Harrington v. Iowa (2001)
The only court case identified that addressed Brain Fingerprinting evidence occurred in Iowa, where a murder convict petitioned for postconviction relief based on test results demonstrating innocence.
Court's Ruling (March 5, 2001):
The Iowa district court dismissed the application, ruling that Brain Fingerprinting evidence was unlikely to change trial outcomes because:
- Neither MERMER nor Dr. Farwell's mathematical model had undergone independent peer review or testing
- Probe stimulus selection was subjective and did not meet the developer's own criteria (various stimuli were not sufficiently significant)
- The P300 effect, while scientifically established, lacked validation for this specific interrogative application
Legal Implications:
The court applied Iowa state law to determine admissibility. While no federal court opinions addressing P300 or MERMER technology were identified during GAO research, the Harrington decision establishes important precedents:
- Scientific validity must be demonstrated through independent peer review and testing
- Probe selection methodology must meet objective criteria rather than subjective judgment
- Established phenomena (like P300) do not automatically validate novel applications
Admissibility Challenges
Brain Fingerprinting faces multiple legal hurdles for forensic application:
Scientific Validity Requirements:
- Independent peer review of both MERMER and the statistical analysis methodology
- Validation studies demonstrating reliability across diverse populations
- Research on external variables (drugs, alcohol, psychological disorders) affecting memory and brain activity
Operational Concerns:
- Subjective probe selection creates potential for false positives or false negatives
- Memory is an active, creative process rather than a passive repository, raising concerns about false recognition
- The technique's 95% confidence level claim requires independent verification
Federal Agency Legal Positions
All federal agencies that evaluated Brain Fingerprinting concluded it had limited applicability to their operations. FBI officials specifically noted that the Laboratory Division must understand effects of alcohol and drug use on brain processes for storing and retrieving information before validating the technique as an investigative tool.