Daubert on the Brain: How New Mexico’s Daubert Standard Should Inform its Handling of Neuroimaging Evidence

Part I of this article reviews the expert evidence admissibility standard set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc. and New Mexico’s adoption of the Daubert standard in State v. Alberico.2 Part II of the article provides a summary of the framework expressed in the 2014 publication Group to Individual (G2i) Inference in Scientific Expert Testimony.3 Part III explores case law where DNA testing was considered as evidence and why the courts have concluded that DNA evidence complies with Daubert/Alberico standards. Part IV provides a summary of the use of euroimaging evidence in court and provides an overview of the different neuroimaging techniques being used. Neuroimaging evidence is being increasingly offered in both criminal and civil cases and as a result we believe that a basic familiarity with the different types of techniques is important for all jurists. Part V highlights the distinction between novel science and clinically-established science in showing that Daubert finds its highest purpose when evaluating novel techniques and theories. Part VI concludes that certain types of neuroscience data can be and has been deemed reliable at both the general and individual level through the application of Daubert under a G2i framework

Can Neuroscience Help Predict Future Antisocial Behavior?

Part I of this Article reviews the tools currently available to predict antisocial behavior. Part II discusses legal precedent regarding the use of, and challenges to, various prediction methods. Part III introduces recent neuroscience work in this area and reviews two studies that have successfully used neuroimaging techniques to predict recidivism. Part IV discusses some criticisms that are commonly levied against the various prediction methods and highlights the disparity between the attitudes of the scientific and legal communities toward risk assessment generally and neuroscience specifically. Lastly, Part V explains why neuroscience methods will likely continue to help inform and, ideally, improve the tools we use to help assess, understand, and predict human behavior