In Diaz v. United States (2024), the Supreme Court concluded that expert testimony about the likely mental state of individuals arrested with drugs is admissible in criminal trials. This decision was controversial in its own right, but also drew attention to an area of broader controversy: the increasing use of “predictive” or “profiling” evidence, by which experts present testimony suggesting someone is more or less likely to have a particular mental state or behave in a particular way based on their circumstances or characteristics. This panel brings together scholars to discuss predictive and profiling evidence from a variety of perspectives.
Business meeting at program conclusion.