THE EFFECT OF NEURO-EVIDENCE ON JURORS’ DECISION MAKING
Author: Yu Du, PHD
Over the past three decades, neuroscience has been increasingly presented as evidence in courtrooms. Neuro-evidence, a type of evidence testified to by neuroscience experts in criminal trials, has been not only featured in empirical and law review journals, but also captured in mainstream news articles. The relationship between neuroscience and law has generated many new and provocative questions for legal decision-making research. Concerns around the potential biasing effects or misleading persuasiveness of neuro-evidence on jurors’ perceptions and decisions have emerged. As a result, empirical studies have tested a variety of conditions to disentangle the specific influence of neuro-evidence on decision-making processes.