Snap Shot
- The question: How does normal aging affect what an older adult perceives, remembers, and reports as a witness, complainant, or accused, and what does the research allow a factfinder to conclude about one older witness?
- What the research shows: Episodic memory, binding of details to their sources, and lineup discrimination decline on average with age, and older adults are on average more susceptible to false and suggested memories and more likely to choose from a lineup that does not contain the culprit. Semantic knowledge and memory for gist are comparatively preserved, and older witnesses’ high-confidence identifications from fair lineups are generally accurate.
- What it does not show: Age differences are averages with wide individual variation; many older adults perform as well as younger ones, and age alone does not show that a particular older witness is mistaken. Most findings come from laboratory mock-crime studies with healthy volunteers.
- The law: Older witnesses are presumed competent (Rules 601 and 602), and the weaknesses of an identification not caused by police suggestion go to weight (Perry). Expert testimony is governed by Rule 702 and Houser, and in Arizona by Rule 702, Chapple, and Nordstrom; no expert may opine that a particular witness is accurate or truthful (Lindsey).
- Issues for each side: Prosecutors can show that an older witness’s account was obtained early, with non-leading questions and a fair, double-blind lineup, and that high initial confidence under those conditions is informative; defense counsel can show how delay, suggestion, poor viewing conditions, and a possibly culprit-absent lineup bear on an older witness’s account, without implying that older witnesses are unreliable as a group.
Older adults appear in the legal system as witnesses, as victims of assault, burglary, fraud, and financial exploitation, and as the accused. When an older adult testifies, the parties may disagree sharply about whether age has affected the account. The research supports neither the assumption that older witnesses are generally unreliable nor the assumption that experience makes them better observers.
Memory changes with age, but not as a single faculty and not uniformly across people. Some abilities that matter to testimony, such as remembering which details belong to which event and recognizing an unfamiliar face, decline on average; others, such as general knowledge and memory for gist, are comparatively preserved. How an older witness is questioned can also narrow or widen the gap between experience and report.
This paper summarizes what declines and what is preserved in normal aging, the research on older eyewitnesses’ identifications, source memory and false memory in older adults, and methods for interviewing older witnesses. It then addresses the limits of the research and the federal, military, and Arizona law on competency and expert testimony. Dementia is addressed in the companion paper, Alzheimer’s Disease and Memory.
What Changes and What Is Preserved
Cognitive aging is uneven. In a large cross-sectional study of adults from their twenties through their nineties, measures of processing speed, working memory, and long-term memory declined steadily across the age range, while verbal knowledge such as vocabulary was stable or improved into late life (Park et al., 2002). An older review reached a similar conclusion about memory specifically: episodic memory, the memory for particular events in a particular time and place, shows larger age differences than semantic memory, the store of general knowledge (Light, 1991). Eyewitness testimony draws on episodic memory.
A leading explanation for the decline is the associative deficit hypothesis: older adults often retain individual items reasonably well but have more difficulty tying the parts of an experience (a person, an action, a place, a time, a source) to one another (Naveh-Benjamin, 2000). A meta-analysis of 90 studies with more than 6,000 participants confirmed a larger age effect for associative information than for item information, including memory for source, context, temporal order, and spatial location; the associative deficit was pronounced when people tried to learn material and less evident when learning was incidental (Old & Naveh-Benjamin, 2008). A more recent review drew together decades of research to conclude that older adults’ episodic memories are, in general, less specific: the general outline is retained while fine-grained detail is lost more readily (Greene & Naveh-Benjamin, 2023). For testimony, the practical risk is a correct memory of a person and a correct memory of a setting that are joined to the wrong occasion.
Perception sets the upper limit on what can be remembered. Age-related changes in vision and hearing are common, sensory acuity and cognitive performance are associated in cross-sectional studies of older adults, and poorer perceptual input makes a cognitive task harder (Roberts & Allen, 2016). Lighting, distance, background noise, and whether the witness was using glasses or hearing aids are therefore part of evaluating an older witness’s opportunity to observe.
