Shortly after Roentgen's discovery of X-rays and their application to human imaging, the legal profession began to use the technology in litigation. Though the use of brain imaging did not find its way into formal arguments about criminal responsibility early in its evolution, such an analysis has been sought. 19th Century attempts to connect “pathological anatomy” to behavior were mostly disappointing. In 1924, the celebrated murder trial of Leopold and Loeb in Chicago became an early example of the use of scientific testimony that included radiographic exhibits. The penalty-phase decision to spare the defendants' lives was not based on scientific arguments. Sixty years later, the trial of John Hinckley included admission of CT scans to aid psychiatric testimony. Using excerpts from the expert reports and testimony, this article examines the nature and purpose of scientific evidence pertaining to blameworthiness. The author concludes that improvements in neuroimaging will continue to force a dialog between science and the law.
AllenG.E. (2001). The biological basis of crime: An historical and methodological study. Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences, 31, 183–222.
2.
American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. (2005). Ethics guidelines for the practice of forensic psychiatry, adopted May 2005. Available online at http://aapl.org/ethics.htm
3.
Anonymous (1924). The Loeb-Leopold sentence. World's Work, 49, 12–13.
4.
Anonymous. (1957). Nathan Leopold after 32 years. LIFE, 42 (9), March 4, 1957, 61–69.
5.
AppelbaumP.S. (2009). Through a glass darkly: Functional neuroimaging evidence enters he courtroom. Psychiatric Services, 60, 21–23.
6.
Association of Medical Superintendents of American Asylums for the Insane. (1873). Proceedings of the Association of Medical Superintendents. American Journal of Insanity, 30, 161–249.
7.
BaatzS. (2008). For the Thrill of It. New York: HarperCollins.
8.
BryantR.H. (1927). The constitutional psychopathic inferior: A menace to society and a suggestion for the disposition of such individuals. American Journal of Psychiatry, 83, 671–689.
9.
BuschF.X. (1952). Prisoners at the Bar: An account of the trials of the William Hagwood case, the Sacco-Vanzetti case, the Loeb-Leopold case, the Bruno Hauptman case. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merill Co.
10.
CallicottJ.H. (2003). An expanded role for functional neuroimaging in schizophrenia. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 13, 256–260.
11.
CampJ.D. (1923). The normal and pathological anatomy of the sella turcica as revealed at necropsy. Radiology, 1, 65–73.
12.
CaplanL. (1984). The Insanity Defense and the Trial of John W. Hinckley Jr. Boston: David R. Godine.
13.
ConradE.C. (1959). The electroencephalograph (EEG) as evidence of criminal responsibility. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Political Science, 50: 405–14.
14.
Cowley v. People of the State of New York, 83 N.Y. 464, 469 (1881).
15.
CushingH. (1912). The Pituitary Body and Its Disorders. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Co.
16.
District Court of Colorado (1896). Shadowgraphs as evidence. Chicago Legal News29, 145.
Editor. (1924). The Leopold-Loeb decision. The New Republic, 40: 88–89 (Sept. 24, 1924).
20.
Editors. (1924). The Loeb-Leopold Murder of Franks in Chicago, May 21, 1924. Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law & Criminology, 15, 347–405.
21.
FassP.S. (1993). Making and remaking an event. The Leopold and Loeb trial in American culture. The Journal of American History, 80, 919–951.
22.
GolanT. (2004). Laws of Men and Laws of Nature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
23.
GreeneJ., & CohenJ. (2004). For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 359(1451), 1775–1785.
24.
United States v. Guiteau, 10 F. 161 (D.N.Y. 1882).
25.
HainesD.E. (1995). Spitzka and Spitzka on the brains of the assassins of presidents. Journal of the History of the Neurosciences, 4, 236–266.
26.
KahrB. (2005). Why Freud turned down $25,000: Mental health professionals in the witness box. American Imago, 62, 365–71.
27.
KevlesB.H. (1998). Naked to the Bone: Medical Imaging in the Twentieth Century. New York: Basic Books.
28.
KhoshbinL.S., & KhoshbinS. (2007). Imaging the mind, minding the image: An historical introduction to brain imaging and the law. American Journal of Law & Medicine, 33, 171–192.
29.
LeopoldN.F. (1959). Life Plus 99 Years. London: Victor Gollancz Limited.
30.
MagounH.W. (2003). American Neuroscience in the Twentieth Century. Lisse, The Netherlands: A.A. Balkema Publishers.
31.
MasonC. (2009). The development of developmental neuroscience. Journal of Neuroscience, 29(41), 12735–12747.
