, 2011). DNA evidence has been in forensic use for decades. It was first used in paternity cases to identify children’s fathers. Then, in 1986, police in England asked Alec Jeffreys, a molecular biologist, to use DNA evidence to evaluate the testimony of a 17-year-old boy charged with

raping and murdering two women. The DNA evidence established the boy’s innocence and was later used to convict the actual murderer. Following this impressive beginning, DNA evidence underwent further extensive scrutiny in the courtroom and is now generally admissible in establishing guilt or innocence. Today, there is great interest in using brain-based evidence in criminal proceedings, with neuroscientists acting as expert witnesses. This role is both important and problematic (for review, see Jones et al., 2013). Brain imaging was first introduced into the courtroom in 2006 in Selleckchem Dolutegravir the case of Brian Dugan and has since been used in over 30 cases. Dugan, then 52 years

old, was tried for the kidnapping and murder of a 10-year-old girl. His lawyer used brain imaging to show that Dugan had an injury that caused him to act psychopathically. (Psychopaths do not exhibit increased activity in two particular Veliparib mouse regions of the cortex when showed photographs of a moral violation; rather, they show decreased activity.) Experts testified for and against the validity of using brain imagining as evidence of culpability in such a case. Ultimately, the jury voted unanimously for a death sentence. Similar issues of validity have arisen in regard to memory. The legal system below has been slow to adopt research findings from cognitive psychological and neurological studies that

question not only the reliability of eyewitness testimony but also the memory of jurors. We now realize that memory is a reconstructive process. It is susceptible to distortion and can be quite flawed (Lacy and Stark, 2013). This has profound implications for how much weight we must give eyewitness testimony in court, where even minor memory distortion can have severe consequences. In one experiment, for example, subjects mistakenly misidentified an individual as having committed a minor (staged) crime, when in fact they had only seen that individual later, during the (staged) investigation. Alan Alda, the noted actor, explored the role of brain science in the courtroom for a PBS television program called “Brains on Trial.” In the course of his work he spoke extensively with neuroscientists, lawyers, and judges and came away with two very strong impressions. The first is that the new science of the mind and its insights into brain function are generating a lot of interest in the justice system, including the U.S. Supreme Court.