Source: https://lpcprof.typepad.com/law_and_magic_blog/evidence/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 18:34:11+00:00

Document:
A podcast on the law and the science of false memories from The Guardian.
Not Good Enough For Government Work?
Frederick Schauer, University of Virginia School of Law, has published Can Bad Science Be Good Evidence: Lie Detection, Neuroscience, and the Mistaken Conflation of Legal and Scientific Norms at 95 Cornell Law Review 1191 (2010). Here is the abstract.
As the capabilities of cognitive neuroscience, in particular functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) 'brain scans,' have become more advanced, some have claimed that fMRI-based lie-detection can and should be used at trials and for other forensic purposes to determine whether witnesses and others are telling the truth. Although some neuroscientists have promoted such claims, most aggressively resist them, and arguing that the research on neuroscience-based lie-detection is deeply flawed in numerous ways. And so these neuroscientists have resisted any attempt to use such methods in litigation, insisting that poor science has no place in the law. But although the existing studies have serious problems of validity when measured by the standards of science, and true as well that the reliability of such methods is significantly lower than their advocates claim, it is nevertheless an error to assume that the distinction between good and bad science, whether as a matter of validity or of reliability, is dispositive for law. Law is not only about putting criminals in jail, and numerous uses of evidence in various contexts in the legal system require a degree of probative value far short of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And because legal and scientific norms, standards, and goals are different, good science may still not be good enough for some legal purposes, and, conversely, some examples of bad science my, in some contexts, still be good enough for law. Indeed, the exclusion of substandard science, when measured by scientific standards, may have the perverse effect of lowering the accuracy and rigor of legal fact-finding, because the exclusion of flawed science will only increase the importance of the even more flawed non-science that now dominates legal fact-finding. And thus the example of neuroscience-based lie detection, while timely and important in its own right, is even more valuable as a case study suggesting that Daubert v. Merrill-Dow Pharmaceuticals may have sent the legal system down a false path. By inappropriately importing scientific standards into legal decision-making with little modification, Daubert confused the goals of science with those of law, a mistake that it is not too late for the courts to correct.
Because the criteria that judges and juries traditionally employ to evaluate the veracity of witnesses have been notoriously unreliable, the quest for a scientific way of distinguishing the truth teller from the liar has been with us for generations. Indeed, the Frye test, which for many years was the prevailing legal standard for determining the admissibility of scientific evidence, arose in 1923 in the context of an unsuccessful attempt to admit into evidence a rudimentary lie-detection machine invented by William Moulton Marston -- perhaps better known as the creator of the comic book character Wonder Woman, whose attributes included possession of a magic lasso, forged from the Magic Girdle of Aphrodite, which would make anyone it encircled tell the truth without fail. The device at issue in Frye was a simple polygraph and not a magic lasso, but Frye did not just set the standard for the admission of scientific evidence for more than a half-century; its exclusion of lie-detection technology also paved the way for the continuing exclusion, with few exceptions, of lie-detection evidence in American courts.
What does deception look like in the brain? What about truth? If we knew scientifically, would we really want to know jurisprudentially? It might take all the fun out of practicing law.
Jane Campbell Moriarty, University of Akron School of Law, has published Visions of Deception: Neuroimages and the Search for Truth at 42 Akron Law Review 739 (2009). Here is the abstract.
The historical use of science in the search for truth has posed consistent evidentiary problems of definition, causation, validity, accuracy, inferential conclusions unsupported by data, and complications of real-world applications. As the Innocence Project exoneration data show and the National Academy of Science Report on Forensic Science suggest, our reach in this area may well exceed our grasp. This article argues that the neuroimaging of deception - focusing primarily on the functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies done to date - may well include all of these problems. This symposium article reviews briefly the types of neuroimaging used to detect deception, describes some of the specific criticisms leveled at the science, and explains why these small group of studies are not yet courtroom-ready. Arguing that the studies meet neither the general acceptance nor reliability standards of evidence, the article urges courts to act with restraint, allowing time for further studies, further robust criticism of the studies, additional replication studies, and sufficient time for moral, ethical, and jurisprudential rumination about whether the legal system really wants this type of evidence.
