Author(s): Anees PK

Abstract: “Virtopsy”—the use of post-mortem imaging modalities such as CT, MRI, and 3D surface scanning to supplement or replace conventional dissection—has migrated from radiology suites into courtrooms. As prosecutors, defense counsel, and coroners increasingly rely on imaging-derived findings to establish cause and manner of death, courts face threshold questions about evidentiary admissibility and weight: What reliability standards apply? Who is qualified to testify? How should chain-of-custody, visualization bias, and the absence of histology be handled? This paper undertakes a doctrinal legal analysis across mixed common-law and civil-law jurisdictions over the last fifteen years, examining statutes, rules of evidence, and case law that explicitly or implicitly address imaging-based post-mortem evidence. Using a structured coding scheme, we extract and compare: (1) the reliability tests used (Daubert, Frye, or local analogues); (2) expert qualification criteria; (3) recurring grounds of exclusion or limitation; and (4) judicial reasoning patterns when imaging conflicts with or replaces scalpel findings. We supplement the doctrinal synthesis with inter-coder reliability checks and external validity reviews by two independent legal scholars. Our findings indicate a convergent judicial emphasis on methodological transparency (scanner parameters, reconstruction protocols, and validation literature), cross-disciplinary expertise (forensic pathology plus radiology), and robust chain-of-custody for digital evidence. Courts are generally receptive to virtopsy where it corroborates conventional autopsy or addresses cultural objections, but they scrutinize “imaging-only” conclusions that lack histopathological confirmation in equivocal natural-death scenarios. We propose a jurisdiction-agnostic admissibility checklist and competency rubric to guide practitioners and courts.

DOI: 10.22271/27899497.2025.v5.i2c.165

Pages: 219-225 | Views: 170 | Downloads: 89

Download Full Article: Click Here