Home › Polygraph Research › Researchers › Jane Campbell Moriarty
Researcher file
Jane Campbell Moriarty
Legal scholar examining neuroimaging lie detection, scientific evidence admissibility, and neuroscience in law
Researcher record
About Jane Campbell Moriarty
Jane Campbell Moriarty is the Carol Los Mansmann Chair in Faculty Scholarship Emerita and Professor of Law Emerita at the Thomas R. Kline School of Law of Duquesne University, where she continues to teach Evidence and formerly taught Professional Responsibility, Law & Neuroscience, Remedies, and other courses. Previously she was a professor at The University of Akron School of Law for nearly 15 years. Her expertise spans scientific evidence, neuroscience and law, and professional responsibility.
Moriarty's contribution to deception detection science bridges law and neuroscience, analyzing the admissibility and reliability of fMRI-based lie detection evidence in courts. Her 2009 article "Visions of Deception: Neuroimaging and the Search for Truth" in Akron Law Review examined neuroimaging evidence for detecting deception, while her 2008 article "Flickering Admissibility" analyzed neuroimaging evidence admissibility trends in U.S. courts. Her 2013 interdisciplinary collaboration with neuroscientist Daniel D. Langleben, "Using Brain Imaging for Lie Detection: Where Science, Law and Research Policy Collide," identified the missing pieces of the scientific puzzle that need to be completed if fMRI-based lie detection is to meet the standards of either legal reliability or general acceptance. The article emphasized that Daubert's "known error rate" is the key concept linking legal and scientific standards, and posited that properly-controlled clinical trials are necessary to determine error rates.
Moriarty has established herself as a leading authority on scientific evidence and the intersection of neuroscience and law. She is a frequent speaker on scientific evidence, neuroscience and law, and legal and judicial ethics and served as president of the Evidence Section of the Association of American Law Schools. She later collaborated again with Langleben on "Who Speaks for Neuroscience? Neuroimaging Evidence and Courtroom Expertise" (2018), published in the Case Western Reserve Law Review. Her publications include the treatise Scientific Evidence (6th ed. 2020) and Scientific and Expert Evidence (3d ed. 2020, Aspen/Wolters Kluwer).
Moriarty's work on brain-based deception detection connects to her broader scholarship examining the use of novel forensic technologies in criminal justice. She co-authored a chapter "Detecting Deception" in Neuroimaging in Forensic Psychiatry: From the Clinic to the Courtroom (2012), and contributed to Law and Mind: At the Intersection of Law and the Cognitive Sciences (Cambridge University Press, 2021). Her scholarship consistently emphasizes the importance of rigorous scientific validation before admitting neuroscience evidence in legal proceedings, advocating for careful judicial gatekeeping of forensic science.
Research methodology profile
Research areas
Co-author network
Researchers who have co-authored studies with Jane Campbell Moriarty.
Publications [5]
All peer-reviewed studies by Jane Campbell Moriarty in our database.
Who Speaks for Neuroscience? Neuroimaging Evidence and Courtroom Expertise
The paper identifies that no clear standard exists for determining which medical or scientific professionals are qualified to interpret neuroimaging evidence in court, creating risks for legal fairness and scientific… [002] 2013 • REVIEW Psychology, Public Policy, and LawUsing Brain Imaging for Lie Detection: Where Science, Law and Research Policy Collide
Reviewed 76–90% accuracy range under controlled conditions but noted substantial translational gaps between lab and forensic settings. Called for more robust research before courtroom use. [003] 2012 Neuroimaging in Forensic Psychiatry: From the Clinic to the CourtroomDetecting Deception (book chapter)
The chapter concludes that while fMRI studies identified consistent neural correlates of deception in controlled laboratory settings, the technology in 2012 remained insufficiently validated for individual-level forensic application, and courts… [004] 2009 Akron Law ReviewVisions of Deception: Neuroimages and the Search for Truth
Neither fMRI-based lie detection nor Brain Fingerprinting/BEOS meets general acceptance or reliability standards for admissibility in U.S. courts; courts are urged to exercise restraint and await further scientific development before… [005] 2008 Behavioral Sciences & the LawFlickering Admissibility: Neuroimaging Evidence in the US Courts
U.S. courts routinely admit structural neuroimaging (CT, MRI) but apply significantly greater skepticism to functional technologies such as PET, SPECT, and fMRI; neither fMRI lie detection nor brain fingerprinting had…Explore all research.
Browse our complete database of 3493 peer-reviewed polygraph studies.