The literature on neuroimaging and its use in the courtroom is expanding furiously. Many legal scholars are weighing in on its uses, particularly on its possible use as a "magic cure" as a lie detector. Here's what Jennifer Bard, of Texas Tech University School of Law, thinks of neuroimaging scans and their use as evidence.
Jennifer Bard, Texas Tech University School of Law, A Call for a Moratorium on the Use of Information Derived from Neuroimaging as a Truth-Verifier in U.S. Courts.
Any law student who has taken Evidence has read about, or better experienced, an experiment in which a man bursts into a crowded classroom, runs through shouting and then leaves. When questioned directly after the event there is strong disagreement among the witnesses as to what the man was saying, what he was wearing and whether or not he had a gun. Based on the work of psychologist Elizabeth Loftus, now on the faculty of the University of California at Irvine Law School, this experience, more than any dry article about cognitive science, demonstrates the inherent unreliability of human memory and the conviction of eye-witnesses about what they have seen. Lawyers involved in the Innocence Project which is seeking to challenge wrongful convictions based on eye-witness testimony by examining conflicting DNA evidence have further brought these findings to public attention. As they explain, 'Research shows that the human mind is not like a tape recorder; we neither record events exactly as we see them, nor recall them like a tape that has been rewound.' Yet despite what has become common knowledge about the malleability of human memory, the idea that it’s possible to access the brain directly to find out whether a witness is telling the truth is being put forward by companies which seek to profit from research that suggests that new imaging technology can detect when a human is telling a lie. These companies are advertising this technology as a tool for law enforcement and promoting its use in U.S. trials as a way of helping juries to assess the credibility of witnesses.
This article explores these claims that neuroimaging scans can be used to detect lies, which far exceed those made by responsible scientists, and also puts them in the context of a series of U.S. Supreme Court cases which have dramatically changed how scientific (forensic) evidence can be presented to the jury in criminal trials. See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1993) (establishing new criteria for admission of scientific evidence); Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2006) (requiring that defendants directly face accusors). It also addresses the significant criticisms being brought against what has often been incautious adoption of unreliable techniques. 'Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward' (National Research Council 2009).
Did You See That Scientist Dressed As a Lie Detector?
Jennifer Bard, Texas Tech University School of Law has published A Call for a Moratorium on the Use of Information Derived from Neuroimaging. Here is the abstract.
Any law student who has taken Evidence has read about, or better experienced, an experiment in which a man bursts into a crowded classroom, runs through shouting and then leaves. When questioned directly after the event there is strong disagreement among the witnesses as to what the man was saying, what he was wearing and whether or not he had a gun. Based on the work of psychologist Elizabeth Loftus, now on the faculty of the University of California at Irvine Law School, this experience, more than any dry article about cognitive science, demonstrates the inherent unreliability of human memory and the conviction of eye-witnesses about what they have seen. Lawyers involved in the Innocence Project which is seeking to challenge wrongful convictions based on eye-witness testimony by examining conflicting DNA evidence have further brought these findings to public attention. As they explain, "Research shows that the human mind is not like a tape recorder; we neither record events exactly as we see them, nor recall them like a tape that has been rewound." Yet despite what has become common knowledge about the malleability of human memory, the idea that it’s possible to access the brain directly to find out whether a witness is telling the truth is being put forward by companies which seek to profit from research that suggests that new imaging technology can detect when a human is telling a lie. These companies are advertising this technology as a tool for law enforcement and promoting its use in U.S. trials as a way of helping juries to assess the credibility of witnesses.
This article explores these claims that neuroimaging scans can be used to detect lies, which far exceed those made by responsible scientists, and also puts them in the context of a series of U.S. Supreme Court cases which have dramatically changed how scientific (forensic) evidence can be presented to the jury in criminal trials. See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1993)(establishing new criteria for admission of scientific evidence); Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2006) (requiring that defendants directly face accusors). It also addresses the significant criticisms being brought against what has often been incautious adoption of unreliable techniques. 'Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward' (National Research Council 2009).
