Ethics

Brain-Based Lie Detection Retreats

By Adam Kolber

Two important updates in the realm of brain-based lie detection:

(1) Emily Murphy reports that Aditi Sharma, who had been convicted of murder in India based in part on a brain-based method of lie detection, has been released on bail.  Apparently, the Bombay High Court recognized evidentiary problems in the case but did not explicitly discuss the quality of the "BEOS" EEG-based method of lie detection.

(2) In a recently discussed child protection hearing in San Diego, a parent sought to introduce No Lie MRI evidence (based on fMRI technology rather than EEG) that purportedly showed that the parent was being truthful when he claimed not to have sexually abused his daughter.  Prior to an evidentiary hearing, however, the parent decided to withdraw the effort to introduce the evidence.  More on the story here from David Washburn, as well as here from Teneille Brown and here from Emily Murphy. 

In an earlier post, I speculated about why the parent and his attorney, presumably with the encouragement of No Lie MRI, might seek to introduce such evidence when the likelihood of its being admitted seems so low.  Washburn's article adds this:

The report was offered into evidence by the attorneys McGlinn & McGlinn, but then withdrawn. Ryan McGlinn said only the following: "As far as the juvenile court preceding we were trying to admit it into evidence. We believed it was reliable. Now, at this point, we have decided to not try to get it admitted."

Huizenga [CEO of No Lie MRI] said the decision had nothing to do with the validity of the report No Lie MRI produced. "There was nothing wrong with our evidence," he said. "This is something the lawyer decided to do for his own reasons."

This hardly clears up the matter.  It's possible, though, that it became increasingly clear to McGlinn that the evidence was unlikely to be admitted.  Alternatively (or in addition), it may have become increasingly clear that the case would attract a lot of attention, something his client would not likely have appreciated under the circumstances.

Full post as published by Neuroethics and Law on April 03, 2009 (boomark / email).