IV - Evidence
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 April 2021
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Law and MindA Survey of Law and the Cognitive Sciences, pp. 351 - 470Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
References
Abiri, R., Borhani, S., Sellers, E.W., Jiang, Y., & Zhao, X. (2019). A Comprehensive Review of EEG-Based Brain-Computer Interface Paradigms. Journal of Neural Engineering 16(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/aaf12eCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Amon, A., & Alesch, F. (2017). Systems for Deep Brain Stimulation: Review of Technical Features. Journal of Neural Transmission 124(9), 1083–91. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00702-017-1751-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borders, C., Hsu, F., Sweidan, A. J., Matei, E. S., & Bota, R. G. (2018). Deep Brain Stimulation for Obsessive Compulsive Disorder: A Review of Results by Anatomical Target. Mental Illness 10(2), 40–4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/mi.2018.7900Google Scholar
Bouthour, W., Mégevand, P., Donoghue, J., Lüscher, C., Birbaumer, N., & Krack, P. (2019). Biomarkers for Closed-Loop Deep Brain Stimulation in Parkinson’s Disease and Beyond. Nature Reviews Neurology. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41582-019-0166-4Google Scholar
Clark, A. (2008). Supersizing the Mind: Embodiment, Action, and Cognitive Extension. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chen, R., Romero, G., Christiansen, M. G. Mohr, A., & Anikeeva, P. (2015). Wireless Magnetothermal Deep Brain Stimulation. Science 347(6229), 1477–80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1261821Google Scholar
Dutch Health Law. (2009). Wet Bijzondere Opname in Psychiatrische Ziekenhuizen (Law on Special Admission to Psychiatric Hospitals). http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0005700/geldigheidsdatum_18–11-2009.Google Scholar
Frith, C. D. (1987). The Positive and Negative Symptoms of schizophrenia Reflect Impairments in the Perception and Initiation of Action. Psychological Medicine 17(3), 631–48.Google Scholar
Frith, C. D. (2012). Explaining Delusions of Control: The Comparator Model 20 Years On. Consciousness and Cognition 21, 52–4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2011.06.010Google Scholar
Gallagher, S. (2000). Philosophical Conceptions of the Self: Implications For Cognitive Science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4(1), 14–21.Google Scholar
Gallagher, S. (2007). The Natural Philosophy of Agency. Philosophy Compass 2(2), 347–57.Google Scholar
Gallagher, S. (2012). Multiple Aspects in the Sense of Agency. New Ideas in Psychology 30(1), 15–31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2010.03.003Google Scholar
Gilbert, F., Viaña, J. N. M., & Ineichen, C. (2018). Deflating the ‘DBS Causes Personality Changes’ Bubble. Neuroethics, 1–17.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41582-019-0166-4Google Scholar
Grau, C., Ginhoux, R., Riera, A., et al. (2014). Conscious Brain-to-Brain Communication in Humans Using Non-Invasive Technologies. PLoS ONE 9(8). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0105225Google Scholar
Haselager, W. F. G. (2013). Did I Do That? Brain–Computer Interfacing and the Sense of Agency. Minds and Machines. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-012-9298-7Google Scholar
Haselager, W. F. G., Leoné, F., & van Toor, D. (2013). Data en interpretaties in de cognitieve neurowetenschap (Data and interpretations in cognitive neuroscience. Text in Dutch). Justitiële Verkenningen 39(1), 78–89.Google Scholar
Hildt, E. (2015). What Will This Do to Me and My Brain? Ethical Issues in Brain-to-brain Interfacing. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience 9(17), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2015.00017Google Scholar
Humpston, C. S., & Broome, M. R. (2016). The Spectra of Soundless Voices and Audible Thoughts: Towards an Integrative Model of Auditory Verbal Hallucinations and Thought Insertion. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 7(3), 611–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-015-0232-9Google Scholar
Ienca, M., Haselager, W. F. G., & Emanuel, E. (2018). Brain Leaks and Consumer Neurotechnology. Nature: Biotechnology 36(9), 805–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.4240Google Scholar
Jog, M. V., Wang, D. J. J., & Narr, K. L. (2019). A Review of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) for the Individualized Treatment of Depressive Symptoms. Personalized Medicine in Psychiatry 1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmip.2019.03.001Google Scholar
Kassiri, H., Tonekaboni, S., Salam, M. T., et al. (2017). Closed-Loop Neurostimulators: A Survey and a Seizure-Predicting Design Example for Intractable Epilepsy Treatment. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Circuits and Systems 11(5), 1026–40. https://doi.org/10.1109/TBCAS.2017.2694638Google Scholar
Kekic, M., Boysen, E., Campbell, I. C., & Schmidt, U. (2016). A Systematic Review of the Clinical Efficacy of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) in Psychiatric Disorders. Journal of Psychiatric Research 74, 70–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2015.12.018Google Scholar
Klaming, L., & Haselager, W. F. G. (2013). Did My Brain Implant Make Me Do It? Questions Raised by DBS Regarding Psychological Continuity, Responsibility for Action and Mental Competence. Neuroethics 6(3), 527–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-010-9093-1Google Scholar
Klein, E., Brown, T., Sample, M., Truitt, A. R., & Goering, S. (2015). Engineering the Brain: Ethical Issues and the Introduction of Neural Devices. Hastings Center Report, 45(6), 26–35.Google Scholar
Kokkinos, V., Sisterson, N. D., Wozny, T. A., & Richardson, R. M. (2019). Association of Closed-Loop Brain Stimulation Neurophysiological Features with Seizure Control among Patients with Focal Epilepsy. JAMA Neurology 76(7), 800–8. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.0658Google Scholar
Leentjens, A. F. G., Visser-Vandewalle, V., Temel, Y., & Verhey, F. R. J. (2004). Manipuleerbare wilsbekwaamheid: een ethisch probleem bij elektrostimulatie van de nucleaus subthalamicus voor ernstige ziekte van Parkinson. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde 148, 1394–7.Google Scholar
Legon, W., Sato, T. F., Opitz, A., et al. (2014). Transcranial Focused Ultrasound Modulates the Activity of Primary Somatosensory Cortex in Humans. Nature: Neuroscience 17, 322–9, https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3620Google ScholarPubMed
Leoné, F., Van Toor, D., & Haselager, W. F. G. (2016). Neurowetenschap en recht [Neuroscience and law. Text in Dutch]. In Boone, M., Brants, C., & Kool, R. (eds.), Criminologie en Strafrecht, 2nd ed.Amsterdam: Boom, pp. 163–85.Google Scholar
Lewis, C. J., Maier, F., Horstkötter, N., et al. (2015). Subjectively Perceived Personality and Mood Changes Associated with Subthalamic Stimulation in Patients with Parkinson’s Disease. Psychological Medicine 45(1), 73–85. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291714001081Google Scholar
Limousin, P., & Foltynie, T. (2019). Long-Term Outcomes of Deep Brain Stimulation in Parkinson’s Disease. Nature Reviews Neurology 15(4), 234–42. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41582-019-0145-9Google Scholar
Lo, M. C., & Widge, A. S. (2017). Closed-Loop Neuromodulation Systems: Next-Generation Treatments for Psychiatric Illness. International Review of Psychiatry 29(2), 191–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540261.2017.1282438Google Scholar
Luigjes, J., Segrave, R., de Joode, N., Figee, M., & Denys, D. (2019). Efficacy of Invasive and Non-Invasive Brain Modulation Interventions for Addiction. Neuropsychology Review 29(1), 116–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-018-9393-5Google Scholar
Lynn, M. T., Berger, C. C., Riddle, T. A., & Morsella, E. (2010). Mind Control? Creating Illusory Intentions Through a Phony Brain-Computer Interface. Consciousness and Cognition 19, 1007–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2010.05.007.Google Scholar
Pais-Vieira, M., Chiuffa, G., Lebedev, M., Yadav, A., & Nicolelis, M. (2015). Building an Organic Computing Device with Multiple Interconnected Brains. Scientific Reports 5, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep11869Google Scholar