William A. Woodruff, Campbell University School of Law, has published Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Detect Deception: Not Ready for the Courtroom. Here is the abstract.
Despite media hype and at least two companies marketing themselves as offering scientific expert testimony admissible in US courts on whether a witness is telling the truth, recent decisions by a trial court in New York and a Federal Magistrate Judge in Tennessee indicate that replacing the jury deliberation room with a magnetic resonance imaging machine is not in the foreseeable future.
Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), an emerging field of neuroscience that seeks to correlate brain activity to behavior, has been touted by some to be the new lie detector. The MRI machine is able to “see” the increase in oxygenated blood as it fuels various regions of the brain during actions and activities. The hypothesis underlying fMRI as a lie detector is that telling the truth is the natural or normal response of the brain and one would not expect to see increased activity over and above the normal background level of brain activity. But when the subject begins to prevaricate, more brain activity is needed and more oxygenated blood is directed to those regions of the brain processing the “lie.” This blood oxygenation level-dependent (BOLD) differential is measurable by the fMRI.
Comparing the BOLD differential between subjects known to be telling the truth and then deliberately lying allows researchers to hypothesize that increased BOLD above the base line in certain regions of the brain when the subject is answering questions is an indication of deception.
It might be in the lab, but the rules of evidence as applied in US courts considers the citizens of the community selected to sit on the jury more reliable “lie detectors” than the new technology represented by fMRI. Two recent decisions, one in a Federal court applying the Federal Daubert standard and one is New York state court applying the Frye general acceptance test, rejected expert testimony based on the results of fMRI scanning.
In finding fMRI failed to satisfy the exacting standard of Federal Rule of Evidence 702, a Federal magistrate judge in United States v. Semrau measured the new technology against the Daubert reliability factors. fMRI passed the first two factors, testing and peer review. The court noted that the technology was certainly capable of and was being tested and that numerous articles concerning fMRI had appeared in the peer reviewed scientific literature.
The next two Daubert factors, the known or potential error rate and the existence and maintenance of standards, however posed significant problems. While there may be some identifiable error rates associated with fMRI in the controlled lab setting, it was undisputed that error rates in the “real world” application are completely unknown. Similarly, protocols exist for lab studies of fMRI but not such standards exist for real-life applications. In fact, Dr. Steven Larkin, the expert witness for plaintiff in Semrau, and one of the leading proponents of fMRI as a lie detector admitted to deviating from his own protocol in administering the test on Dr. Semrau.
Finally, the court found that fMRI as a reliable lie detector had not achieved general acceptance by the scientific community, the fifth Daubert factor. By failing to meet three of the five Daubert factors, the magistrate judge concluded that fMRI was not sufficiently reliable to admit under FRE 702.
The magistrate judge also found the use of fMRI to bolster Dr. Semrau’s credibility more prejudicial than probative. Relying primarily on cases excluding polygraph examinations taken without the knowledge or participation of the opposing party, the magistrate judge concluded that the unilateral fMRI test here lacked probative value because Dr. Semrau faced no negative consequences by undergoing the test. Accordingly, the evidence was excluded under FRE 403.
The New York case, Wilson v. Corestaff Services L.P., applied the Frye general acceptance standard to fMRI based expert testimony to bolster the plaintiff’s witness in an employment discrimination case. The court was troubled be the notion that fMRI based expert testimony would usurp the jury’s responsibility to determine the credibility of the witnesses, a dramatic departure from the traditions of a common law trial. Additionally, the court found the plaintiff was unable to show the use of fMRI to determine truthfulness had been generally accepted by the relevant scientific community, the standard for admissibility under Frye.
The analysis in Semrau and Wilson combined imposes significant hurdles to the admissibility of fMRI on the issue of witness credibility. The procedure failed to meet the reliability standards of FRE 702 and the general acceptance requirement of Frye. Furthermore, concerns over jury confusion, usurpation of the traditional function of the jury in judging credibility, and whether such testimony is even an appropriate matter for expert opinion raise additional hurdles. For proponents of fMRI expert testimony on witness credibility the obstacles to admissibility are significant under current law.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.