Neuroscientific evidence has an increasing impact on fact-finding in criminal proceedings. Yet, the reliability of neuroscientific knowledge cannot be entrusted entirely to the experts but must be inspected within the trial, according to its principles, rules, and epistemological canons. Legal scholarship has mainly focused on the decision- making powers of the judge who must admit neuroscientific techniques at trial as being able, for example, to provide a useful contribution to the ascertainment of facts. In this perspective, we should also look at the parties in the proceedings, asking ourselves if they have a right – which in turn complements the judge’s duties – to have specific issues ascertained through the contribution of the neuroscience.