Mild traumatic brain injury: Is DTI ready for the courtroom?

Important advances in neuroscience and neuroimaging have revolutionized our understanding of the human brain. Many of these advances provide new evidence regarding compensable injuries that have been used to support changes in legal policy. For example, we now know that regions of the brain involved in decision making continue to develop into the mid-20s, and this information weighs heavily in determining that execution or automatic sentence of life without the possibility of parole for someone younger than 18 years old, at the time of the crime, violates the 8th Amendment prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment." The probative value of other testimony regarding neuroimaging, however, is less clear, particularly for mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI), also known as concussion. There is nonetheless some evidence that new imaging technologies, most notably diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), may be useful in detecting mTBI. More specifically, DTI is sensitive to detecting diffuse axonal brain injuries in white matter, the most common brain injury in mTBI. DTI is, in fact, the most promising technique available today for such injuries and it is beginning to be used clinically, although it remains largely within the purview of research. Its probative value is also not clear as it may be both prejudicial and misleading given that standardization is not yet established for use in either the clinic or the courtroom, and thus it may be premature for use in either. There are also concerns with the methods and analyses that have been used to provide quantitative evidence in legal cases. It is within this context that we provide a commentary on the use of neuroimaging in the courtroom, most particularly DTI, and the admissibility of evidence, as well as the definition and role of expert testimony. While there is a great deal of evidence demonstrating cognitive impairments in attention, processing speed, memory, and concentration from neuropsychological testing following mTBI, we focus here on the more recent introduction of DTI imaging in the courtroom. We also review definitions of mTBI followed by admissibility standards for scientific evidence in the courtroom, including Daubert criteria and two subsequent cases that comprise the so-called Daubert trilogy rulings on the admissibility of expert testimony. This is followed by a brief review of neuroimaging techniques available today, the latter with an emphasis on DTI and its application to mTBI. We then review some of the court rulings on the use of DTI. We end by highlighting the importance of neuroimaging in providing a new window on the brain, while cautioning against the premature use of new advances in imaging in the courtroom before standards are established in the clinical arena, which are informed by research. We also discuss further what is needed to reach a tipping point where such advances will provide important and meaningful data with respect to their probative value.

An approach to the patient in crisis: assessments of the risk of suicide and violence.

Suicide is one of the leading causes of death in the United States and is defined as intentional self-harm with the intent of causing death. Various mental disorders may be a cause for increased violence. This article outlines the elements of the risk assessment (for harm to self and/or others) in patients in crisis and addresses which contributing factors may be modifiable. This article also proposes a practical framework for the management of risk regarding suicide and violence.

An approach to selected legal issues: confidentiality, mandatory reporting, abuse and neglect, informed consent, capacity decisions, boundary issues, and malpractice claims.

Medical practice occurs within a legal and regulatory context. This article covers several of the legal issues that frequently arise in the general medical setting. While this article provides an overview of approaches to informed consent, boundary issues, and malpractice claims, it is critical for clinicians to be familiar with the specific requirements and standards in the jurisdictions in which they practice. As a general rule, it is most important that physicians recognize that the best way to avoid legal problems is to be aware of legal requirements in the jurisdictions in which they practice, but to think clinically and not legally in the provision of consistent and sound clinical care to their patients.

Commentary: expert testimony as a potential asset in defense of capital sentencing cases.

Montgomery et al. have documented the extent to which jurors apparently do and do not rely on expert testimony regarding dangerousness and mental illness. This article reviews some of the methodological issues raised by their findings and argues that their results have potential value for appellate defense counsel in appealing death sentences in which trial counsel failed to introduce expert testimony on mental illness.