If You Could Read My Mind: Implications of Neurological Evidence for Twenty-First Century Criminal Jurisprudence

John G. New, Chicago-Kent College of Law

Abstract

The advent of new technologies has permitted cognitive neuroscientists to explore the neural mechanisms underlying deceptive behaviors. Lawyers and law enforcement entities have shown great interest in exploring the legal consequences of employing such technologies; indeed such interest extends back to the days of phrenology and the advent of polygraphy. This article recounts current advances in the development of “truth telling” technologies, particularly functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and Brain Fingerprinting and recent attempts to introduce the latter into court as scientific evidence. The second part of the article explores the challenges to constitutional jurisprudence, especially to the Fifth and Fourth Amendment, that the introduction of evidence based on these technologies poses.