Two further findings bear on balance. First, individual differences are large. Population studies show well-preserved memory in some older people, and one influential review attributed successful memory aging primarily to the relative absence of brain pathology rather than to age itself (Nyberg et al., 2012). Second, emotion and memory interact differently with age. A meta-analysis of 100 studies found that older adults, on average, show a processing preference for positive over negative information (Reed et al., 2014); how that preference affects memory for a frightening real event has not been established.
Older Eyewitnesses and Lineup Identification
A meta-analysis of 91 studies with 20,244 participants found that older adults, like young children, were both less likely than young adults to pick out a culprit who was in the lineup and more likely to pick someone from a lineup that lacked the culprit; signal-detection measures showed that older adults’ ability to discriminate guilty from innocent suspects was reduced even more than children’s, relative to young adults (Fitzgerald & Price, 2015). The authors also emphasized that identifications by witnesses of every age group had probative value. The tendency to choose from culprit-absent lineups matters because, in a real case, the investigators do not know whether the suspect is the culprit; an innocent suspect is at risk only in a culprit-absent lineup.
Later work has refined the picture. In a study of 2,670 adults aged 18 to 95 who viewed a mock crime and then attempted an identification, aging in fair lineups was associated with a genuine decline in discriminability rather than a greater willingness to choose (Colloff et al., 2017). Middle-aged and older adults generally calibrated confidence to accuracy, so their high-confidence identifications were likely to be correct despite lower discriminability; in unfair lineups, in which the suspect stood out, discrimination was poor at every age. A 2025 analysis of sequential lineups using a different model found that memory-based detection of the culprit’s presence declined with age while guessing-based selection increased (Mayer et al., 2025). The findings are compatible: when memory is weaker, a selection is more likely to rest on something other than recognition, which is one reason initial confidence, recorded at the time, is informative. In a 2022 study, confidence and response time predicted identification accuracy in older as well as young adults (Holdstock et al., 2022).
Procedure matters. In one study, a sequential lineup reduced false choosing by older adults in culprit-absent conditions, but it also reduced correct identifications in culprit-present conditions, as it did for young adults (Memon & Gabbert, 2003). Face recognition also shows an own-age bias: across a meta-analysis of studies with children, younger adults, and older adults, people discriminated faces of their own age group better than faces of other age groups (Rhodes & Anastasi, 2012). An older witness identifying a young perpetrator may therefore face a somewhat harder task, as may a young witness identifying an older one.
Source Memory and False Memory in Aging
Source monitoring is the process by which people attribute a memory to its origin: something seen, something heard from another person, something read, or something imagined (Johnson et al., 1993). Because source information is a form of association, the binding difficulties described above make source errors more likely with age. A neuroimaging and cognitive review concluded that age-related changes in medial temporal and prefrontal regions, and the corresponding weaknesses in binding and in strategic monitoring of memories, increase older adults’ vulnerability to false memories, along with a greater reliance on gist and on a general sense of familiarity (Devitt & Schacter, 2016).
The effect is reliable. A 2026 meta-analysis of 150 articles with 414 effect sizes found higher false memory in older than in younger adults for both spontaneous false memories, such as falsely remembering a related word or picture that was never presented (Hedges’s g about 0.54), and suggestion-induced false memories, such as incorporating misleading post-event information (g about 0.46); the size of the effect varied with the materials, the type of test, the retention interval, and participants’ age and education (Huan et al., 2026). In an eyewitness misinformation paradigm, older adults were more susceptible than younger adults to misleading post-event information, and older adults with lower scores on neuropsychological tests associated with frontal-lobe functioning were particularly susceptible (Roediger & Geraci, 2007). Gist-based errors follow the same pattern: older adults were more likely than younger adults to falsely recognize new pictures that were similar to pictures they had studied (Koutstaal & Schacter, 1997).
These findings concern averages. Older adults with stronger executive functioning performed more like younger adults in the Roediger and Geraci (2007) study, and the meta-analytic effects are moderate, so older and younger adults overlap substantially. The research shows that an older witness is, on average, more vulnerable to suggestion and to confusing similar events; it does not show that any particular detail in an older witness’s account came from suggestion. That question turns on what the witness was exposed to, and when.
