49

The use of brain images for judicial purposes is developing to the point that it is giving rise to numerous publications expressing concern. The fears expressed are varied: they concern in particular the consequences that this new probative element could have on the definition of responsibility and on the course of the trial. In France, this issue arose during the preparation phase for the adoption of Law no. 2011-814 of July 7, 2011 and of article 16-14 of the civil code. Since then, several papers have been published on this topic, but little is known about judicial practices (before and after 2011). Despite the difficulties of accessing court decisions in criminal matters, it is possible to analyze the civil dimension of the Supreme Court of Appeal’s statements, rulings, and judgments. By exploring and studying these sources, the present paper establishes an overview of the uses of brain images in criminal justice: to prove that the person being prosecuted had altered judgment, or a complete lack of it, or to establish the material element of the offense. In order to understand a reality inaccessible to the senses, brain images can play a crucial role in the criminal process. However, this is a piece of evidence whose technicality and persuasive effect raise the suspicion that the adversarial principle is difficult to implement. With this in mind, it is useful to be aware of the variety of experts that can be mobilized to replace the interpretation delivered by the judicial expert in a set of elements or in a contradictory debate.