Pais-Vieira, M., Lebedev, M., Kunicki, C., Wang, J., & Nicolelis, M. (2013). A Brain-to-Brain Interface for Real-Time Sharing of Sensorimotor Information. Scientific Reports 3, 1319, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep01319Google Scholar
Polanía, R., Nitsche, M. A., & Ruff, C. C. (2018). Studying and Modifying Brain Function with Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation. Nature Neuroscience 21(2), 174–87. https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jnnp-2020-323870CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ramakrishnan, A., Ifft, P.J., Pais-Vieira, M., et al. (2015). Computing Arm Movements with a Monkey Brainet. Scientific Reports 5, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep10767Google Scholar
Ramasubbu, R., Lang, S., & Kiss, Z. H. T. (2018). Dosing of Electrical Parameters in Deep Brain Stimulation for Intractable Depression: A Review of Clinical Studies. Frontiers in Psychiatry 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00302CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stevenson, R. L. (1886). Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. London: Longmans, Green & Co. www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/42Google Scholar
Synofzik, M., Vosgerau, G., & Newen, A. (2008). Beyond the Comparator Model: A Multifactorial Two-Step Account of Agency. Consciousness and Cognition 17(1), 219–39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2007.03.010Google Scholar
Synofzik, M., Vosgerau, G., & Voss, M. (2013). The Experience of Agency: An Interplay Between Prediction and Postdiction. Frontiers in Psychology 4, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00127Google Scholar
Systems and Methods for Closed-Loop Pain Management. (n.d.) Patent US20180085584A1. https://patents.google.com/patent/US20180085584A1/enGoogle Scholar
Taylor, R., Galvez, V., & Loo, C. (2018). Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Safety: A Practical Guide for psychiatrists. Australasian Psychiatry 26(2), 189–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1039856217748249Google Scholar
Trimper, J. B., Wolpe, P. R., & Rommelfanger, K. S. (2014). When ‘I’ Becomes ‘We’: Ethical Implications of Emerging Brain-to-Brain Interfacing Technologies. Frontiers in Neuroengineering 7, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneng.2014.00004Google Scholar
Van Gerven, M., Farquhar, J., Schaefer, R., et al. (2009). The Brain-Computer Interface Cycle. Journal of Neural Engineering 6(4), 041001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2560/6/4/041001Google Scholar
Vlek, R., van Acken, J., Beurskens, E., Roijendijk, L., & Haselager, W. F. G. (2014). BCI and a User’s Judgment of Agency. In Mueller, G. & Hildt, E. (eds.), Brain-Computer Interfaces in Their Ethical, Social and Cultural Contexts. Dordrecht: Springer, 193–202.Google Scholar
Wegner, D. M. (2003b). The Mind’s Best Trick: How We Experience Conscious Will. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7, 65–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s1364-6613(03)00002-0Google Scholar
Wegner, D. M., & Wheatley, T. (1999). Apparent Mental Causation. American Psychologist 54(7), 480–92.Google Scholar
Wegner, D. M., Fuller, V. A., & Sparrow, B. (2003). Clever Hands: Uncontrolled Intelligence in Facilitated Communication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85, 5–19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.1.5Google Scholar
Wegner, D. M., Sparrow, B., & Winerman, L. (2004). Vicarious Agency: Experiencing Control Over the Movements of Others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 86, 838–48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.6.838Google Scholar
Wierzgała, P., Zapała, D., Wojcik, G. M., & Masiak, J. (2018). Most Popular Signal Processing Methods in Motor-Imagery BCI: A Review and Meta-Analysis. Frontiers in Neuroinformatics 12, 1–10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2018.00078Google Scholar
Woods, A. J., Antal, A., & Bikson, M. (2016). A Technical Guide to tDCS, and Related Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation Tools. Clinical Neurophysiology 127(2), 1031–48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2015.11.012Google Scholar
Yoo, S. S., Kim, H., Filandrianos, E., Taghados, S. J., & Park, S. (2013). Non-Invasive Brain-to-Brain Interface (BBI): Establishing Functional Links between Two Brains. PLoS ONE 8(4), 2–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0060410Google Scholar
Yu, Y., Pan, G., Gong, Y., et al. (2016). Intelligence-Augmented Rat Cyborgs in Maze Solving. PLoS ONE 11(2), 1–18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147754Google ScholarPubMed
Zhang, S., Yuan, S., Huang, L., et al. (2019). Human Mind Control of Rat Cyborg’s Continuous Locomotion with Wireless Brain-to-Brain Interface. Scientific Reports 9(1), 1–12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-36885-0Google Scholar
References
Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S. 187, 195 (1959).Google Scholar
Advisory Committee Notes to the Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 702, 2000 Amendment.Google Scholar
Aggarwal, N. K., & Ford, E. (2013). The Neuroethics and Neurolaw of Brain Injury. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 31(6), 789–802.Google Scholar
Aguirre, G. K. (2014). Functional Neuroimaging: Technical, Logical, and Social Perspectives. Hastings Center Report 45, S8–18.Google Scholar
Anderson v. Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc., 260 P.3d 857 (Wash. en banc., 2011).Google Scholar
Assaf, Y., & Pasternak, O. (2007). Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI)-based White Matter Mapping in Brain Research: A Review. Journal of Molecular Neuroscience 34(1), 51–61.Google Scholar
Babiak, P. (2007). From Darkness Into the Light: Psychopathy in Industrial and Organizational Psychology. In Hervé, H. & Yuille, J. C. (eds.), The Psychopath: Theory, Research, and Practice (pp. 411–428). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
Belanger, H. G., Vanderploeg, R. D., Curtiss, G., & Warden, D. L. (2007). Recent Neuroimaging Techniques in Mild Traumatic Brain Injury. The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences 19(1), 5–20.Google Scholar
Betz v. Pneumo Abex, LLC., 44 A.3d 27, 53 (PA 2012).Google Scholar
Bigler, E. D., Allen, M., & Stimac, G. K. (2012). MRI and Functional MRI. In Simpson, J. R. (ed.), Neuroimaging in Forensic Psychiatry: From the Clinic to the Courtroom. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 27–40.Google Scholar
Bigler, E. D., Jantz, P. B., Freedman, D., & Woods, G. W. (2015). Structural Neuroimaging in Forensic Settings. University of Missouri-Kansas City Law Review 84, 311–313.Google Scholar
Blume, J. H., Freedman, H., Vann, L., & Hritz, A. C. (2020). Death by Numbers: Why Evolving Standards Compel Extending Roper’s Categorical Ban Against Executing Juveniles From 18 to 21. Texas Law Review 98, 921–951.Google Scholar
Blume, J. H., & Paavola, E.C. (2011). Life, Death, and Neuroimaging: The Advantages and Disadvantages of the Defense’s Use of Neuroimages in Capital Cases – Lessons from the Front. Mercer Law Review 62, 909–931.Google Scholar
Brouard v. Convery, 70 N.Y.S.3d. 820 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018).Google Scholar
Brown, T., & Murphy, E. (2010). Through a Scanner Darkly: Functional Neuroimaging as Evidence of a Criminal Defendant’s Past Mental States. Stanford Law Review 62, 1119–1208.Google Scholar
Button, K. S., Ioannidis, J. P., Mokrysz, C. et al. (2013). Power Failure: Why Small Sample Size Undermines the Reliability of Neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 14(5), 365–376.Google Scholar
Chisholm v. Champion Ent. Inc., 2003 WL 25685508, *4 (D.C. Wyo. 2003).Google Scholar
Clark v. Arizona, 548 U. S. 735 (2006).Google Scholar
C.W. and E.W., ex rel. Wood v. Textron, Inc., 807 F.3d 827, 832 (7th Cir. 2015).Google Scholar
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1993).Google Scholar
Davis, K. D., Flor, H., Greely, H.T., et al. (2017). Brain Imaging Tests for Chronic Pain: Medical, Legal and Ethical Issues and Recommendations. Nature Reviews Neurology 13(10), 624–638.Google Scholar
Denno, D. W. (2015). The Myth of the Double-Edged Sword: An Empirical Study of Neuroscience Evidence in Criminal Cases. Boston College Law Review 56, 493–551.Google Scholar
Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (1975).Google Scholar
Donald, B. B., & Bakies, E. (2016). A Glimpse Inside the Brain’s Black Box: Understanding the Role of Neuroscience in Criminal Sentencing. Fordham Law Review 85, 481–502.Google Scholar
Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 402 (1960).Google Scholar
