The limited effect of electroencephalography memory recognition evidence on assessments of defendant credibility

Shen, Francis X.; Twedell, Emily L; Opperman, Caitlin; Krieg, Jordan; Brandt-Fontaine, Mikaela; Preston, Joshua; McTeigue, Jaleh; Yasis, Alina; Carlson, Morgan

doi:10.1093/jlb/lsx005

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They found that the EEG information indeed influenced the verdict participants chose, but the overall strength of the case was a stronger predictor of the verdict (approximately double the effect size). While there still seems to be no strong consensus in the field [43], it seems safe to say that neuroscientific evidence can affect jurors' (or, more specifically, the jury-eligible subject pool commonly used in studies like Shen's) decision-making, but it does not seem as prejudicial as academics originally thought.…”

Section: Prejudicial Neuroscience and Rhetorical Relevance In Australmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…41 Justice Campbell accepted the expert evidence 42 and allowed the partial defence. 43 There are also other cases in which neuroscientific evidence supports the defence of substantial impairment. 44 In 45 for example, the court accepted that the long-term alcohol abuse resulted in the brain impairment, however, it was concluded that the mental condition was not severe enough and rejected the defence of substantial impairment.…”

Section: Substantial Impairmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…at 76. 43 Id. at 75.; We will also discuss another substantial impairment case, Director of Public Prosecutions v AB [2013] NSWSC 1739 in our analysis in Part IV.…”

Section: Examining Intentionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this case, R v Hussein, 118 the issue was whether Mr. Despite the experience in Hussein, many researchers have found that fact-finders do not have their decision-making overwhelmed by the purported objectivity of neuroscience (see [43,44]). Recently, Shen and colleagues performed a study, presenting some participants with EEG information that either supported or challenged the accused's credibility [43].…”

Section: Prejudicial Neuroscience and Rhetorical Relevance In Australmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite the experience in Hussein, many researchers have found that fact-finders do not have their decision-making overwhelmed by the purported objectivity of neuroscience (see [43,44]). Recently, Shen and colleagues performed a study, presenting some participants with EEG information that either supported or challenged the accused's credibility [43]. They found that the EEG information indeed influenced the verdict participants chose, but the overall strength of the case was a stronger predictor of the verdict (approximately double the effect size).…”

Section: Prejudicial Neuroscience and Rhetorical Relevance In Australmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Neurolaw in Australia: The Use of Neuroscience in Australian Criminal Proceedings

Alimardani

Chin

2019

Neuroethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent research has detailed the use of neuroscience in several jurisdictions, but Australia remains a notable omission. To fill this substantial void we performed a systematic review of neuroscience in Australian criminal cases. The first section of this article reports the results of our review by detailing the purposes for which neuroscience is admitted into Australian criminal courts. We found that neuroscience is being admitted pre-trial (as evidence of fitness to stand trial), at trial (to support the defence of insanity and substantial impairment of the mind), and during sentencing. In the second section, we evaluate these applications. We generally found that courts admit neuroscience cautiously, and to supplement more well-established forms of evidence. Still, we found some instances in which the court seemed to misunderstand the neuroscience. These cases ranged from interpreting neuroscience as "objective" evidence to admitting neuroscience when the same non-neuroscientific psychiatric evidence would be inadmissible for being common sense. Furthermore, in some cases, neuroscientific evidence presents a double-edged sword; it may serve to either aggravate or mitigate a sentence. Thus, the decision about whether or not to tender this evidence is risky.

show abstract

Section: Prejudicial Neuroscience and Rhetorical Relevance In Australmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Substantial Impairmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…at 76. 43 Id. at 75.; We will also discuss another substantial impairment case, Director of Public Prosecutions v AB [2013] NSWSC 1739 in our analysis in Part IV.…”

Section: Examining Intentionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Prejudicial Neuroscience and Rhetorical Relevance In Australmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Prejudicial Neuroscience and Rhetorical Relevance In Australmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Neurolaw in Australia: The Use of Neuroscience in Australian Criminal Proceedings

Alimardani

Chin

2019

Neuroethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Νeuroscience and Dangerousness Evaluations: The Effect of Neuroscience Evidence on Judges. Findings from a Focus Group Study

Gkotsi

2021

Neurolaw

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding the Perspectives of Seniors on Dementia and Decision-Making

Toomey

2020

AJOB Empirical Bioethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The limited effect of electroencephalography memory recognition evidence on assessments of defendant credibility

Cited by 6 publications

References 6 publications

Neurolaw in Australia: The Use of Neuroscience in Australian Criminal Proceedings

Neurolaw in Australia: The Use of Neuroscience in Australian Criminal Proceedings

Νeuroscience and Dangerousness Evaluations: The Effect of Neuroscience Evidence on Judges. Findings from a Focus Group Study

Understanding the Perspectives of Seniors on Dementia and Decision-Making

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About