Preserved Abilities: Knowledge and Gist
The same research that documents loss of specific detail documents what remains. Semantic knowledge, vocabulary, and accumulated expertise are comparatively stable into late life (Park et al., 2002), and older adults’ memories retain the general outline of an experience even when specifics fade (Greene & Naveh-Benjamin, 2023). Many questions at trial concern gist: whether a person was struck, whether money was demanded, whether a stranger entered the home. An older witness’s account of the central nature of an event may be accurate even when the witness is uncertain about peripheral details such as clothing color or the exact sequence of remarks.
Reliance on gist also has a cost: it can produce confident reports of details that fit the general meaning of an event but did not occur (Devitt & Schacter, 2016). Both points are true at once, so the practical task is to distinguish the central claim in an account from its specific details and to evaluate each against the conditions under which it was reported.
Interviewing Older Witnesses
Older adults’ memory performance depends more than younger adults’ on the support the retrieval situation provides: cued, structured questioning narrows age differences that are larger in unaided free recall, a principle known as environmental support (Lane & Houston, 2021, pp. 118–124). The interviewer controls much of that support.
The cognitive interview, which combines rapport, mental reinstatement of context, encouragement to report everything, and open-ended questioning, has been tested with older witnesses. An early study found that it increased the correct information older adults reported (Mello & Fisher, 1996). In two later studies, the enhanced cognitive interview and a modified version that omitted the change-perspective instruction increased correct person, action, object, and surrounding details in young, young-old (60–74), and old-old (75–95) adults without increasing incorrect or confabulated details, although recall in the oldest group remained less complete than in the younger groups (Wright & Holliday, 2007). When older adults were given a modified cognitive interview after exposure to misinformation, it elicited more correct detail and greater accuracy, and the older adults interviewed that way were not susceptible to the misinformation presented before the interview (Holliday et al., 2012). Young adults still recalled about three times as much correct information, so the technique improved older witnesses’ reports without eliminating the age gap.
Practices that protect any witness’s memory carry particular weight for older witnesses: a recorded account obtained as soon as practicable; open-ended, non-leading questions; adequate lighting, minimal noise, and glasses or hearing aids in use; enough time, because processing slows with age; and fair, double-blind identification procedures with confidence recorded at the first identification. These practices do not remove age-related limits, but they make it more likely that the report reflects the witness’s own memory.
Limits of the Evidence
Most of this research uses healthy volunteers who watch a brief video of a staged event and are tested within minutes, hours, or days. Real older witnesses may have experienced a frightening, personally significant event, may have medical conditions or take medications that affect cognition, and may be interviewed weeks or months later. Volunteer samples of older adults are often healthier and better educated than older adults generally, which may understate age differences; unfamiliar laboratory materials may overstate them for events that engage a person’s experience. “Older” is also defined differently across studies, with lower bounds ranging from about 60 to 65 years, and the young-old and old-old can differ substantially (Wright & Holliday, 2007). Effect sizes are moderate and distributions overlap. Above all, group research cannot determine whether a particular older witness’s memory is accurate; it can describe factors that make error more or less likely.
Questions to Ask About This Research
If Fitzgerald and Price (2015) is offered as proof that older eyewitnesses perform worse, counsel can ask what the pooled laboratory studies measured, whether the age difference held for culprit-present as well as culprit-absent lineups (it did), and what the authors concluded about probative value (identifications at every age retained some). If Colloff et al. (2017) is offered to bolster an older witness’s confident identification, the question is whether that confidence was recorded at the first identification from a fair lineup; the study says nothing about confidence first expressed at trial or after a suggestive procedure. If Huan et al. (2026) or Roediger and Geraci (2007) is offered to suggest that an older witness absorbed a suggested detail, counsel can ask how large the average effect is, how much older and younger groups overlapped, and whether executive functioning, which moderated susceptibility, is known for this witness. For cognitive interview studies, the questions are who was tested and whether the gains held for the oldest participants. These questions are explained in “Reading Research Claims: A Guide for Attorneys” on this site.
