Document Type

Article

Abstract

The growth of neuroimaging evidence in the courtroom is consistent with the increased reliance on technical and machine-based specialties at trial. Litigants routinely seek to introduce neuroimaging evidence in both civil and criminal trials to supplement traditional medical, psychiatric, and psychological opinion testimony. A substantial portion of neuroimaging evidence is still in the developmental stage—what I term “off-label neuroimaging.” Unsurprisingly, evaluating the reliability of developing neuroimaging poses challenging questions for gatekeeping courts. Among the complex evidentiary issues neuroimaging presents for courts and litigants, this Article considers one foundational question: How should courts determine whether neuroimaging evidence is sufficiently reliable for trial?

Share

COinS