PLEASE NOTE: To protect your safety in response to the threats of Covid-19, we are offering our clients the ability to meet with us in-person, via telephone, or through video conferencing. Please call our office to discuss your options.

Tampa 813-345-4909 | En Español 813-390-2494
Orlando / Miami / West Palm Beach - 888-496-5916

When it comes to proving criminal charges, it’s all about the evidence, P.2

Last time, we began looking at the issue of neuroscience and its increasing use in criminal cases. As we noted, neuroscience evidence is introduced in a fair number of cases, but there is still a great deal of caution about permitting such neuroscience evidence in court.

A big reason for the hesitation surrounding neuroscience evidence is the state-sanctioned use of questionable scientific evidence in the past. Not only are there the antique examples like eugenics and lobotomies, there are also the more recent examples of hypnotic regression in child abuse cases and forensic hair analysis. With respect to the latter, the FBI acknowledged last year that there are major flaws with the science of forensic hair analysis, which had been used for over two decades. 

Areas where the validity of neuroscience has been accepted in the legal system include addiction and brain development in adolescents. The fact still remains that, at present, there is simply a lack of scientific basis for use of neuroscience in many legal matters.

In criminal cases, one of the important tasks of a criminal defense attorney is to ensure that all evidence submitted for the case is scrutinized as to its relevance and reliability, as well as its prejudicial effect. Clearly, evidence which is not relevant to any material issues in a criminal case has no value. Likewise, evidence which is relevant but not reliable doesn’t have a lot of value, either. Any forensic evidence the state attempts to bring into a criminal case must be scrutinized for reliability. In a future post, we’ll pick back up on the topic of relevance, reliability and prejudicial effect in criminal defense cases.


ABA Journal, “Federal judge says neuroscience is not ready for the courtroom—yet,” Kevin Davis, Oct. 20, 2015.

The Washington Post, “FBI admits flaws in hair analysis over decades,” April 18, 2015.

No Comments

Leave a comment
Comment Information
Mark J. O'Brien's cases have been featured in:
The New York Times | The Miami Herald | Bay News 9 | abc 7 | The Boston Globe | USA Today | Tampa Bay Times | FOX News Channel | The Washington Post | abc Good Morning America | Chicago Tribune | NT News Talk Florida | St. Petersburg Times | Deadspin
“Mark, thank you for everything. I will forever be indebted to you. You have stood by me and believed in me when it was not the popular thing to do. You are an amazing advocate.” Adam Filthaut
  • Former Partner at the Law Firm of Adams and Diaco (Robert Adams and Stephen Diaco)
  • MJ (Todd Schnitt) Morning Show/Bubba the Love Sponge Clem Trial
  • Attorney Phil Campbell DUI Setup/Florida Bar Trial
More Testimonials
American Association for Justice National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers | NACDL 1958 Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers | FACDL Super Lawyers AVVO | See Reviews LC | Lead Counsel Rated
Best Criminal
Defense Lawyers
in Orlando