During the case The People of California vs. Master Mind, it was ruled that any information gathered by means of mind reading could not be administered as evidence. However, it could be entered as "eyewitness" testimony. To do this, the witness must first prove that they do in fact possess mind reading abilities just after being sworn in, but before providing any actual testimony. Usually this is done by simply asking the witness’ attending liaison from the National Para-Humans Agency if in fact the witness possesses mind reading ability.

This was further complicated during the case of The People of New York vs. The Floating Brain when the mindreading, cyborg hero known as Robotronik produced a video tape of his mental readings that showed that the man being prosecuting was not in fact The Floating Brain, but that The Floating Brain was in fact NYC District Attorney Dan Marsh. The Supreme Court has yet to rule on the legality of entering videotaped mindreading sessions as evidence and Dan Marsh currently awaits his day in court.

Even with all of this, lawyers and judges both are loathe to allow mind readers to take the stand. This is not just out of professional paranoia, but due to the fact that any evidence of mind reading during open court is considered immediate grounds for a mistrial. There have been many cases where the opposing lawyer filed for mistrial based on grounds of mind reading when it appeared their case was going to lose. The most famous of these was The People of Maryland vs. Krab King, where the defending attorney successfully claimed that the vigilante Mentallica was using her mental powers against him in order to aid the prosecution. The Krab King today remains at large.

printer-friendly version | login to post comments