Prof. Emily Murphy

Neuroimaging in the Courts

In 2008, a woman in India was convicted of murder for the death of her fiancé on the basis of evidence derived from a brain-based memory detection exam. The test measured brain activity which purportedly indicated that she had personal knowledge of the poisoning of the victim. While such technology is highly controversial and not in common use in U.S. courts, significant advances in brain science now justify analysis of both the potential applications of memory evidence as well as the constitutional implications of doing so.

In part 2 of this 2-part interview, Professor Emily Murphy of UC Hastings Law evaluates how evidence from brain-based memory detection may be admitted in courts under Daubert. She then explores whether such evidence should be admitted even if the technology were perfect, given technological and biological limits, and how it may infringe upon constitutional and privacy rights if the government compels individuals to undergo brain imaging to decode memories.

Neuroimaging in the Courts

In 2008, a woman in India was convicted of murder for the death of her fiancé on the basis of evidence derived from a brain-based memory detection exam. The test measured brain activity which purportedly indicated that she had personal knowledge of the poisoning of the victim. While such technology is highly controversial and not in common use in U.S. courts, significant advances in brain science now justify analysis of both the potential applications of memory evidence as well as the constitutional implications of doing so.

In part 1 of this 2-part interview, Professor Emily Murphy of UC Hastings Law explains the current state of brain-based memory detection technology and how it differs from lie detection tests. She discusses the hypothetical use cases for forensic purposes and the framework for admissibility of expert testimony under the Daubert standard.