Copyright (c) 2009 All rights reserved. http://works.bepress.com/jane_moriarty Recent documents in Jane Campbell Moriarty en-us Tue, 17 Nov 2009 09:28:15 PST 3600 http://works.bepress.com/jane_moriarty/14 http://works.bepress.com/jane_moriarty/14 Mon, 20 Jul 2009 11:01:21 PDT The legal and legislative systems have begun to rely on neuroscience in various types of decision-making. Without question, the relationship between the disciplines will become more enmeshed as more data is generated by neuroscientists. Are we ready for this potential sea change that will be both rich and strange? Jane Moriarty Evidence neuroscience http://works.bepress.com/jane_moriarty/13 http://works.bepress.com/jane_moriarty/13 Mon, 20 Jul 2009 09:53:18 PDT The use of science in the search for truth poses consistent evidentiary problems of definition, causation, validity, accuracy, inferential conclusions unsupported by data, and real-world complications. And these evidentiary problems may well be implicated in the forensic use of neuroimages of deception. This article first briefly describes the various types of neuroimaging used to detect deception and describes some of the specific criticisms that have been leveled at the science. Second, the article outlines the standards governing admissibility and explains why the research to date does not yet meet any recognized standards of admissibility. Third, and finally, the article suggests that courts act with restraint in deciding questions of admissibility of such evidence, recognizing the lessons of historical experience with forensic science. Jane Moriarty Evidence http://works.bepress.com/jane_moriarty/12 http://works.bepress.com/jane_moriarty/12 Wed, 01 Oct 2008 09:31:19 PDT We may have moved in the West toward a standard in which "no means no" has the force of criminal law behind it. But are we ready for a standard in which only "yes means yes?" And if so, getting to yes may be a winding path to follow. The concept of consent, some of the symposium authors note, is a far more complicated inquiry than many appreciate. Consider the Eliot quotation above: is it consensual if his exploring hands encounter no defense? Is indifference sufficient to establish consent and if not, should his act be considered criminal rather than just boorish? This is only one, among many, questions with which the symposium authors grapple. Jane Moriarty Women http://works.bepress.com/jane_moriarty/11 http://works.bepress.com/jane_moriarty/11 Wed, 01 Oct 2008 08:59:51 PDT The years since Daubert have not been kind to those seeking to challenge prosecutorial expert evidence, as many of the Symposium authors recognize. After two decades of trying to convince courts that there is no empirical basis for handwriting identification testimony declaring a match between two samples, Michael Risinger claims to be packing his bags and leaving the island until there is a more conducive climate for examining the reliability problems. Jane Moriarty Evidence Expert Witness http://works.bepress.com/jane_moriarty/10 http://works.bepress.com/jane_moriarty/10 Wed, 20 Feb 2008 14:09:12 PST Jane Campbell Moriarty Battered Women http://works.bepress.com/jane_moriarty/9 http://works.bepress.com/jane_moriarty/9 Wed, 20 Feb 2008 13:57:41 PST Jane Campbell Moriarty Evidence http://works.bepress.com/jane_moriarty/8 http://works.bepress.com/jane_moriarty/8 Wed, 20 Feb 2008 13:52:17 PST Forthcoming 2008. Jane Campbell Moriarty Evidence http://works.bepress.com/jane_moriarty/7 http://works.bepress.com/jane_moriarty/7 Wed, 20 Feb 2008 13:15:07 PST Also author of annual supplements. Jane Campbell Moriarty Evidence http://works.bepress.com/jane_moriarty/6 http://works.bepress.com/jane_moriarty/6 Wed, 20 Feb 2008 13:07:54 PST Volume 1 The history of mental illness in criminal cases.Volume 2 The insanity defense.Volume 3 Competency to be tried, imprisoned, and executed. Jane Campbell Moriarty Mental Illness http://works.bepress.com/jane_moriarty/5 http://works.bepress.com/jane_moriarty/5 Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:11:46 PST This article explores the admissibility of neuroimaging evidence in U.S. courts, recognizing various trends in decisions about such evidence.While courts have routinely admitted some neuroimages, such as CT scans and MRI, as proof of trauma and disease, they have been more circumspect about admitting the PET and SPECT scans and fMRI evidence. With the latter technologies, courts have often expressed reservations about what can be inferred from the images. Moreover, courts seem unwilling to find neuroimaging sufficient to prove either insanity or incompetency, but are relatively lenient about admitting neuroimages in death penalty hearings.Some claim that fMRI and ''brain fingerprinting'' are able to detect deception. Other scholars argue that brain fingerprinting is a dubious concept and that fMRI is not yet sufficiently reliable. Moreover, there are substantial concerns about privacy and the perils of mind reading implicit in such technology. Yet, there is amovement to try to make these new technologies ''courtroom ready'' in the near future, raising a host of legal, policy, and ethical questions to be answered. Jane Campbell Moriarty Evidence