Head, Examined: Clarence Darrow's X-Ray Vision of Criminal Responsibility

Shortly after Roentgen's discovery of X-rays and their application to human imaging, the legal profession began to use the technology in litigation. Though the use of brain imaging did not find its way into formal arguments about criminal responsibility early in its evolution, such an analysis has been sought. 19th Century attempts to connect “pathological anatomy” to behavior were mostly disappointing. In 1924, the celebrated murder trial of Leopold and Loeb in Chicago became an early example of the use of scientific testimony that included radiographic exhibits. The penalty-phase decision to spare the defendants' lives was not based on scientific arguments. Sixty years later, the trial of John Hinckley included admission of CT scans to aid psychiatric testimony. Using excerpts from the expert reports and testimony, this article examines the nature and purpose of scientific evidence pertaining to blameworthiness. The author concludes that improvements in neuroimaging will continue to force a dialog between science and the law.