Elonis v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2001, 2010 (2015).Google Scholar
Entertainment Software Association v. Blagojevich, 404 F. Supp. 2d 1051 (N.D. Ill. 2005), aff’d, 469 F.3d 641 (7th Cir. 2006).Google Scholar
Eskridge, S. L., Macera, C. A., Galarneau, M. R. et al. (2012). Injuries From Combat Explosions in Iraq: Injury Type, Location, and Severity. Injury 43(10), 1678–1682.Google Scholar
Espinoza, F. A., Vergara, V. M., Reyes, D., et al. (2018). Aberrant Functional Network Connectivity in Psychopathy from a Large (N = 985) Forensic Sample. Human Brain Mapping 39(6), 2624–2634.Google Scholar
Faigman, D. L., Cheng, E. K., Mnookin, J., et al. (2018–2019). Modern Scientific Evidence, §8.2 Mens rea and mental disorder – “Diminished Capacity.” Thomson West.Google Scholar
Faigman, D. L., Slobogin, C., and Monahan, J. (2016). Gatekeeping Science: Using the Structure of Scientific Research to Distinguish Between Admissibility and Weight in Expert Testimony. Northwestern Law Review 110, 859–904.Google Scholar
Farah, M. J., Hutchinson, J., Phelps, E. A., & Wagner, A. D. (2014). Functional MRI-Based Lie Detection: Scientific and Societal Challenges. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 15(4), 123–131.Google Scholar
Farahany, N. A. (2015). Neuroscience and Behavioral Genetics in US Criminal Law: An Empirical Analysis. Journal of Law and the Biosciences 2, 485–509.Google Scholar
Faul, M., Wald, M. M., Wu, L., & Coronado, V. G. (2010). Traumatic Brain Injury in the United States: Emergency Department Visits, Hospitalizations, and Deaths, 2002–2006. Atlanta, GA: CDC. www.cdc.gov/traumaticbraininjury/pdf/blue_book.pdfGoogle Scholar
The Federal Death Penalty Act, 18 U.S.C. §3591 (2012).Google Scholar
Federal Rule of Evidence 401Google Scholar
Federal Rule of Evidence 403Google Scholar
Federal Rule of Evidence 602Google Scholar
Federal Rule of Evidence 701Google Scholar
Federal Rule of Evidence 702Google Scholar
Federal Rule of Evidence 703Google Scholar
Federal Rule of Evidence 1101Google Scholar
Fisher v. Ciba Specialty Chemicals Corp., 2007 WL 2302470 (S.D. Ala. 2007).Google Scholar
Fox, A. R., Kvaran, T. H., & Fontaine, R. G. (2013). Psychopathy and Culpability: How Responsible Is the Psychopath for Criminal Wrongdoing? Law & Social Inquiry 38(01), 1–26.Google Scholar
Frye v. United States, 293 F.101346 (D.C. App. 1923).Google Scholar
Ganis, G., Rosenfeld, J. P., Meixner, J., Kievit, R. A., & Schendan, H. E. (2011). Lying in the Scanner: Covert Countermeasures Disrupt Deception Detection by Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging. NeuroImage 55(1), 312–319.Google Scholar
Gaudet, L. M., & Marchant, G. E. (2016). Under the Radar: Neuroimaging Evidence in the Criminal Courtroom. Drake Law Review 64, 577–661.Google Scholar
General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 118 S. Ct. 512, 139 L. Ed. 2d 508 (1997).Google Scholar
Gertner, N. (2010). A Short History of American Sentencing: Too Little Law, Too Much Law, or Just Right. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 100, 691–707.Google Scholar
Gertner, N. (2018). Against These Guidelines. University of Missouri-Kansas City Law Review 87 49–59.Google Scholar
Giannelli, P., Imwinkelried, E. J., Roth, A., Moriarty, J. C., & Beety, V. E. (2020). Scientific Evidence, 6th ed. New York: LexisNexis.Google Scholar
Gilmore, R. O., Diaz, M., Wyble, B., & Yarkoni, T. (2017). Progress Toward Openness, Transparency, and Reproducibility in Cognitive Neuroscience. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1396, 5–18.Google Scholar
Godman, M., & Jefferson, A. (2014). On Blaming and Punishing Psychopaths. Criminal Law and Philosophy 11(1), 127–142.Google Scholar
Goeb v. Tharaldson, 615 N.W.2d 800 (Minn. 2000).Google Scholar
Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010).Google Scholar
Granacher, R. P. (2008). Commentary: Applications of Functional Neuroimaging to Civil Litigation of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 36, 323–328, 326.Google Scholar
Granacher, R. P. (2012). Traumatic Brain Injury. In Simpson, J. R. (ed.), Neuroimaging in Forensic Psychiatry: From the Clinic to the Courtroom. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 43–65.Google Scholar
Greely, H. T., & Farahany, N. A. (2019). Neuroscience and the Criminal Justice System. Annual Review of Criminology, 2, 451–471. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-011518–024433Google Scholar
Greely, H. T., & Illes, J. (2007). Neuroscience-Based Lie Detection: The Urgent Need for Regulation. American Journal of Law & Medicine 33(2–3), 377.Google Scholar
Greely, H. T., & Wagner, A. D. (2011). Reference Guide on Neuroscience. In National Research Council, Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence: Third Edition Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Greene, J., & Cohen, J. (2004). For the Law, Neuroscience Changes Nothing and Everything. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 359, 1775.Google Scholar
Grey, B., Marchant, G., & Tyszka, C. (2015). Biomarkers for Concussion Susceptibility and Effects. SciTech Lawyer 11(2), 12–16.Google Scholar
Grey, B. J. (2018). Aging in the 21st Century: Using Neuroscience to Assess Competency in Guardianships. Wisconsin Law Review, 735–780.Google Scholar
Gur, R. C., Gur, O. M., Gur, A. E., & Gur, A. G. (2016). A Perspective on the Potential Role of Neuroscience in the Court. Fordham Law Review 85, 547–572.Google Scholar
Gurley, J. R., & Marcus, D. K. (2008). The Effects of Neuroimaging and Brain Injury on Insanity Defenses. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 26(1), 85–97.Google Scholar
Hare, R. D. (1998). Psychopaths and Their Nature: Implications for the Mental Health and Criminal Justice Systems. In Millon, T., Simonsen, E., Birket-Smith, M., & Davis, R. D. (eds.), Psychopathy: Antisocial, Criminal, and Violent Behavior. New York: The Guilford Press, pp. 188–212.Google Scholar
Hughes, V. (2010). Science in Court: Head Case. Nature 464(7287), 340–342. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1038/464340aGoogle Scholar
Indiana v. Edwards, 128 S.Ct. 2379, 2383 (2008).Google Scholar
Insanity Defense Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. §17 (1984).Google Scholar
Jarvis v. Secretary of the Dept. of Health and Human Services, 99 Fed. Cl. 47, 57 (2011).Google Scholar
Johnson, L. S. M., Partridge, B., & Gilbert, F. (2015). Framing the Debate: Concussion and Mild Traumatic Brain Injury. Neuroethics 8(1), 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, O. D., Schall, J. D., & Shen, F. X. (2014). Law and Neuroscience. New York: Wolter Kluwer Law & Business.Google Scholar
Kansas v. Marsh, 548 U.S. 163, 171 (2006).Google Scholar
Kiehl, K. A., & Hoffman, M. B. (2011). The Criminal Psychopath: History, Neuroscience, Treatment, and Economics. Jurimetrics Journal 51(4), 355–397.Google ScholarPubMed
Kiehl, K. A., Smith, A. M., Hare, R. D. et al. (2001). Limbic Abnormalities in Affective Processing by Criminal Psychopaths as Revealed by Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Biological Psychiatry 50(9), 677–684.Google Scholar
Kolber, A. J. (2007). Pain Detection and the Privacy of Subjective Experience. American Journal of Law & Medicine 33(2–3), 433–456.Google Scholar
Korponay, C., Pujara, M., Deming, P., et al. (2017). Impulsive-Antisocial Psychopathic Traits Linked to Increased Volume and Functional Connectivity Within Prefrontal Cortex. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 12(7), 1169–1178.Google Scholar
Kuhn v. Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corp., 14 P.3d 1170, 1179 (Kan. 2000).Google Scholar
Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 119 S. Ct. 1167, 143 L. Ed. 2d 238 (1999).Google Scholar
Kwong, K. K., Belliveau, J. W., Chesler, D. A., et al. (1992). Dynamic Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Human Brain Activity During Primary Sensory Stimulation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 89(12), 5675–5679.Google Scholar
Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156, 165 (2012).Google Scholar
Langleben, D. D., Hakun, J. G., Seelig, D., et al. (2016). Polygraphy and Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Lie Detection: A Controlled Blind Comparison Using the Concealed Information Test. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 77(10), 1372–1380. https://doi.org/10.4088/JCP.15m09785Google Scholar
Langleben, D. D., & Moriarty, J. C. (2013). Using Brain Imaging for Lie Detection: Where Science, Law, and Policy Collide. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 19(2), 222–234. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0028841Google Scholar
