•  
  •  
 

Florida Atlantic University Undergraduate Law Journal

Advisor

Anita Blowers

College

Social Work and Criminal Justice

Keywords

Behavioral Analysis, Psychological Profiling, Expert Testimony, Serial Homicide, Evidentiary Standards, Frye Standard, Daubert Standard, Rule 702, Case Law, Empirical Research, Mens Rea, Premeditation, Criminal Investigations, Forensic, Testimonial, Courtroom, evidence, Junk Science, Evidentiary Safeguards, Criminal Psychology

Document Type

Article

Abstract

In many homicide trials, juries have to consider more than just forensic and testimonial evidence. Sometimes, a perpetrator’s actions can appear illogical or unexplainable, and in this case, juries have to examine and consider the mental state, possible motivations, and behavioral patterns of the perpetrator. Psychological profiling, also known as behavioral analysis, has been used in criminal investigations for years. But even after all these years, many still question its legitimacy. This article examines the effectiveness of behavioral analysis when used as expert testimony in serial homicide cases through the evidentiary standards under Frye v. United States, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, and the Federal Rule of Evidence 702, alongside relevant case law and empirical research on profiling methodologies. The examination shows that behavioral analysis is more than speculation. Meaning, it can help juries understand mens rea, premeditation, and the likelihood that an offender will continue to commit crimes. When behavioral analysis is backed by empirical research and combined with forensic and testimonial evidence, it is extremely useful in the courtroom. In contrast to what many in the field refer to as "junk science," this article argues that behavioral profiling should be carefully admitted under established evidentiary safeguards.

Download

Share

COinS