The Impact of Neuroimages in the Sentencing Phase of Capital Trials

27 Pages Posted: 18 Jan 2014

See all articles by Michael J. Saks

Michael J. Saks

Arizona State University (ASU) - Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law

N. J. Schweitzer

Arizona State University

Eyal Aharoni

RAND Corporation

Kent Kiehl

University of New Mexico

Multiple version iconThere are 2 versions of this paper

Date Written: March 2014


Although recent research has found that neurological expert testimony is more persuasive than other kinds of expert and nonexpert evidence, no impact has been found for neuroimages beyond that of neurological evidence sans images. Those findings hold true in the context of a mens rea defense and various forms of insanity defenses. The present studies test whether neuroimages afford heightened impact in the penalty phase of capital murder trials. Two mock jury experiments (nā€‰=ā€‰825 and nā€‰=ā€‰882) were conducted online using nationally representative samples of persons who were jury eligible and death qualified. Participants were randomly assigned to experimental conditions varying the defendant's diagnosis (psychopathy, schizophrenia, normal), type of expert evidence supporting the diagnosis (clinical, genetic, neurological sans images, neurological with images), evidence of future dangerousness (high, low), and whether the proponent of the expert evidence was the prosecution (arguing aggravation) or the defense (arguing mitigation). For defendants diagnosed as psychopathic, neuroimages reduced judgments of responsibility and sentences of death. For defendants diagnosed as schizophrenic, neuroimages increased judgments of responsibility; nonimage neurological evidence decreased death sentences and judgments of responsibility and dangerousness. All else equal, psychopaths were more likely to be sentenced to death than schizophrenics. When experts opined that the defendant was dangerous, sentences of death increased. A backfire effect was found such that the offering party produced the opposite result than that being argued for when the expert evidence was clinical, genetic, or nonimage neurological, but when the expert evidence included neuroimages, jurors moved in the direction argued by counsel.

Suggested Citation

Saks, Michael J. and Schweitzer, Nicholas J. and Aharoni, Eyal and Kiehl, Kent, The Impact of Neuroimages in the Sentencing Phase of Capital Trials (March 2014). Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, Vol. 11, Issue 1, pp. 105-131, 2014, Available at SSRN: or

Michael J. Saks (Contact Author)

Arizona State University (ASU) - Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law ( email )

111 E. Taylor Street
Phoenix, AZ 85004
United States

Nicholas J. Schweitzer

Arizona State University ( email )

PO BOX 37100
Phoenix, AZ 85069-7100
United States


Eyal Aharoni

RAND Corporation ( email )

1776 Main Street
P.O. Box 2138
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
United States

Kent Kiehl

University of New Mexico ( email )

107 Humanitites Building
Albuquerque, NM 87131-1221
United States

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
PlumX Metrics