Langleben, D. D., Willard, D. F. X., & Moriarty, J. C. (2012). MRI and Functional MRI. In Simpson, J. R. (ed.), Neuroimaging in Forensic Psychiatry: From the Clinic to the Courtroom. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 217–236.Google Scholar
Le Bihan, D. (2014). Diffusion MRI: what water tells us about the brain. EBMO Molecular Medicine 4, 1–5.Google Scholar
Lee v. United States, 137 S.Ct. 1958, 1964 (2017).Google Scholar
Levin, H. S., & Diaz-Arrastia, R. R. (2015). Diagnosis, Prognosis, and Clinical Management of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury. The Lancet Neurology 14(5), 506–517.Google Scholar
Litton, P. (2007). Responsibility Status of the Psychopath: On Moral Reasoning and Rational Self-Governance. Rutgers Law Review 39, 349–392.Google Scholar
Liu, C. A. (2015). Scanning the Evidence: The Evidentiary Admissibility of Expert Witness Testimony on MRI Brain Scans in Civil Cases in the Post-Daubert Era. New York University Annual Survey of American Law 70, 479–535.Google Scholar
Logothetis, N. K. (2008). What We Can Do and What We Cannot Do With fMRI. Nature 453, 869–878.Google Scholar
The MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Law and Neuroscience (2016). www.lawneuro.org/Google Scholar
Maoz, U., & Yaffe, G. (2016). What Does Recent Neuroscience Tell Us About Criminal Responsibility? Journal of Law and the Biosciences 3(1), 120–139. https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsv051Google Scholar
Marcus, P. (2016). The United States Supreme Court (Mostly) Gives up Its Review Role with Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Cases. Minnesota Law Review 100, 1745–1768.Google Scholar
Maroney, T. A. (2009). The False Promise of Adolescent Brain Science in Juvenile Justice. Notre Dame Law Review 85 89–176.Google Scholar
Mayberg, H. S. (2014). Neuroimaging and Psychiatry: The Long Road from Bench to Bedside. Hastings Center Report 44, n.2, s31–s36.Google Scholar
McClain v. Metabolife Int’l, Inc. 401 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2005).Google Scholar
McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U. S. 279, 753 F.2d 877 (1987).Google Scholar
McCord, D., & Bennett, M. W. (2014). The Proposed Capital Penalty Phase Rules of Evidence. Cardozo Law Review 36 417, 420–421.Google Scholar
Meixner, J. B. (2012). Liar, Liar, Jury’s the Trier? The Future of Neuroscience-Based Credibility Assessment in the Court. Northwestern University Law Review 106, 1451–1488.Google Scholar
Meixner, J. B. (2017). Neuroscience and Mental Competency: Current Uses and Future Potential. Albany Law Review 81, 995–1026.Google Scholar
Melville, J. D., & Naimark, D. (2002). Punishing the Insane: The Verdict of Guilty but Mentally Ill. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 30, 553–555.Google Scholar
Menon, D. K., Schwab, K., Wright, D. W., & Maas, A. (2010). Working Group on Demographics and Clinical Assessment of the International Interagency Initiative toward Common Data Elements for Research in TBI and Psychological Health. Position Statement: Definition of Traumatic Brain Injury. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 91(11), 1637–1640.Google Scholar
Meltzer, C. C., Sze, G., Rommelfanger, K. S., Kinlaw, K., Banja, J. D., & Wolpe, P. R. (2014). Guidelines for the Ethical Use of Neuroimages in Medical Testimony: Report of a Multidisciplinary Consensus Conference. American Journal of Neuroradiology 35(4), 632–637.Google Scholar
Miller v. Alabama (2012).Google Scholar
Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S.Ct. 718, 733 (2016).Google Scholar
Moran, R. (1981). Knowing Right From Wrong: The Insanity Defense of Daniel McNaughtan. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Moriarty, J. C. (2008). Flickering Admissibility: Neuroimaging Evidence in the US Courts. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 26(1), 29–49.Google Scholar
Moriarty, J. C. (2009). Visions of Deception: Neuroimages and the Search for Truth. Akron Law Review 42, 739–761.Google Scholar
Moriarty, J. C. (2016). Seeing Voices: Potential Neuroscience Contributions to a Reconstruction of Legal Insanity. Fordham Law Review 86, 599–618.Google Scholar
Moriarty, J. C. (2018). Deceptively Simple: Framing, Intuition and Judicial Gatekeeping of Forensic Feature-Comparison Methods Evidence. Fordham Law Review 86, 1687–1708.Google Scholar
Moriarty, J. C., & Langleben, D. D. (2018). Who Speaks for Neuroscience? Neuroimaging Evidence and Courtroom Expertise, Case Western Reserve Law Review 68, 783–804.Google Scholar
Moriarty, J. C., Langleben, D. D., & Provenzale, J. M. (2013). Brain Trauma, PET Scans and Forensic Complexity. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 31(6), 702–720.Google Scholar
Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 252 (1952).Google Scholar
Morse, S. J. (2007). Criminal Responsibility and the Disappearing Person. Cardozo Law Review 28, 2545–2575.Google Scholar
Morse, S. J. (2008). Psychopathy and Criminal Responsibility. Neuroethics 1(3), 205–212.Google Scholar
Morse, S. J. (2011). Mental Disorder and Criminal Law. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 101, 885–968.Google Scholar
Morse, S. J., & Hoffman, M. B. (2007). The Uneasy Entente Between Insanity and Mens Rea: Beyond Clark v. Arizona. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 97, 1071–1149.Google Scholar
Mueller, C. B., & Kirkpatrick, L. C. (2018). Federal Evidence, 4th ed. Egan, MN: Thomson Reuters.Google Scholar
Murphy, E. (2016). Neuroscience and the Civil Criminal Divide. Fordham Law Review 85, 619–639.Google Scholar
National Research Council. (2009). Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States. 11.Google Scholar
Nicholls, T. L., Ogloff, J. R. P., Brink, J., & Spidel, A. (2005). Psychopathy in Women: a Review of Its Clinical Usefulness For Assessing Risk For Aggression and Criminality. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 23(6), 779–802.Google Scholar
Niogi, S. N., & Mukherjee, P. (2010). Diffusion Tensor Imaging of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation 25(4), 241–255.Google Scholar
Ogawa, S., Lee, T. M., Kay, A. R., & Tank, D. W. (1990). Brain Magnetic Resonance Imaging With Contrast Dependent on Blood Oxygenation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the Unites States of America 87(24), 9868–9872.Google Scholar
Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses, FRE 701 section year.Google Scholar
O’Donnell, L. J., & Westin, C.-F. (2011). An Introduction to Diffusion Tensor Image Analysis. Neurosurgery Clinics of North America 22(2), 185–196. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.nec.2010.12.004Google Scholar
Pardo, M. S. (2005). Neuroscience Evidence, Legal Culture, and Criminal Procedure. American Journal of Criminal Law 33(301), 321–336.Google Scholar
Pardo, M. S., & Patterson, D.M. (2013). Minds, Brains, and Law: the Conceptual Foundations of Law and Neuroscience. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
People v. Daveggio and Michaud, 415 P.3d 717, 749 (Cal. 2018).Google Scholar
People v. Schreck, 22 P.3d 68 (Colo. en banc, 2001).Google Scholar
Perlin, M. L. (1994). The Jurisprudence of the Insanity Defense. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
Perlin, M. L., & Lynch, A. (2016). In the Wasteland of Your Mind: Criminology, Scientific Discoveries and the Criminal Process. Virginia Journal of Criminal Law 4(2), 304–360.Google Scholar
Phillips, K. D. (2013). Empathy for Psychopaths: Using fMRI Brain Scans to Plead for Leniency in Death Penalty. Law & Psychology Review 37, 1.Google Scholar
President’s Council of Advisors on Sci. & Tech., Exec.Office of the President. (2016). Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods 46.Google Scholar
Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle, 136 S.Ct. 1863, 1871 (2016).Google Scholar
Pustilnik, A. C. (2012). Pain as Fact and Heuristic: How Pain Neuroimaging Illuminates Moral Dimensions of Law. Cornell Law Review 97, 801–847.Google Scholar
Raine, A., Buchsbaum, M., & Lacasse, L. (1997). Brain Abnormalities in Murderers Indicated by Positron Emission Tomography. Biological Psychiatry 42(6), 495–508.Google Scholar
Raine, A., Meloy, J. R., Bihrle, S., et al. (1998). Reduced Prefrontal and Increased Subcortical Brain Functioning Assessed Using Positron Emission Tomography in Predatory and Affective Murderers. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 16(3), 319–332.Google Scholar
Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 482 (2000).Google Scholar
