About the author
The author (Brendan, aka me) led a BCI conference in 2010 with top experts in ECoG-based BCIs, Nick Ramsey and Gerwin Schalk. Gerv (on the right) is also one of my loyal readers here at BCI-fi. We have a lot of joint publications, including our 2024 Nature paper. As I type this, he just conveyed that he’s too drunk to read this story, so I look forward to him seeing it and this commentary if and when he delves into sobriety again.
Think (or better yet click) here to get to our main page.
Barring electroCoctIcography by Brendan ZaChary AllIson
“But killing is wrong.”
“Only if they prove it wasn’t self-defense or insanity. They won’t. So nothing to worry about.”
“Yeah, but…. Why not just yell at him? Pursue legal action? Let it go? Some other solution that doesn’t risk time in prison or a psych ward?”
“You tried all that. For decades. This is your chance to stab him and get away with it. He’s in your personal space. He’s yelling at you. Say you felt threatened. Say you thought he was about to choke you. Now or never. So what’s stopping you?”
Judge Gravlin leaned back and rubbed his white beard. “And why should this transcript from the defendant’s internal dialog be admitted as evidence regarding her sanity?”
“Your honor, my client’s only reluctance centered on possible criminal penalties. She never even considered relevant morality.”
“Reply from the prosecution, Ms. Davis? Why shouldn’t this be admitted?”
“Your honor, this is far from a complete record of the defendant’s mental activity. We don’t dispute that’s what the brain implant around the defendant’s speech areas decoded during the seconds before the alleged homicide. But our decisions stem from the collective action of competing neural populations that each reflect different options. Even the neurosurgeons who testified here admitted that we might know more with better technology. What if another voice in her head was cognizant of the immorality of murder? This is like biasing the jury with one email while ignoring other possibly inculpatory communications.”
“That mental transcript is barred from this hearing,” replied the judge. “However, based on defense counsel’s decision to shake his head in reply to my last sentence, I am requiring you to submit your own mental transcript within three seconds of that action for consideration of possible cognitive contempt of court. Court is in recess.”
Author Commentary
When I was a grad student at UCSD, a law professor named Paul Wohlmuth used to attend some of our Cog Sci 200 seminars and other talks. His interest in combining law and neuroscience was infectious. Ever since then, I’ve been interested in that combination too.
But how? I asked him: what could neuroscience tell you that would matter in court? Is someone lying? What’s their likelihood of recidivism? Is someone truly Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity? There were many other questions, some of which vary with state laws. Although Paul is no longer with us, his legacy lives on partly through the Paul Wohlmuth Awards. This story is dedicated to him.
One well-known expert trying to bridge neuroscience and law is Larry Farwell, who started an approach called Brain Fingerprinting. That approach is fundamentally similar to the P300 BCI, and Larry led the first P300 BCI paper in 1988. I was giving a talk about P300 BCIs when I noticed Larry in the audience and actually fumbled my sentence because I was so surprised and honored. I had no idea he’d be there.
He and I have since had many discussions about neuroscience and law. I have told him that he’s walking a dangerous path, since BCIs that reveal “hidden” information raise privacy issues and might scare people away from legitimate BCIs. He is absolutely committed to applications for justice, notably including exonerating people falsely convicted of murder. You can find a lot more about his work online.
Two other names here may be familiar through Law Talk with Mike. The eponymous Mike insists he never wants to be a judge and tells a story of how he was almost held in contempt for shaking his head at a judge’s decision. Ms. Davis is a Prosecuting Attorney in Michigan. While (I think that) I’m legally able to reference them here, I’ll change the story and remove this commentary if they so request.
NOTE: I have no legal background. I am not licensed to practice law anywhere, nor should I be.
Realism
This is currently unrealistic, largely for the reasons that the prosecutor presents. We’re getting closer with work on speech decoding, which is quite prominent in the field (thanks in part to work from Gerv Schalk). However, we can’t yet directly detect internal dialog, unspoken thoughts, or subconscious words.
I’d also be curious about the defendant’s motor intent. When did the defendant begin thinking about stabbing? Which neural areas were involved, and how? Decoding motor intent is somewhat more viable and is the basis for stories like Battle ChIldren.
Hope
This has hopeful and other elements. Neuroscience could someday contribute to law – especially identifying people who genuinely not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) or otherwise exonerating the innocent. The privacy implications are less hopeful.
I write many stories that might be useful in classes about BCIs or related fields that address ethical issues. This one might be good for law classes too. The story never mentions that anyone gave permission for their thoughts to be decoded and used in court. Both applications shown here (addressing insanity and contempt) might be hopeful or not depending on the legal outcome and your perspective of it.
Edit History
I wrote this in January 2026.
Comments and Replies
Comment away!
bcifi 
Leave a Reply! BCI-based commenting is not yet enabled :)