The introduction of neuroscienceNeuroscience evidence in the courtroom has grown since the early twentieth century. Neuroscience evidence encompasses various forms of genetic (e.g., MAOA tests) and brain dataFunctional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) (e.g., fMRI, CT, MRI, EEG, PETPositron Emission Tomography (PET) scansscans)Electroencephalography (EEG) which have been introduced in both criminal and civil casesCivil casesto assess competencyCompetency assessment, influence sentencing, and substantiatePersonal injury claims personal injury claims. However, the effects of neuroscience evidenceFunctional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) (e.g., fMRI scans) on legal judgmentsLegal judgment in criminal and civil casesCivil casesare complexComplex decision making and have yet to be fully understood. This chapter explores the integration of neuroscienceNeuroscienceevidence into legalLegal decision making decision-making, briefly examining its historical context and application. We cover the controversy surrounding the neuroscience evidence biasNeuroscience evidence bias and review the extant literature on the effects of neuroscience on legal decisions for both criminal and civil casesCivil cases. Overall, the existing literature suggests a mitigating effect of neuroscience evidence for legal decisions forCriminal casescriminal casesCapital punishment (e.g., capital punishment) and increases damage awards for the plaintiff in civil casesCivil cases (e.g., personal injury). Factors such as defendant dangerousnessDangerousness may also moderate the effects of neuroscienceNeuroscience evidence in criminal casesCriminal cases. Importantly, neuroimagesNeuroimages do not appear to dramatically influence legal judgmentsLegal judgment over and above expert explanations of a neuroscientific fashion and no stark contrasts between forms of neuroimagesNeuroimages were identified. We conclude with recommendations for future research endeavors, emphasizing the need to understand the impact of defendant and juror characteristics and the framing of neuroscience evidence on legal outcomes.