Roozenbeek, B., Maas, A. I. R., & Menon, D. K. (2013). Changing Patterns in the Epidemiology of Traumatic Brain Injury. Nature Reviews Neurology 9(4), 231–236.Google Scholar
Rosenfeld, J. (1999). P300 Scalp Amplitude Distribution as an Index of Deception in a Simulated Cognitive Deficit Model. International Journal of Psychophysiology 33(1), 3–19.Google Scholar
Rosenfeld, J. P., Soskins, M., Bosh, G., & Ryan, A. (2004). Simple, Effective Countermeasures to P300-Based Tests of Detection of Concealed Information. Psychophysiology 41(2), 205–219.Google Scholar
Ruppel v. Kucanin. (2011) WL 2470621 (D.C. N.D. Ind. 2011) (unreported).Google Scholar
Rushing, S. E., Pryma, D. A., & Langleben, D. D. (2012). PET and SPECT. In Simpson, J. R. (ed.), Neuroimaging in Forensic Psychiatry: From the Clinic to the Courtroom. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Scarpazza, C., Ferracuti, S., Miolla, A., & Sartori, G. (2018). The Charm of Structural Neuroimaging in Insanity Evaluations: Guidelines to Avoid Misinterpretation of the Findings. Translational Psychiatry 8(1), 227–228.Google Scholar
Schauer, F. (2010). Lie-Detection, Neuroscience, and the Law of Evidence. Cornell Law Review 95, 1191–1219.Google Scholar
Schweitzer, N. J., & Saks, M. J. (2011). Neuroimage Evidence and the Insanity Defense. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 29(4), 592–607.Google Scholar
Schweitzer, N. J., Saks, M. J., Murphy, E. R., et al. (2011). Neuroimages as Evidence in a Mens Rea Defense: No Impact. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 17(3), 357–393.Google Scholar
Shen, F. X. (2013). Legislating Neuroscience: The Case of Juvenile Justice. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 46, 985, 994–995.Google Scholar
Shen, F. X. (2014). Neuroscience, Mental Privacy, and the Law. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 36, 653, 692–707.Google Scholar
Shen, F. X. (2016). The Overlooked History of Neurolaw. Fordham Law Review 85, 667, 685–687.Google Scholar
Shen, F. X., & Jones, O. D. (2011). Brain Scans as Evidence: Truths, Proofs, Lies, and Lessons. Mercer Law Review 62, 861–883.Google Scholar
Shenton, M. E., Price, B. H., Levin, L. & Edersheim, J. G. (2018). Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: Is DTI Ready for the Courtroom? International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 61, 50–63.Google Scholar
Shetty, V. S., Reis, M. N., Aulino, J. M., et al. (2016). ACR Appropriateness Criteria Head Trauma. Journal of the American College of Radiology 13(6), 668–679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2016.02.023Google Scholar
Silva, M. A., See, A. P., Essayed, W. I., Golby, A. J., & Tie, Y. (2018). Challenges and Techniques for Presurgical Brain Mapping with Functional MRI. NeuroImage: Clinical 17, 794–803.Google Scholar
Slobogin, C. (1985). The Guilty but Mentally Ill Verdict: An Idea Whose Time Should Not Have Come. George Washington Law Review 53, 494–527.Google Scholar
Slobogin, C. (2000). Doubts about Daubert: Psychiatric Anecdata as a Case Study. Washington and Lee Law Review 57, 919–948.Google Scholar
Slobogin, C. (2007). Proving the Unprovable: the Role of Law, Science, and Speculation in Adjudicating Culpability and Dangerousness. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Slobogin, C. (2017). Neuroscience Nuance: Dissecting the Relevance of Neuroscience in Adjudicating Criminal Culpability. Journal of Law and the Biosciences 4(3), 577–593.Google Scholar
Smith, S. F. (2010). Taking Strickland Claims Seriously. Marquette Law Review 93, 515–544.Google Scholar
Snead, O. C. (2007). Neuroimaging and the Complexity of Capital Punishment. New York University Law Review 82(1265), 1292–1293.Google Scholar
State v. Smith, 32 A.3d 59 (Md. 2011).Google Scholar
Steinberg, L. (2017). Adolescent Brain Science and Juvenile Justice Policymaking. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 23(4), 410–420.Google Scholar
Stith, K., & Cabranes, J. A. (1997). Judging Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Northwestern University Law Review 91, 1247–1283.Google Scholar
Stocchetti, N., & Zanier, E. R. (2016). Chronic Impact Of Traumatic Brain Injury On Outcome And Quality Of Life: A Narrative Review. Critical Care 20(1). DOI: http:/doi.org/10.1186/s13054-016-1318-1Google Scholar
Taylor, J. S. (2015). Neurolaw and Traumatic Injury: Principles for Trial Lawyers. University of Missouri-Kansas City Law Review 84, 397–409.Google Scholar
Taylor, C. A., Bell, J. M., Breiding, M. J., & Xu, L. (2017). Traumatic Brain Injury–Related Emergency Department Visits, Hospitalizations, and Deaths – United States, 2007 and 2013. MMWR. Surveillance Summaries 66(9), 1–16.Google Scholar
Telis, M. (2014). Playing Through the Haze: The NFL Concussion Litigation and section 301 Preemption. Georgetown Law Journal 102, 1841–1868.Google Scholar
Texas Penal Code Annotated §8.01(a) (West, 2015).Google Scholar
Torres v. Lynch, 136 S. Ct. 1619, 1630 (2016).Google Scholar
Turlington, S. (2008). Completely Unguided Discretion: Admitting Non-Statutory Aggravating and Non-Statutory Mitigating Evidence in Capital Sentencing Trial. Pierce Law Review 6, 469–483.Google Scholar
United Laundries Co. v. Bradford, 105 A. 303 (Md. 1918).Google Scholar
United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual, §5H1.3. Mental and Emotional Conditions (Policy Statement) (2018).Google Scholar
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 237 (2005).Google Scholar
United States v. Charley, 189 F. 3d 1251, 1267 (10th Cir. 1999).Google Scholar
United States v. Hinckley, 672 F.2d 115 (D.C. Cir. 1982).Google Scholar
United States v. Montgomery, 635 F.3d 1074 (8th Cir. 2011).Google Scholar
United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 313–14 (1998).Google Scholar
United States v. Semrau, 693 F.3d 510 (6th Cir. 2012)Google Scholar
United States v. Sherlin, 67 F.3d 1208 (6th Cir. 1995).Google Scholar
Vincent, N. A. (2009). On the Relevance of Neuroscience to Criminal Responsibility. Criminal Law and Philosophy 4(1), 77–98.Google Scholar
Vincent, N. A. (2013). A Compatibilist Theory of Legal Responsibility. Criminal Law and Philosophy 9(3), 477–498.Google Scholar
Ward v. Carnival Corporation, volume source page (D.C. S.D. Fl. 2019).Google Scholar
Westberry v. Gislaved Gummi AB, 178 F.3d 257, 262–63 (4th Cir. 1999).Google Scholar
Wilson v. Corestaff, 900 N.Y.S.2d 639, 28 Misc.3d 425 (2010).Google Scholar
Wolpe, P. R., Foster, K. R., & Langleben, D. D. (2005). Emerging Neurotechnologies for Lie-Detection: Promises and Perils. The American Journal of Bioethics 5(2), 39–49.Google Scholar
Woodmansee, M. A. (1996). The Guilty but Mentally Ill Verdict: Political Expediency at the Expense of Moral Principle. Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics, & Public Policy 10(341), 341–387.Google Scholar
Zeki, S., Goodenough, O. R., Spence, S. A., et al. (2004). A Cognitive Neurobiological Account of Deception: Evidence From Functional Neuroimaging. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 359(1451), 1755–1762. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1555Google Scholar
References
Aono, D., Yaffe, G., & Kober, H. (2019). Neuroscientific Evidence in the Courtroom: A Review. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications 4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-019–0179-yGoogle Scholar
Bonnie, R. J., Jeffries, J. C., Jr. & Low, P. W. (2008). A Case Study of the Insanity Defense: The Trial of John W. Hinckley, Jr., 3rd ed. St. Paul, MN: Foundation Press.Google Scholar
Denno, D. W. (2005). Criminal Law in a Post-Freudian World. University of Illinois Law Review 3, 601–774.Google Scholar
Denno, D. W. (2015). The Myth of the Double-Edged Sword: An Empirical Study of Neuroscience Evidence in Criminal Cases. Boston College Law Review 56, 493–551.Google Scholar
Denno, D. W. (2019a). Neuroscience and the Personalization of Criminal Law. University of Chicago Law Review 86, 359–401.Google Scholar
Denno, D. W. (2019b). How Courts in Criminal Cases Respond to Childhood Trauma. Marquette Law Review 103, 302–363.Google Scholar
Garland, B. (2004). Neuroscience and the Law: Brain, Mind, and the Scales of Justice. New York: Dana Press.Google Scholar
Jones, O. D. (2013). Seven Ways Neuroscience Aids Law. In Battro, A. M., Dehaene, S., Sorondo, M. S., & Singer, W. J. (eds.), Neurosciences and the Human Person: New Perspectives on Human Activities. Vatican City: The Pontifical Academy of Sciences, pp. 181–194.Google Scholar
Kansas v. Marsh, 548 U.S. 163, 174 (2006) (quoting LOCKETT V. OHIO, 438 U.S. 586, 604 [1978]).Google Scholar