Aging and Memory and the Law
Federal and Military Standards
Every person is competent to be a witness unless the rules provide otherwise (Fed. R. Evid. 601; Mil. R. Evid. 601), and a witness may testify only to matters within his or her personal knowledge, which the witness’s own testimony may establish (Fed. R. Evid. 602; Mil. R. Evid. 602). Age is not a ground of incompetency, and questions about the quality of an older witness’s perception or memory ordinarily go to weight, tested through cross-examination, corroborating or contradicting evidence, and, where admissible, expert testimony. For eyewitness identifications, due process requires a preliminary judicial screen for reliability only when law enforcement arranged an unnecessarily suggestive procedure; otherwise, including where a weakness arises from the witness’s age or viewing conditions, reliability is for the jury (Perry v. New Hampshire, 2012). In courts-martial, Military Rule of Evidence 321 governs objections to identification evidence.
Expert testimony on aging and memory is governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 702, as amended December 1, 2023, which requires the proponent to show that it is more likely than not that the testimony rests on sufficient facts or data, is the product of reliable principles and methods, and reflects a reliable application of them to the case. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993) makes the trial judge a gatekeeper, and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael (1999) extends that obligation to all expert testimony, including non-scientific technical or other specialized knowledge. Military Rule of Evidence 702 tracks the federal rule; the 2023 amendment took effect in the military rule in 2025 through Military Rule of Evidence 1102 (Joint Service Committee on Military Justice, 2025; practitioners should confirm current text). Admissibility in courts-martial is also assessed under the six factors of United States v. Houser (1993). General testimony about age-related changes in memory is the kind of education these rules contemplate; testimony that a particular older witness’s memory is accurate or mistaken is not.
Arizona
Arizona Rule of Evidence 601 provides that every person is competent to be a witness unless the rules or an applicable statute provide otherwise, and Rule 602 contains the personal-knowledge requirement. Arizona Rule of Evidence 702 adopted the Daubert standard effective January 1, 2012, and was amended effective January 1, 2024, to track the 2023 federal amendment (Ariz. Sup. Ct. Order R-23-0004). State v. Chapple (1983) is Arizona’s leading case on expert testimony about eyewitness memory: the Arizona Supreme Court held that excluding such testimony was an abuse of discretion on the facts of that case, and State v. Nordstrom (2001) confirmed that admission otherwise remains within the trial court’s discretion. Pretrial identifications challenged as unduly suggestive are addressed in a Dessureault hearing (State v. Dessureault, 1969), and the jury may be instructed on identification under RAJI Standard Criminal 45. Under State v. Lindsey (1986) and State v. Moran (1986), an expert may not opine, directly or indirectly, on whether a particular witness is truthful or accurate; that limit applies to testimony offered by either side.
Special Issues in Legal Practice
The principles described above apply with equal force to every party in a legal proceeding. The science operates the same way regardless of who is asking the questions, and the research summarized here does not by itself favor either side. What differs between the parties is not the science but the vantage point — the particular places where these issues tend to surface, and the particular errors each party is best positioned to guard against. The two summaries below identify those recurring issues. They are offered for orientation, not as litigation strategy; in every case the controlling question is what the evidence in that case will, and will not, support, and the expert’s role is to inform the trier of fact rather than to advocate for either side.
Special Issues for Prosecutors
The research supports several propositions prosecutors can legitimately present. Age alone does not make a witness unreliable; individual differences are large, and many older adults remember as well as younger ones. Memory for the gist of an event and for its central features is often, but not always, comparatively preserved, so uncertainty about peripheral details is not, by itself, a reason to doubt the central account; that does not tell us whether the account is accurate, because details, context, and source are what change. Older witnesses’ high-confidence identifications from fair lineups, with confidence recorded at the time, are generally accurate (Colloff et al., 2017), and identifications by older witnesses have probative value (Fitzgerald & Price, 2015). Prosecutors are well positioned to strengthen an older witness’s evidence by ensuring that the first account is recorded promptly, that interviews use open, non-leading questions of the kind tested with older adults, that sensory needs are accommodated, and that any identification uses a fair, double-blind lineup with a contemporaneous confidence statement.
