The case for expert testimony about eyewitness memory.

Abstract

Eyewitness expert testimony informs a jury about psychological processes and accuracy-related variables in eyewitness testimony. Appropriately chosen testimony is not prejudicial, and it is on sound scientific ground. Eyewitness research has established reliable, applicable findings and demonstrated that jurors have insufficient knowledge of some findings and poorly judge eyewitness accuracy. Studies of trial dynamics and reactions to eyewitnesses suggest a sizable risk of inordinate eyewitness impact, creating sizable risk of conviction on the basis of mistaken identifications. Trial simulations examining eyewitness expert testimony indicate it promotes modest, appropriate increases in skepticism about eyewitnesses, even when the expert gives a general overview of research and admits to limitations. The psychological and legal professions should develop responsible guidelines for use of expert testimony in court.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 84 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.