ARTICLE: Functional Magnetic Resonance Detection of Deception: Great as Fundamental Research, Inadequate as Substantive Evidence Skip over navigation
LexisNexis® Browse Law Reviews and Treatises
Skip over navigation
Sign in with your® ID to access the full text of this article.
Order the full text of this article if you do not have a® ID.
US $22.00 (+ tax)

Copyright (c) 2011 Walter F. George School of Law, Mercer University
Mercer Law Review

ARTICLE: Functional Magnetic Resonance Detection of Deception: Great as Fundamental Research, Inadequate as Substantive Evidence

Spring, 2011

Mercer Law Review

62 Mercer L. Rev. 885


by Charles Adelsheim*


I. Introduction
Essential to the law's pursuit of truth, justice, and the efficient resolution of conflict is assessing the veracity of statements made by individuals both in and out of court. In this judicial context, untruthful statements can be, and no doubt are, made regularly by plaintiffs, defendants, and other witnesses. Humans are generally very skilled at deceiving others, yet they are poor at detecting deception. Because of this disparity, there is a strong demand for reliable scientific techniques to detect deception. The most popular technique is currently the polygraph examination. However, polygraph-based evidence is inadmissible as substantive evidence in nearly all jurisdictions. There are a number of techniques being developed with the hope of filling this unmet demand, one of which is the use of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to detect deception.

While fMRI detection of deception shows promise, and while excellent fundamental research is being conducted, fMRI is not yet ready for deployment in the courtroom. To explain this conclusion, this Article consists of four sections: (1) a discussion of the phenomena of deception and the difficulties attendant to detecting deception; (2) an accessible primer on MRI, fMRI, and BOLD fMRI technology; (3) a review and analysis of the existent research studies of fMRI detection of deception; and (4) an analysis of why, given the research to date, fMRI detection of deception should not be admitted as substantive evidence in a court of law.

II. The Phenomena of Deception
The ...
If you are interested in obtaining a® ID and Password, please contact us at 1-(800)-227-4908 or visit us at
Search Documents
eg., Environmental Insurance Coverage Under the Comprehensive General Liability Policy

Lexis® Web - The only search engine that delivers free web content specifically from legal sites validated by LexisNexis® attorney editors and includes tools for faster research and more relevant results.

LexisNexis Store
Research Now - Go to
Connect the Dots - Free 1 hour webcast
Share. Network. Discover. - Go to LexisNexis Communities