Thought Police, Cognitive Liberty, and the Future of Memory Evidence in the Courts

With brain scan and neuroimaging technology now able to identify certain memory activity, a number of courts around the world have begun employing scans of the mind in legal cases. Aditi Sharma, for example, was convicted of murder in India based in part on brain scan technology that evaluated her unspoken thoughts. So how would such technology be evaluated under the Daubert or Daubert-Frye tests in U.S. courts and when if at all might they merit use? And how does memory evidence fit with a constitutional framework. Do neural scans trigger Fourth Amendment rights to be “secure in our papers houses and effects,” or the Fifth Amendment's protections against self-incrimination? We sit down for a provocative conversation with Prof. Emily Murphy, an expert on neuroscience and the law to discuss memory evidence, cognitive liberty, and the future of brain analysis in American courts. Prof. Murphy is a professor at UC Hastings College of Law in San Francisco. ► http://www.talksonlaw.com for more legal explainers and interviews with the titans of law. ► Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/talksonlaw ► Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/talksonlaw ► Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/talksonlaw ____________________