Moriarty, J. C. (2016). Seeing Voices: Potential Neuroscience Contributions to a Reconstruction of Legal Insanity. Fordham Law Review 85, 599–618.Google Scholar
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984).Google Scholar
Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 524 (2003).Google Scholar
References
Andreassi, J. L. (2006). Psychophysiology: Human Behavior & Physiological Response, 5th ed. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Brett, M., Johnsrude, I. S., & Owen, A. M. (2002). The Problem of Functional Localization in the Human Brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 3, 243–249.Google Scholar
Brindley, T., & Giordano, J. (2014). Neuroimaging: Correlation, Validity, Value, and Admissibility: Daubert – and Reliability – Revisited. AJOB Neuroscience 5(2), 48–50.Google Scholar
Brown, T., & Murphy, E. (2009). Through a Scanner Darkly: Functional Neuroimaging as Evidence of a Criminal Defendant’s Past Mental States. Stanford Law Review 62, 1119–1208.Google Scholar
Buckholtz, J. W., & Faigman, D. L. (2014). Promises, Promises for Neuroscience and Law. Current Biology 24(18), 861–867.Google Scholar
Buckholtz, J., Reyna, V. F., & Slobogin, C. (2016). A Neuro-Legal Lingua Franca: Bridging Law and Neuroscience on the Issue of Self-Control. Mental Health Law & Policy Journal 5, 1–30 (Vanderbilt Public Law Research Paper No. 16–32).Google Scholar
Button, K. S., Ioannidis, J. P., Mokrysz, C., et al.(2013). Power Failure: Why Small Sample Size Undermines the Reliability of Neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 14(5), 365–376.Google Scholar
Caplan, L. (1984). The Insanity Defense and the Trial of John W. Hinckley, Jr. Boston, MA: David R. Godine.Google Scholar
Chambers, C. D., Feredoes, E., Muthukumaraswamy, S. D., & Etchells, P. (2014). Instead of “Playing the Game” It Is Time to Change the Rules: Registered Reports at AIMS Neuroscience and Beyond. AIMS Neuroscience 1(1), 4–17.Google Scholar
Clarke, J. W. (1990). On Being Mad or Merely Angry: John W. Hinckley Jr. and Other Dangerous People. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
De Boer, S. F., Olivier, B., Veening, J., & Koolhaas, J. M. (2015). The Neurobiology of Offensive Aggression: Revealing a Modular View. Physiology & Behavior 146, 111–127.Google Scholar
Eklund, A., Nichols, T. E., & Knutsson, H. (2016). Cluster Failure: Why fMRI Inferences for Spatial Extent Have Inflated False-Positive Rates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113(28), 7900–7905.Google Scholar
Faigman, D. L., Monahan, J., & Slobogin, C. (2014). Group to Individual (G2i) Inference in Scientific Expert Testimony. The University of Chicago Law Review 81(2), 417–480.Google Scholar
Farah, M. J., Hutchinson, J. B., Phelps, E. A., & Wagner, A. D. (2014). Functional MRI-Based Lie Detection: Scientific and Societal Challenges. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 15(2), 123–131.Google Scholar
Feigenson, N. (2006). Brain Imaging and Courtroom Evidence: On the Admissibility and Persuasiveness of fMRI. International Journal of Law in Context 2(3), 233–255.Google Scholar
Gazzaniga, M. S. (2011). Neuroscience in the Courtroom. Scientific American 304(4), 54–59.Google Scholar
Gilmore, R. O., Diaz, M. T., Wyble, B. A., & Yarkoni, T. (2017). Progress Toward Openness, Transparency, and Reproducibility in Cognitive Neuroscience. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1396(1), 5–18.Google Scholar
Goldstone, R. L., Pestilli, F., & Börner, K. (2015). Self-Portraits of the Brain: Cognitive Science, Data Visualization, and Communicating Brain Structure and Function. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 19(8), 462–474.Google Scholar
Hans, V. P., & Slater, D. (1983). John Hinckley, Jr. and the insanity defense: The public’s verdict. Public Opinion Quarterly 47(2), 202–212.Google Scholar
Knight, R. T. (2007). Neural Networks Debunk Phrenology. Science 316(5831), 1578–1579.Google Scholar
Kolb, B., & Whishaw, I. Q. (1998). Brain Plasticity and Behavior. Annual Review of Psychology 49(1), 43–64.Google Scholar
Loftus, E. F. (2005). Planting Misinformation in the Human Mind: A 30-Year Investigation of the Malleability of Memory. Learning & Memory 12(4), 361–366.Google Scholar
Loftus, E. F. (2018). Eyewitness Science and the Legal System. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 14, 1–10.Google Scholar
McCabe, D. P., & Castel, A. D. (2008). Seeing Is Believing: The Effect of Brain Images on Judgments of Scientific Reasoning. Cognition 107(1), 343–352.Google Scholar
McCabe, D. P., Castel, A. D., & Rhodes, M. G. (2011). The Influence of fMRI Lie Detection Evidence on Juror Decision-Making. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 29(4), 566–577.Google Scholar
Moriarty, J. C. (2008). Flickering Admissibility: Neuroimaging Evidence in the US Courts. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 26(1), 26–49.Google Scholar
Moriarty, J. C., & Langleben, D. D. (2017). Who Speaks for Neuroscience? Neuroimaging Evidence and Courtroom Expertise. Case Western Reserve Law Review 68(3), 783–804.Google Scholar
Moriarty, J. C., Langleben, D. D., & Provenzale, J. M. (2013). Brain Trauma, PET Scans and Forensic Complexity. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 31(6), 702–720.Google Scholar
Murphy, E. (2016). Neuroscience and the Civil/Criminal Daubert Divide. Fordham Law Review 85, 619–639.Google Scholar
Parsons, L. M. (2001). Integrating Cognitive Psychology, Neurology and Neuroimaging. Acta Psychologica 107(1–3), 155–181.Google Scholar
Pearl, J., & Mackenzie, D. (2018). The Book of Why: The New Science of Cause and Effect. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Plant, R. R., & Quinlan, P. T. (2013). Could Millisecond Timing Errors in Commonly Used Equipment Be a Cause of Replication Failure in Some Neuroscience Studies? Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience 13(3), 598–614.Google Scholar
Poldrack, R. A. (2006). Can Cognitive Processes Be Inferred from Neuroimaging Data? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10(2), 59–63.Google Scholar
Poldrack, R. A., Baker, C. I., Durnez, J., et al.(2017). Scanning the Horizon: Towards Transparent and Reproducible Neuroimaging Research. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 18(2), 115–126.Google Scholar
Ross, L. (1977). The Intuitive Psychologist and His Shortcomings: Distortions in the Attribution Process. In Berkowitz, L. (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 10. New York: Academic Press. pp. 173–220.Google Scholar
Rushing, S. E. (2014). The Admissibility of Brain Scans in Criminal Trials: The Case of Positron Emission Tomography. Court Review 50, 62–69.Google Scholar
Schacter, D. L., & Loftus, E. F. (2013). Memory and Law: What Can Cognitive Neuroscience Contribute? Nature Neuroscience 16(2), 119–123.Google Scholar
Schauer, F. (2010). Can Bad Science Be Good Evidence? Neuroscience, Lie Detection, and Beyond. Cornell Law Review 95(6), 1191–1220.Google Scholar
Schleim, S., & Roiser, J. P. (2009). fMRI in Translation: The Challenges Facing Real-World Applications. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 3, 63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/neuro.09.063.2009Google Scholar
Schum, D. A., & Martin, A. W. (1982). Formal and Empirical Research on Cascaded Inference in Jurisprudence. Law & Society Review 17(1), 105–152.Google Scholar
Slovenko, R. (1982). The Insanity Defense in the Wake of the Hinckley Trial. Rutgers Law Journal 14, 373.Google Scholar
Smaldino, P. E., & McElreath, R. (2016). The Natural Selection of Bad Science. Royal Society Open Science 3(9), 160384. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160384Google Scholar
Turner, B. O., Paul, E. J., Miller, M. B., & Barbey, A. K. (2018). Small Sample Sizes Reduce the Replicability of Task-Based fMRI Studies. Communications Biology 1(1), 1–10.Google Scholar
Ward, N. S. (2005). Neural Plasticity and Recovery of Function. Progress in Brain Research 150, 527–535.Google Scholar
References
Allen, R. J. (1997). Rationality, Algorithms and Juridical Proof: A Preliminary Inquiry. International Journal of Evidence and Proof 1, 254–275.Google Scholar
Allen, R. J. & Leiter, B. (2001). Naturalized Epistemology and the Law of Evidence. Virginia Law Review 87, 1491–1550.Google Scholar
Allen, R. J. & Pardo, M. S. (2019a). Clarifying Relative Plausibility: A Rejoinder. International Journal of Evidence and Proof. Advanced online publication. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1365712718816760Google Scholar
