This chapter examines the use of neuroscientific evidence—such as brain imaging and neurobiological data—in court cases and provides a critical evaluation of its admissibility, dependability, and limits. Readers are given insight into the changing standards for the admissibility and interpretation of neuroscientific evidence in courtrooms through an examination of case law and empirical research. The chapter looks at the difficulties in interpreting intricate neurobiological research into legal frameworks, including problems with methodological rigor, validity, and generalizability. Additionally, it discusses the function of expert testimony in educating jurors and judges about neuroscientific concepts as well as effective ways to express the ambiguities and nuanced information present in neuroimaging and neurobiological data. The practical consequences of neuroscientific findings in determining legal results are demonstrated through case studies and precedent-setting decisions, which highlight both noteworthy accomplishments and cautionary tales. The importance of interdisciplinary collaboration in navigating the interface between neuroscience and the law, as well as a sophisticated grasp of the complications surrounding the incorporation of neuroscientific information into legal procedures, are key lessons.