• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

information for practice

news, new scholarship & more from around the world


advanced search
  • gary.holden@nyu.edu
  • @ Info4Practice
  • Archive
  • About
  • Help
  • Browse Key Journals
  • RSS Feeds

The science of human memory versus the federal rules of evidence.

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Vol 32(2), May 2026, 153-167; doi:10.1037/law0000478

Eyewitness misidentifications have contributed to many wrongful convictions. However, despite expressing high confidence at trial, many of these eyewitnesses did the opposite on the first test of uncontaminated memory—often correctly providing evidence of innocence—early in the police investigation. According to a new scientific consensus, it is important to focus on the results of that first test because (a) it provides the most reliable information and (b) the test itself contaminates the witness’s memory of the suspect. Yet the rules governing the admissibility of evidence place a higher priority on the last test, conducted at the criminal trial, when the witness is under oath and available for cross-examination. We conclude that wrongful convictions long attributed to the unreliability of eyewitness memory often reflect a system that unwittingly prioritizes sincerely held false memories elicited at trial over true memories elicited early in a police investigation. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved)

Read the full article ›

Posted in: Journal Article Abstracts on 05/08/2026 | Link to this post on IFP |
Share

Primary Sidebar

Categories

Category RSS Feeds

  • Calls & Consultations
  • Clinical Trials
  • Funding
  • Grey Literature
  • Guidelines Plus
  • History
  • Infographics
  • Journal Article Abstracts
  • Meta-analyses - Systematic Reviews
  • Monographs & Edited Collections
  • News
  • Open Access Journal Articles
  • Podcasts
  • Video

© 1993-2026 Dr. Gary Holden. All rights reserved.

gary.holden@nyu.edu
@Info4Practice