Allen, R. J. & Pardo, M. S. (2019b). Relative Plausibility and Its Critics. International Journal of Evidence and Proof. Advance online publication.Google Scholar
Amaya, A. (2009). Inference to the Best Legal Explanation. In Kaptein, H., Prakken, H. & Verheij, B. (eds.), Legal Evidence and Proof: Statistics, Stories, Logic. Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 135–160.Google Scholar
Amaya, A. (2015). The Tapestry of Reason: An Inquiry Into the Nature of Coherence and Its Role in Legal Argument. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
Anderson, T. J., Schum, D. A. & Twining, W. L. (2005). Analysis of Evidence, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ask, K. & Granhag, P. A. (2005). Motivational Sources of Confirmation Bias in Criminal Investigations: The Need for Cognitive Closure. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling 2, 43–63.Google Scholar
Bennett, W. L. & Feldman, M. S. (2014). Reconstructing Reality in the Courtroom: Justice and Judgement in American Culture, 2nd ed. New Orleans: Quid Pro.Google Scholar
Bex, F. J. (2011). Arguments, Stories and Criminal Evidence: A Formal Hybrid Theory. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Bex, F. J., Van Koppen, P. J., Prakken, H. & Verheij, B. (2010). A Hybrid Formal Theory of Arguments, Stories and Criminal Evidence. Artificial Intelligence and Law 18, 123–152.Google Scholar
Bex, F. J., Prakken, H., Reed, C. & Walton, D. (2003). Towards a Formal Account of Reasoning about Evidence: Argumentation Schemes and Generalisations. Artificial Intelligence and Law 11, 125–165.Google Scholar
Bovens, L. & Hartmann, S. (2003). Bayesian Epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Butler, J. M., Kline, M. C. & Coble, M. D. (2018). NIST Interlaboratory Studies Involving DNA Mixtures (MIX05 and MIX13): Variation Observed and Lessons Learned. Forensic Science International: Genetics 37, 81–94.Google Scholar
Cabrera, F. (2017). Can There Be a Bayesian Explanationism? On the Prospects of a Productive Partnership. Synthese 194, 1245–1272.Google Scholar
Clermont, K. M. (2015). Trial by Traditional Probability, Relative Plausibility, or Belief Function? Case Western Reserve Law Review 66, 353–391.Google Scholar
Clermont, K. M. (2017). Common Sense on Standards of Proof. Seton Hall Law Review 48, 1057–1080.Google Scholar
Connolly, T. (1987). Decision Theory, Reasonable Doubt, and the Utility of Erroneous Acquittals. Law and Human Behavior 11, 101–112.Google Scholar
Dahlman, C. (2018). Determining the Base Rate for Guilt. Law, Probability and Risk 17, 15–28.Google Scholar
Dahlman, C. & Mackor, A. R. (2019). Coherence and Probability in Legal Evidence. Law, Probability and Risk 18, 275–94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgz016Google Scholar
Dane, F. C. (1985). In Search of Reasonable Doubt: A Systematic Examination of Selected Quantification Approaches. Law and Human Behavior 9, 141–158.Google Scholar
De Keijser, J. W., De Lange, E. G. M. & Van Wilsem, J. A. (2014). Wrongful Convictions and the Blackstone Ratio: An Empirical Analysis of Public Attitudes. Punishment and Society 16, 32–49.Google Scholar
De Keijser, J. W. & Van Koppen, P. J. (2007). Paradoxes of Proof and Punishment: Psychological Pitfalls in Judicial Decision Making. Legal and Criminological Psychology 12, 189–205.Google Scholar
De Poot, C. J., Bokhorst, R. J., Van Koppen, P. J. & Muller, E. R. (2004). Rechercheportret: Over dilemma’s in de opsporing [Detectives’ portrait: On dilemma’s in police investigations]. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer.Google Scholar
De Zoete, J., Fenton, N., Noguchi, T. & Lagnado, D. (2019). Resolving the So-Called ‘Probabilistic Paradoxes in Legal Reasoning’ with Bayesian Networks. Science and Justice 59, 367–379.Google Scholar
Dershowitz, A. M. (1996). Reasonable Doubt: The Criminal Justice System and the O. J. Simpson Case. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Dhami, M. K. (2008). On Measuring Quantitative Interpretations of Reasonable Doubt. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 14, 353–363.Google Scholar
Di Bello, M. (2019). Plausibility and Probability in Juridical Proof. International Journal of Evidence and Proof. Advance online publication. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1365712718815355Google Scholar
Douglas, H. (2009). Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Douven, I. (2017). Abduction. In E. N. Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction/.Google Scholar
Edwards, W., Lindman, H. & Savage, L. J. (1963). Bayesian Statistical Inference for Psychological Research. Psychological Review 70, 193–242.Google Scholar
Fenton, N. E., Lagnado, D. A., Dahlman, C. & Neil, M. (2017). The Opportunity Prior: A Simple and Practical Solution to the Prior Probability Problem for Legal Cases. Proceedings of the 16th edition of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM Online Library, pp. 69–76.Google Scholar
Fenton, N. E., Neil, M. & Berger, D. (2016). Bayes and the Law. Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application 3, 51–77.Google Scholar
Fenton, N.E., Neil, M., Yet, B. & Lagnado, D. A. (2020). Analyzing the Simonshaven Case Using Bayesian Networks. Topics in Cognitive Science 12(4), 1092–1114. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12417Google Scholar
Friedman, R. D. (1997). Answering the Bayesioskeptical Challenge. International Journal of Evidence and Proof 1, 276–291.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. (2007). Gut Feelings: Short Cuts to Better Decision Making. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. & Engel, C. (eds.). (2006). Heuristics and the Law. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gill, P. (2016). Misleading DNA Evidence: Reasons for Miscarriages of Justice. Amsterdam: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, P. (2009). Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Granhag, P. A. & Strömwall, L. A. (eds.). (2004). The Detection of Deception in Forensic Contexts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gross, S. R. (1998). Lost Lives: Miscarriages of Justice in Capital Cases. Law and Contemporary Problems 61, 125–149.Google Scholar
Gross, S. R. (2008). Convicting the Innocent. Annual Review of Law and Social Sciences 4, 173–192.Google Scholar
Gross, S. R., Jacoby, K., Matheson, D. J., Montgomery, N. & Patel, S. (2005). Exonerations in the United States: 1989 Through 2003. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 95, 523–560.Google Scholar
Hans, V. P. (2008). Jury Systems Around the World. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 4, 275–297.Google Scholar
Harman, G. H. (1965). The Inference to the Best Explanation. Philosophical Review 74, 88–95.Google Scholar
Hitchcock, C. (2007). The Lovely and the Probable. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 74, 433–440.Google Scholar
Hofstee, W. K. B. (1980). De empirische discussie: Theorie van het sociaal-wetenschappelijk onderzoek [The empirical discussion: Theory of social science research]. Amsterdam: Boom.Google Scholar
Huff, R. & Killias, M. (eds.) (2008). Wrongful Conviction: International Perspectives on Miscarriages of Justice. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Kadane, J. B. & Schum, D. A. (2011). A Probabilistic Analysis of the Sacco and Vanzetti Evidence. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. & Tversky, A. (eds.) (1982). Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kassin, S. M., Dror, I. E. & Kukučka, J. (2013). The Forensic Confirmation Bias: Problems, Perspectives, and Proposed Solutions. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 2, 42–52.Google Scholar
Kaye, D. H. (1979). The Paradox of the Gatecrasher and Other Stories. Arizona State Law Journal, 101–109.Google Scholar
Kleider, H. M., Pezdek, K., Goldinger, S. D. & Kirk, A. (2008). Schema-Driven Source Misattribution Errors: Remembering the Expected from a Witnessed Event. Applied Cognitive Psychology 22, 1–20.Google Scholar
Lagnado, D. A., Fenton, N. E., & Neil, M. (2013). Legal Idioms: A Framework for Evidential Reasoning. Argument and Computation 4, 46–63.Google Scholar
Laudan, L. (2007). Strange Bedfellows: Inference to the Best Explanation and the Criminal Standard of Proof. International Journal of Evidence and Proof 11, 292–306.Google Scholar
Lewicka, M. (1998). Confirmation Bias: Cognitive Error or Adaptive Strategy of Action Control? In Kofta, M., Weary, G. & Sedek, G. (eds.), Personal Control in Action: Cognitive and Motivational Mechanisms. New York: Plenum, pp. 233–258.Google Scholar