32.
McKernanM. (1957). The Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb. New York: Signet.
33.
MnookinJ.L. (1998). The image of truth: Photographic evidence and the power of analogy. Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities, 10, 1–74.
34.
MorseS.J. (2006). Brain overclaim syndrome and criminal responsibility: A diagnostic note. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 3, 397–412.
35.
MorseS.J. (2008). The ethics of forensic practice: Reclaiming the wasteland. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 36, 206–217.
36.
OlsonH.CummingsH., & WigmoreJ.H. (1924). A symposium of comments from the legal profession. Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology, 15, 395–405.
37.
PaulsonG. (2006). Death of a president and his assassin—errors in their diagnosis and autopsies. Journal of the History of the Neurosciences, 15, 77–91.
38.
PerlinM.L. (2009). “His brain has been mismanaged with great skill”: How will jurors respond to neuroimaging testimony in insanity defense cases?Akron Law Review, 42, 885–916.
39.
QuenJ.M. (1964). Isaac Ray and his “Remarks on Pathological Anatomy.”Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 38, 113–126.
40.
RaichleM.E. (2008). A brief history of human brain mapping. Trends in Neurosciences, 32: 118–126.
41.
RatcliffeM. & HuttoD.D. (2007). Introduction. In HuttoD.D. & RatcliffeM. (Eds.), Folk Psychology Re-Assessed (pp. 1–22). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
42.
RayI. (1870). The law of insanity. American Law Review, 4, 236–252.
43.
ReevesD.MillsM.J.BillickS.B. & BrodieJ.D. (2003). Limitations of brain imaging in forensic psychiatry. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry & the Law, 31, 89–96.
44.
ReillyP.R. (1987). Involuntary sterilization in the United States: A surgical solution. Quarterly Review of Biology, 62: 153–170.
45.
Roper v. Simmons. 543 U.S. 551 (2005).
46.
RosenbergC.E. (1968). The Trial of the Assassin Guiteau. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
47.
SapolskyR.M. (2004). The frontal cortex and the criminal justice system. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 359(1451), 1787–96.
48.
SchäferE.A. (1916). The Endocrine Organs. London: Longmans, Green, and Co.
49.
SchoonoverC. (2010). Portraits of the Mind. New York: Abrams.
50.
ShorvonS.D. (2009). A history of neuroimaging in epilepsy 1909–2009. Epilepsia, 50 (Suppl. 3), 39–49.
51.
SilvaJ.A. (2009). Forensic psychiatry, neuroscience, and the law. Journal of the American Association of Psychiatry & the Law, 37, 489–502.
52.
SmithM.H. & FairweatherA. (1925). The case of Richard Loeb and Nathan Leopold. Journal of Mental Science, 71, 80–92.
53.
SnyderS.H. (2009). Neurotransmitters, receptors, and second messengers galore in 40 years. Journal of the Neurosciences, 29, 12717–12721.
54.
StrongeA.M. (2009). Absolute truth or deus ex machina?: The legal and philosophical ramifications of guilt-assessment technology. Journal of High Technology Law, 10, 114–41.
55.
StrotherF. (1924). The cause of crime: Defective brain. World's Work, 48, 275–286.
WaldingerR.J. (1979). Sleep of reason: John P. Gray and the challenge of moral insanity. Journal of the History of Medicine & Allied Sciences, 34, 163–179.
59.
WeinbergerD.R.TorreyE.F.NeophytidesA.N. & WyattR.J. (1979). Structural abnormalities in the cerebral cortex of chronic schizophrenic patients. Archives of General Psychiatry, 36, 935–939.
60.
WeissK.J. (2006). Isaac Ray's affair with phrenology. Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 34, 455–494.
61.
WeissK.J. (2007). Isaac Ray at 200: Phrenology and expert testimony. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry & the Law, 35, 339–345.
62.
WhiteW.A.HealyW.J.GlueckB. & HamillR. (1924). Psychiatrists' Report for the Defense (Joint Summary). Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology, 15, 360–379.
63.
WillrichM. (1998). The two percent solution: Eugenic jurisprudence and American law, 1900–1930. Law and History, 16, 63–111.
64.
WilseyR.B. (1923). The design of the Potter-Bucky diaphragm grids. Radiology, 1, 47–49.
65.
YoungA.B. (2009). Four decades of neurodegenerative disease research: How far we have come!Journal of the Neurosciences, 29, 12722–12728.
66.
ZekiS. & GoodenoughO.R. (2004). Law and the brain: Introduction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 359, 1661–1665.
