Abstract

The reception of neurosciences on trial has had a history that extends to the 1940s, but it has intensified significantly in recent years in comparative jurisprudence, giving rise to the discipline of neurolaw. This work offers a synthesis of neurolaw in comparative jurisprudence and develops an analysis of the state of the arts in our national jurisprudence, by reviewing a jurisprudential database on the subject that runs between 2002 and 2019. It is concluded that neurolaw still has a very incipient development in our country and is concentrated mainly in issues of civil and labor damage litigation.