Lipton, P. (2007). Alien Abduction: Inference to the Best Explanation and the Management of Testimony. Episteme 4, 238–251.Google Scholar
Lycan, W. G. (1988). Judgment and Justification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lycan, W. G. (2002). Explanation and Epistemology. In Moser, P. K. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 408–433.Google Scholar
Mackor, A. R. (2017). Novel Facts: The Relevance of Predictions in Criminal Law. Strafblad 15, 145–156.Google Scholar
Mackor, A. R. (in press). Different Ways of Being Naked: A Scenario Approach to the Naked Statistical Evidence Problem. IFCOLOG.Google Scholar
McMullin, E. (1996). Epistemic Virtue and Theory-Appraisal. In Douven, I. & Horsten, L. (eds.), Realism in the Sciences. Leuven: University of Leuven Press, pp. 1–34.Google Scholar
Meester, R. & Kerkvliet, T. (2016). Assessing Forensic Evidence by Computing Belief Functions. Law, Probability and Risk 15, 127–153.Google Scholar
Meissner, C. A., & Kassin, S. M. (2004). ‘You’re Guilty, So Just Confess!’ Cognitive and Behavioral Confirmation Biases in the Interrogation Room. In Lassiter, G. D. (ed.), Interrogations, Confessions, and Entrapment. New York: Kluwer Academic, pp. 85–106.Google Scholar
Nance, D. A. (2001). Naturalized Epistemology and the Critique of Evidence Theory. Virginia Law Review 87, 1551–1618.Google Scholar
Nance, D. A. (2019). Belief Functions and Burdens of Proof. Law, Probability and Risk 18, 53–76.Google Scholar
Nesson, C. R. (1979). Reasonable Doubt and Permissive Inferences: The Value of Complexity. Harvard Law Review 92, 1187–1225.Google Scholar
Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation Bias: An Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises. Review of General Psychology 2, 175–220.Google Scholar
Nieuwbeerta, P. & Leistra, G. (2007). Dodelijk geweld: Moord en doodslag in Nederland. Amsterdam: Balans.Google Scholar
Nunn, G. A. (2015). The Incompatibility of Due Process and Naked Statistical Evidence. Vanderbilt Law Review 68, 1407–1433.Google Scholar
Okasha, S. (2000). Van Fraassen’s Critique of Inference to the Best Explanation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, Part A 31, 691–710.Google Scholar
Olsson, E. J. (2005). Against Coherence: Truth, Probability, and Justification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Olsson, E. J. (2019). Dahlman and Mackor on Coherence and Probability in Legal Evidence: A Commentary. Law, Probability and Risk 18, 295–303. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgz017Google Scholar
Oswald, M. E., & Grosjean, S. (2004). Confirmation Bias. In Pohl, R. F. (ed.), Cognitive Illusions: A Handbook on Fallacies and Biases in Thinking, Judgment and Memory. Hove: Psychology Press, pp. 79–96.Google Scholar
Pardo, M. S. (2013). The Nature and Purpose of Evidence Theory. Vanderbilt Law Review 66, 547–613.Google Scholar
Pardo, M. S. & Allen, R. J. (2008). Juridical Proof and the Best Explanation. Law and Philosophy 27, 223–268.Google Scholar
Pennington, N. & Hastie, R. (1993). The Story Model for Juror Decision Making. In Hastie, R. (ed.), Inside the Jury: The Psychology of Juror Decision Making, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 192–221.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1935). Logik der Forschung: Zur Erkenntnistheorie der modernen Naturwissenschaft. Vienna: Springer.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1963). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Poston, T. L. (2014). Reason and Explanation: A Defense of Explanatory Coherentism. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Prakken, H. (2020). An Argumentation-Based Analysis of the Simonshaven Case. Topics in Cognitive Science 12(4), 1068–1091. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12418Google Scholar
Prakken, H. & Meester, R. (2017). Bayesiaanse analyses van complexe strafzaken door deskundigen. Betrouwbaar en zo ja: nuttig? [Bayesian Analyses of Complex Criminal Cases by Experts. Reliable and If So: Useful?] Expertise en Recht 5, 185–197.Google Scholar
Psillos, S. (2007). The Fine Structure of Inference to the Best Explanation. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 74, 441–448.Google Scholar
Saks, M. J. & Thompson, W. C. (2003). Assessing Evidence: Proving Facts. In Carson, D. & Bull, R. H. C. (eds.), Handbook of Psychology in Legal Contexts, 2nd ed. Chichester: Wiley, pp. 329–45.Google Scholar
Shafer, G. (1976). A Mathematical Theory of Evidence. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Schippers, M. (2016). The Problem of Coherence and Truth Redux. Erkenntnis 81, 817–851.Google Scholar
Schum, D. A. (1994). The Evidential Foundations of Probabilistic Reasoning. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Schwartz, D. S. & Sober, E. (2017). The Conjunction Problem and the Logic of Jury Findings. William and Mary Law Review 59, 619–692.Google Scholar
Schweizer, M. (2014). Comparing Holistic and Atomistic Evaluation of Evidence. Law, Probability and Risk 13, 65–89.Google Scholar
Siebel, M. (2011). Why Explanation and Thus Coherence Cannot Be Reduced to Probability. Analysis 71, 264–266.Google Scholar
Simon, D. (2004). A Third View of the Black Box: Cognitive Coherence in Legal Decision Making. University of Chicago Law Review 71, 511–586.Google Scholar
Simon, D. (2019). Thin Empirics. International Journal of Evidence and Proof. Advanced internet publication. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1365712718815350Google Scholar
Spottswood, M. (2016). Unraveling the Conjunction Paradox. Law, Probability and Risk 15, 259–296.Google Scholar
Stein, A. (1996). Judicial Fact-Finding and the Bayesian Method: The Case for Deeper Scepticism About Their Combination. International Journal of Evidence and Proof 1, 25–47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F136571279600100103Google Scholar
Stoffelmayr, E., & Diamond, S. S. (2000). The Conflict Between Precision and Flexibility in Explaining Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 6, 769–787.Google Scholar
Taylor, S. E., & Crocker, J. (1981). Schematic Bases of Social Information Processing. In Higgins, E. T., Herman, C. A. & Zanna, M. P. (eds.), Social Cognition: The Ontario Symposium on Personality and Social Psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 89–134.Google Scholar
Thagard, P. R. (1978). The Best Explanation: Criteria for Theory Choice. The Journal of Philosophy 75, 76–92.Google Scholar
Thompson, W. C. (2009). Painting the Target Around the Matching Profile: The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy in Forensic DNA Interpretation. Law, Probability and Risk 8, 257–276.Google Scholar
Thompson, W. C. (2011). What Role Should Investigative Facts Play in the Evaluation of Scientific Evidence? Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences 43, 123–134.Google Scholar
Tillers, P. & Green, E. D. (eds.). (1988). Probability and Inference in the Law of Evidence: The Uses and Limits of Bayesianism. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Van Koppen, P. J. (2011). Overtuigend bewijs: Indammen van rechterlijke dwalingen (Convincing evidence: Reducing the number of miscarriages of justice). Amsterdam: Nieuw Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Van Koppen, P. J. (2013). Gerede twijfel: Over bewijs in strafzaken (Reasonable doubt: On evidence in criminal cases). Amsterdam: De Kring.Google Scholar
Van Koppen, P. J., & Mackor, A. R. (2020). A Scenario Approach to the Simonshaven Case. Topics in Cognitive Science 12(4), 1132–1151. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12429Google Scholar
Vidmar, N. J. (2011). The Psychology of Trial Judging. Current Directions in Psychological Science 20, 58–62.Google Scholar
Vidmar, N. J., & Hans, V. P. (2007). American Juries: The Verdict. Amherst, NY: Prometheus.Google Scholar
Vineberg, S. (2016). Dutch Book Arguments. In Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2016). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/dutch-book/.Google Scholar
Wagenaar, W. A., Van Koppen, P. J. & Crombag, H. F. M. (1993). Anchored Narratives: The Psychology of Criminal Evidence. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
Walton, D. N., Reed, C. A. & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wittlin, M. (2019). Common Problems of Plausibility and Probabilism. International Journal of Evidence and Proof. Online advanced publication. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1365712718815349Google Scholar
Ylikoski, P. & Kuorikoski, J. (2010). Dissecting Explanatory Power. Philosophical Studies 148, 201–219.Google Scholar