In 2008, a woman in India was convicted of murder for the death of her fiancé on the basis of evidence derived from a brain-based memory detection exam. The test measured brain activity which purportedly indicated that she in fact had personal knowledge of the poisoning of the victim. While such technology is highly controversial and not in common use in U.S. courts, significant advances in brain science now justify analysis of both the potential applications of memory evidence as well as the constitutional implications of doing so. In part 2 of this 2-part interview, Professor Emily Murphy of UC Hastings Law evaluates how evidence from brain-based memory detection may be admitted in courts under Daubert. She then explores whether such evidence should be admitted even if the technology were perfect, given technological and biological limits, and how it may infringe upon constitutional and privacy rights if the government compels individuals to undergo brain imaging to decode memories.
(Credits: 0.5 General MCLE)
Deadly Force as Self Defense
Injustice by Forensics
Weaponization of Outer Space
A Mindful Lawyer – Combatting Lawyer Stress
War Crimes – Israel & Gaza
Model Minority & Associates
Dying Without a Will
SFFA v. Harvard
Why Law Firms Implode
Police Commands & Police Coercion
Inside the Shadow Docket
Economic Incentives for Diversity
Lady Justice
Regulating Crypto after FTX
God & Football after Bremerton
Recusal & the Bounds of Judicial Bias
WV v. EPA & the Major Questions Doctrine
Driverless Cars—A Shift in Risk
Gun Law after Bruen
Surrogates, Donors, & Same Sex Parental Rights
Create your
podcast in
minutes
It is Free
City Manager Unfiltered
Potencial Americano
The ASIC Podcast
The Chris Plante Show
Strict Scrutiny