Neuroimage evidence and the insanity defense

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

61 Scopus citations


The introduction of neuroscientific evidence in criminal trials has given rise to fears that neuroimagery presented by an expert witness might inordinately influence jurors' evaluations of the defendant. In this experiment, a diverse sample of 1,170 community members from throughout the U.S. evaluated a written mock trial in which psychological, neuropsychological, neuroscientific, and neuroimage-based expert evidence was presented in support of a not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) defense. No evidence of an independent influence of neuroimagery was found. Overall, neuroscience-based evidence was found to be more persuasive than psychological and anecdotal family history evidence. These effects were consistent across different insanity standards. Despite the non-influence of neuroimagery, however, jurors who were not provided with a neuroimage indicated that they believed neuroimagery would have been the most helpful kind of evidence in their evaluations of the defendant.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)592-607
Number of pages16
JournalBehavioral Sciences and the Law
Issue number4
StatePublished - Jul 2011

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Clinical Psychology
  • Psychiatry and Mental health
  • Law


Dive into the research topics of 'Neuroimage evidence and the insanity defense'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this