[D66] AAAS Hosts Mock Trial Focused on Neuroscience in the Courtroom

[Henk Elegeert]

AAAS Hosts Mock Trial Focused on Neuroscience in the
Courtroom<http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2011/1215brain_on_trial.shtml?sa_campaign=Internal_Ads/AAAS/RSS_News/2011-12-15/>

AAAS' "The Brain on Trial" explores how neuroscience advances may affect
court proceedings.

[Video by Carla Schaffer]
• Links

Read <http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2008/0115neuroscience.shtml> past
AAAS.org coverage on neuroscience and the courts.

Members of the jury talked among themselves about the trial ahead as they
filed into the courtroom and took their seats. The scenario is
straightforward: A young girl sought help from the neighbors when she
locked herself out of the apartment she shared with her mother. After
breaking into the apartment, the girl and her neighbors found the girl’s
mother, Jane Owens, unconscious on the kitchen floor and with significant
head trauma.

She was pronounced dead after reaching the hospital. Police charged Owens’
ex-boyfriend, Will Johnson, with murder after finding his fingerprints
throughout the apartment and on the murder weapon. The daughter’s spare key
was found in Johnson’s apartment, and Owens’ DNA was found under his nails.

The presiding judge, dressed in a robe and green and black striped bow tie,
looked out at the jury. There were quite a few more members of the jury
than usual, considering the jury box in the trial takes up the entire AAAS
auditorium.

The “Brain on Trial” event, held 9 November, was staged as a professional
development session for the current class of AAAS Science & Technology
Policy Fellows. “Science policy is made by all three branches of the
government, although less attention is usually paid to the judiciary,” AAAS
Senior Program Associate Deborah Runkle explained. “This presentation
focuses on how new developments in science and technology—neuroscience and
neuro-imaging—may affect American jurisprudence. The program was part of
the ongoing effort to educate the fellows about science policy.”

The main debate in the mock trial focused on whether or not neuro-imaging
technologies introduced in the courtroom should play a part in determining
issues of responsibility. Was Will Johnson able to control his emotions and
plan the attack in advance, making it a case of first-degree murder? Or
does the brain damage shown on an MRI suggest he is not capable of
premeditation? If the jury decides the murder was an impulsive event caused
by brain damage, Johnson could be convicted of second-degree murder.

The scenario is fictional, but the expert players participating on both
sides were there to prove their case in the mock trial. Geoff Cheshire,
assistant federal public defender for the District of Arizona, was the
attorney for the defense in the mock trial. Cheshire and his expert
witness, neurologist James Brewer of University of California, San Diego,
satt to one side of the Honorable Paul Grimm, chief magistrate judge for
the District of Maryland.

Hank Greely of the Stanford University School of Law, the attorney for the
state in the mock trial, sat opposite of the defense. Michael Rafii, a
neuroscientist and memories expert from the University of California, San
Diego, was the state’s expert witness.

The first part of the mock trial focused on whether MRI images should be
entered into the court case as evidence.

“Your honor, as the court is aware the prosecution alleges that my client,
Mr. Johnson is guilty of murder in the first degree, which requires a
deliberate and premeditated and willful killing,” Cheshire began. “Your
honor, we intend to introduce scientific evidence through expert testimony
that will show that Mr. Johnson’s brain was damaged to such an extent and
degree that he would have serious difficulty establishing the requisite
premeditation or deliberation to commit the crime that the people allege.”

Once the MRI was allowed as evidence, the two sides began discussing what
the MRI meant and how the jury should interpret it. As neuroscience appears
more frequently in the legal system, it is important that the jury
understands how science is introduced and presented in a courtroom, as well
as how neuroscience might affect jurisprudence.

“All of the neuro-imaging technologies are getting better faster, more
interpretable,” Greely said. “It’s not so much an improvement in the
machines. It’s improvement in the statistical methods used to interpret the
results are really producing some results that even surprise the
investigators.”

“We have real experts here. We have the judge and we have two fantastic
lawyers,” Brewer said outside of the mock trial. “It’s just a pleasure for
me to be a part of it because I see so much brilliance on their part.”

“This is one of the really hairy issues that’s so fun to discuss.”

Carla Schaffer

15 December 2011

"

Hier horen we er nog weinig over ...

Henk Elegeert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.tuxtown.net/pipermail/d66/attachments/20111215/0779b346/attachment-0001.html>