"The Future of Neuroscience-Based Credibility Assessment and the Court"

This Comment argues that while neuroscience-based credibility assessment methods are not currently admissible under on the Daubert standard, they may become admissible with more research, and the courts should avoid creating precedent that would preclude their admissibility once reliability issues are addressed. Specifically, credibility assessment should not be left entirely to the trier of fact because social science evidence indicates that laypeople are poor at making credibility assessment judgments based on behavioral cues. Additionally, even if courts continue to rule that evidence assessing whether a witness is telling the truth invades the province of the jury, this should not preclude neuroscience-based credibility assessment that merely shows that an individual recognizes something related to the issue at hand.

The jury as the lie detector over neuroscience testing is where we are now, FYI. Ok, this one (by John B. Meixner, Ph.D., J.D. -in progress) gets a gold star for recognizing we cant shut the door down as a preemptive strike, against science that doesn’t meet the Daubert test for admissibility into court, yet. Like it or not, we must leave room for the science and be prepared for when it does meet the Daubert criteria. So add the deal with it glasses to this guy.