The research also counsels caution. On average, older adults are more likely than younger adults to choose from a lineup that does not contain the culprit and are more susceptible to misinformation and to confusing the sources of their memories. When an older witness’s account has been exposed to conversations with family members, other witnesses, investigators, or media before it was first recorded, the sequence of that exposure deserves attention. Confidence that emerges or grows after the first identification, or that follows an unfair procedure, does not carry the diagnostic value of initial confidence under fair conditions. Testimony that older witnesses as a group are as accurate as younger ones goes beyond what the research shows, although many individual older adults perform as well as younger ones.
Special Issues for Defense
The research supports several propositions defense counsel can legitimately present. On average, episodic memory, memory for the association of details with their sources, and the ability to discriminate a culprit from an innocent person decline with age, and older adults are more likely to choose from culprit-absent lineups and more susceptible to suggested details (Fitzgerald & Price, 2015; Huan et al., 2026). Perceptual conditions such as poor lighting, distance, background noise, and uncorrected vision or hearing limit what could have been encoded. Delay, leading questioning, exposure to other accounts, and post-identification feedback can shape later reports. Evidence of those conditions, combined with expert testimony that explains the general research, is a legitimate way to help the factfinder evaluate an older witness’s account.
The research also counsels caution about the limits that apply to the defense. An older witness can be sincere and mistaken, but the research does not support treating older witnesses as unreliable as a class or suggesting that a gap in peripheral detail undermines an accurate central account. The meta-analytic effects are moderate, many older adults perform as well as younger ones, and a high-confidence initial identification from a fair, double-blind lineup is informative regardless of age. An expert cannot tell the factfinder that a particular older witness’s memory is wrong; that is a credibility judgment reserved to the factfinder. The same principles apply when the accused is an older adult whose own account may have been shaped by questioning or by information learned after the event.
This paper is for educational purposes only and is not legal advice. The author is a psychologist, not an attorney; summaries of law are general and must be verified against current authority or with a licensed attorney.
References
Colloff, M. F., Wade, K. A., Wixted, J. T., & Maylor, E. A. (2017). A signal-detection analysis of eyewitness identification across the adult lifespan. Psychology and Aging, 32(3), 243–258. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000168
Devitt, A. L., & Schacter, D. L. (2016). False memories with age: Neural and cognitive underpinnings. Neuropsychologia, 91, 346–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.08.030
Fitzgerald, R. J., & Price, H. L. (2015). Eyewitness identification across the life span: A meta-analysis of age differences. Psychological Bulletin, 141(6), 1228–1265. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000013
Greene, N. R., & Naveh-Benjamin, M. (2023). Adult age-related changes in the specificity of episodic memory representations: A review and theoretical framework. Psychology and Aging, 38(2), 67–86. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000724
Holdstock, J. S., Dalton, P., May, K. A., Boogert, S., & Mickes, L. (2022). Lineup identification in young and older witnesses: Does describing the criminal help or hinder? Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 7(1), Article 51. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-022-00399-1
Holliday, R. E., Humphries, J. E., Milne, R., Memon, A., Houlder, L., Lyons, A., & Bull, R. (2012). Reducing misinformation effects in older adults with cognitive interview mnemonics. Psychology and Aging, 27(4), 1191–1203. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022031
Huan, S.-Y., Otgaar, H., Howe, M. L., Liu, Y.-R., Xu, H.-Z., Wang, J., & Yu, J. (2026). A meta-analysis of false memory in healthy and pathological cognitive aging. Psychology and Aging, 41(4), 497–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000966
Johnson, M. K., Hashtroudi, S., & Lindsay, D. S. (1993). Source monitoring. Psychological Bulletin, 114(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.1.3
Joint Service Committee on Military Justice. (2025). Amendments to the Military Rules of Evidence since 1984 (G. E. Maggs, Ed.; 2025 ed.). https://jsc.defense.gov/Portals/99/MRE%20Amendments%202025.pdf
Koutstaal, W., & Schacter, D. L. (1997). Gist-based false recognition of pictures in older and younger adults. Journal of Memory and Language, 37(4), 555–583. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1997.2529
Lane, S. M., & Houston, K. A. (2021). Understanding eyewitness memory: Theory and applications. New York University Press.
