Amos Wells Was Sentenced to Death After Defense Used Disputed Brain and Gene Evidence
Updated
Updated · The Guardian · Jun 23
Amos Wells Was Sentenced to Death After Defense Used Disputed Brain and Gene Evidence
1 articles · Updated · The Guardian · Jun 23
Summary
A Texas jury sent Amos Joseph Wells III to death row after his own lawyers argued in 2016 that brain scans and genetic testing showed he was biologically predisposed to violence.
That strategy was meant to win life in prison, but prosecutors used the defense experts’ claims to satisfy Texas’s “future dangerousness” standard, telling jurors Wells was “never going to not be dangerous.”
New lawyers now ask the US Supreme Court to intervene, arguing Wells’s trial was tainted by pseudoscience, racism and ineffective counsel; the NAACP, 29 scientists and lawyers, and two law schools backed him.
The disputed evidence came from neuroscientist Kent Kiehl and associates through Mindset, a private company involved in more than 200 capital cases; critics say its claims about “criminal brains” and MAOA-linked violence outrun the science.
Wells’s case reflects a broader shift: brain-based arguments appeared in more than 2,800 judicial opinions from 2005 to 2015, including about 25% of US death-penalty trials, even as many researchers call the field unreliable.
When brain scans are used in court, is it real science or a new phrenology?
If biology can predict violence, should we screen people before they commit crimes?
The Amos Wells Case and the Rise of Neuroscientific Evidence: Racial Bias, Legal Standards, and the Future of Justice
Overview
The Amos Wells case stands out as a major legal development, highlighting the ongoing debate over expert testimony in capital punishment trials. In January 2026, the Legal Defense Fund (LDF) filed a crucial brief that draws direct parallels between Amos Wells’s situation and the landmark Supreme Court decision in Buck v. Davis. That earlier ruling found it unconstitutional to use expert testimony linking a defendant’s race to predictions of future dangerousness, setting a strict standard for such evidence. By referencing Buck v. Davis, the LDF’s brief in the Amos Wells case challenges similar problematic testimony, underscoring the case’s importance in shaping future standards for expert evidence in death penalty cases.