Add to ORKGThis essay addresses the issue of judges deciding what scientific evidence is admissible. The primary focus is the admissibility of expert mental state testimony in criminal cases. The issue is addressed by answering two questions: 1) how does science work and 2) how does the brain work
According to the scales of justice, the judge, in an unbiased way and directed by law, attends to al...
Starting with the Daubert case, courtroom rules and guides regulating the admissibility of scientifi...
In what he describes as a premortem on Joiner v. General Electric Co., a case before the Supreme C...
This article explores the impact of neuroscience evidence on how expert reports are perceived and th...
In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, the United States Supreme Court replaced the general acce...
As the United States continues to bear witness to high-profile episodes of police violence, many hav...
As neuroscientific technologies continue to develop and inform our understanding of the mind, the op...
The use of neuroscientific evidence in criminal trials has been steadily increasing. Despi...
In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., the Supreme Court sensibly held that testimony purpo...
This article, part of a symposium on the opinion of the Arizona Supreme Court in Logerquist v. McVey...
This contribution to the Brain Sciences in the Courtroom Symposium identifies and discusses issues i...
Neuroscientific evidence is prominently present in courts of law and may come in many forms. For exa...
This Article speculates on the course of neuroscience-as-proof with an eye toward the actual admissi...
This article, written for a symposium on Guilt v. Guiltiness: Are the Right Rules for Trying Factua...
This invited commentary for Journal of Law & the Biosciences considers four empirical studies previo...
According to the scales of justice, the judge, in an unbiased way and directed by law, attends to al...
Starting with the Daubert case, courtroom rules and guides regulating the admissibility of scientifi...
In what he describes as a premortem on Joiner v. General Electric Co., a case before the Supreme C...
This article explores the impact of neuroscience evidence on how expert reports are perceived and th...
In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, the United States Supreme Court replaced the general acce...
As the United States continues to bear witness to high-profile episodes of police violence, many hav...
As neuroscientific technologies continue to develop and inform our understanding of the mind, the op...
The use of neuroscientific evidence in criminal trials has been steadily increasing. Despi...
In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., the Supreme Court sensibly held that testimony purpo...
This article, part of a symposium on the opinion of the Arizona Supreme Court in Logerquist v. McVey...
This contribution to the Brain Sciences in the Courtroom Symposium identifies and discusses issues i...
Neuroscientific evidence is prominently present in courts of law and may come in many forms. For exa...
This Article speculates on the course of neuroscience-as-proof with an eye toward the actual admissi...
This article, written for a symposium on Guilt v. Guiltiness: Are the Right Rules for Trying Factua...
This invited commentary for Journal of Law & the Biosciences considers four empirical studies previo...
According to the scales of justice, the judge, in an unbiased way and directed by law, attends to al...
Starting with the Daubert case, courtroom rules and guides regulating the admissibility of scientifi...
In what he describes as a premortem on Joiner v. General Electric Co., a case before the Supreme C...