. M. (2018, September 5). Evolutionary Psychology (E. N. Zalta, Ed.). Retrieved
https://plato.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/encyclopedia/archinfo.cgi?entry=evolutionary-psycholo
gy
Feigenson, N. (2007). Brain imaging and courtroom evidence: On the admissibility and
persuasiveness of fMRI [PDF]. International Journal of Law in Context, 2( 3), 233-255.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S174455230600303X
Gaines, J. (2008, March 14). Brain scans in the courts: Prosecutor's dream or civil rights
https://www.insidescience.org/news/brain-scans-courts-prosecutors-dream-or-civil-rights
-nightmare
Hanna, K. E., Mazza, A.-M., & National Research Council. (2006). The legal landscape
Hill, J. (2009). Fender bender lottery: Direct victims and bystanders in recovery for the negligent
inflection of emotional distress. Missouri Law Review, 74( 3), 871-887. Retrieved from
https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol74/iss3/21
Innocence Project. (2017). Misapplication of forensic science. Retrieved December 18, 2018,
https://www.innocenceproject.org/causes/misapplication-forensic-science/
LOBES IN ROBES 16
Justia US Law. (2010). Evidentiary standards and burdens of proof. Retrieved November 10,
https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/evidentiary-standards-burdens-proof/
LaPorte, G. M. (2017). Wrongful convictions and DNA exonerations: Understanding the role of
forensic science. National Institute of Justice Journal, (279), 11-25. Retrieved from
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/250705.pdf
Lipinsky, D. A., & Ivanova, T. N. (2017). Social Foundation and Sociological Substantiation of
Mayer, A. R., Hanlon, F. M., Dodd, A. B., Yeo, R. A., Haaland, K. Y., Ling, J. M., & Ryman, S.
patients with schizophrenia. Journal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience, 41( 5), 312-321.
https://doi.org/10.1503/jpn.150097
Melumad, N., Mookherjee, D., & Reichelstein, S. (1992). A theory of responsibility center.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-4101(92)90002-J
The National Court Rules Committee. (2018, December 1). Rule 702: Testimony by expert
https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-vii/rule-702/
LOBES IN ROBES 17
National Institutes of Health. (n.d.). Overview. Retrieved December 17, 2018, from The BRAIN
National Registry of Exonerations. (2012, June). Terry Harrington. Retrieved December 8, 2018,
https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=3280
Neith, K. (2012, August 21). Thinking and Choosing in the Brain [Blog post]. Retrieved from
http://www.caltech.edu/news/thinking-and-choosing-brain-23609
Novella, S. (2014, October 1). Brain research in the 21st century. Retrieved December 15, 2018,
from Science-Based Medicine: Exploring issues & controversies in science & medicine
website: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/brain-research-in-the-21st-century/
Oritz, A. (2004, January). Cruel and Unusual Punishment: The Juvenile Death Penalty:
Retrieved from
https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/criminal_justice_section_newsl
etter/crimjust_juvjus_Adolescence.authcheckdam.pdf
Pagnotta, M. (2018). Living and learning together: Integrating developmental systems theory,
radical embodied cognitive science, and relational thinking in the study of social
learning (Doctoral thesis, University of St. Andrews, Fife, Scotland). Retrieved from
https://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/10023/16386/MurilloPagno
ttaPhDThesis.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y
LOBES IN ROBES 18
Rogers, J., & Gudenkauf, A. (Producers). (2017, June 1). Emotions. Invisibilia. Podcast retrieved
from https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=530928414
Salzman, C. D., & Fusi, S. (2010). Emotion, cognition, and mental state representation in
Sanders, R. D., & Keshavan, M. S. (1998). The neurologic examination in adult psychiatry. The
https://doi.org/10.1176/jnp.10.4.395
Scanlon, T.M. (2010). Varieties of responsibility. Boston University Law Review, 90(2),
http://www.bu.edu/law/journals-archive/bulr/documents/scanlon.pdf
Shields, G. S. (2014). Neuroscience and conscious causation: Has neuroscience shown that we
cannot control our own actions? Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 5(4), 565-582.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13164-014-0200-9
Starr, D. (2016, March 7). Forensics gone wrong: When DNA snares the innocent. Retrieved
October 28, 2018, from American Association for the Advancement of Science website:
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/forensics-gone-wrong-when-dna-snares-inno
cent
Sternberg, E. J. (2010). Free will, personal responsibility, and the law. In My brain made me do
it: The rise of neuroscience and the threat to moral responsibility (Unknown ed., pp.
Terry J. Harrington v. State of Iowa, No. 01-0653 (Iowa Feb. 26, 2003). Retrieved from
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ia-supreme-court/1014599.html
LOBES IN ROBES 19
Thijssen, S., & Kiehl, K. A. (2017). Functional connectivity in incarcerated male adolescents
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pscychresns.2017.05.005
Tommy R. Jarrett and Beverly Jarrett v. Michael B. Jones, 258 S.W.3d 442 (Mo July 29, 2008).
Retrieved from
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7621073761606120484&q=Jarrett+v.+jon
es&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47&as_vis=1
Tonry, M. H. (2011). Why punish? How much?: A reader on punishment. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
United States National Research Council. (1996). DNA Evidence in the Legal System: Vol. 6. The
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK232607/
University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing. (2015). The insanity defense. In Criminal Law