Light, L. L. (1991). Memory and aging: Four hypotheses in search of data. Annual Review of Psychology, 42, 333–376. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.42.020191.002001
Mayer, C., Bell, R., Menne, N. M., Therre, A., Lichtenhagen, U., & Buchner, A. (2025). Evidence for age-related differences in culprit-presence detection and guessing-based selection in lineups. Psychology and Aging, 40(7), 753–764. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000916
Mello, E. W., & Fisher, R. P. (1996). Enhancing older adult eyewitness memory with the cognitive interview. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10(5), 403–417. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199610)10:5<403::AID-ACP395>3.0.CO;2-X
Memon, A., & Gabbert, F. (2003). Improving the identification accuracy of senior witnesses: Do prelineup questions and sequential testing help? Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 341–347. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.341
Naveh-Benjamin, M. (2000). Adult age differences in memory performance: Tests of an associative deficit hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(5), 1170–1187. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.26.5.1170
Nyberg, L., Lövdén, M., Riklund, K., Lindenberger, U., & Bäckman, L. (2012). Memory aging and brain maintenance. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(5), 292–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2012.04.005
Old, S. R., & Naveh-Benjamin, M. (2008). Differential effects of age on item and associative measures of memory: A meta-analysis. Psychology and Aging, 23(1), 104–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.23.1.104
Park, D. C., Lautenschlager, G., Hedden, T., Davidson, N. S., Smith, A. D., & Smith, P. K. (2002). Models of visuospatial and verbal memory across the adult life span. Psychology and Aging, 17(2), 299–320. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.17.2.299
Reed, A. E., Chan, L., & Mikels, J. A. (2014). Meta-analysis of the age-related positivity effect: Age differences in preferences for positive over negative information. Psychology and Aging, 29(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035194
Rhodes, M. G., & Anastasi, J. S. (2012). The own-age bias in face recognition: A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 138(1), 146–174. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025750
Roberts, K. L., & Allen, H. A. (2016). Perception and cognition in the ageing brain: A brief review of the short- and long-term links between perceptual and cognitive decline. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, 8, Article 39. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2016.00039
Roediger, H. L., III, & Geraci, L. (2007). Aging and the misinformation effect: A neuropsychological analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(2), 321–334. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.2.321
Wright, A. M., & Holliday, R. E. (2007). Enhancing the recall of young, young–old and old–old adults with cognitive interviews. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(1), 19–43. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1260
Legal Authorities
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999).
Perry v. New Hampshire, 565 U.S. 228 (2012).
State v. Chapple, 135 Ariz. 281, 660 P.2d 1208 (1983).
State v. Dessureault, 104 Ariz. 380, 453 P.2d 951 (1969).
State v. Lindsey, 149 Ariz. 472, 720 P.2d 73 (1986).
State v. Moran, 151 Ariz. 378, 728 P.2d 248 (1986).
State v. Nordstrom, 200 Ariz. 229, 25 P.3d 717 (2001).
United States v. Houser, 36 M.J. 392 (C.M.A. 1993).
Fed. R. Evid. 601.
Fed. R. Evid. 602.
Fed. R. Evid. 702.
Ariz. R. Evid. 601.
Ariz. R. Evid. 602.
Ariz. R. Evid. 702.
Ariz. Sup. Ct. Order R-23-0004 (amending Ariz. R. Evid. 702, effective Jan. 1, 2024).
Mil. R. Evid. 321.
Mil. R. Evid. 601.
Mil. R. Evid. 602.
Mil. R. Evid. 702.
Mil. R. Evid. 1102.
Revised Arizona Jury Instructions (Criminal), Standard Criminal 45 (Identification).
Related topic papers: Alzheimer’s Disease and Memory · Source Monitoring · Gist Memory · Memory in Special Populations · Eyewitness Memory · Confidence and Accuracy