Snap Shot
- The question: What does the hippocampus do in memory, and what can brain science say about a particular witness’s memory loss or recollection?
- What the research shows: The hippocampus and nearby structures are needed to form new conscious memories of facts and events, and damage from surgery, oxygen deprivation, injury, or heavy alcohol use can impair that ability while sparing intelligence, short-term memory, and skills. Smaller average hippocampal volume is found in groups with PTSD, and twin and prospective studies suggest it may partly reflect pre-existing vulnerability rather than only damage from trauma.
- What it does not show: Scientists still disagree about whether detailed memories of personal events ever stop depending on the hippocampus. Much of the evidence on stress hormones and hippocampal damage comes from animals. No brain scan can show that a particular person’s memory is accurate, that a reported memory loss is genuine, or that a person has PTSD.
- The law: Neuroscience testimony must satisfy Rule 702 as amended in 2023 (Daubert, Joiner, Kumho) or Mil. R. Evid. 702 and Houser; Semrau affirmed the exclusion of fMRI evidence offered to show truthfulness. Amnesia does not by itself make an accused incompetent (Wilson). Arizona applies the same Rule 702 standard (Bernstein) and permits general memory testimony (Chapple, Nordstrom).
- Issues for each side: Prosecutors can explain that a memory gap after intoxication or injury reflects failed storage, not evidence that nothing happened; defense counsel can explain why such gaps limit what any later account can contain. Neither side should present imaging or brain-based generalizations as proof about one person.
The hippocampus is a curved structure deep in each temporal lobe. Together with nearby cortex in the medial temporal lobe, it is necessary for forming new long-term memories of facts and events, the kind of memory on which most testimony depends.
The hippocampus comes up in court when a witness, complainant, or accused has had a head injury, was heavily intoxicated, experienced severe stress, has PTSD, or reports no memory of the events, and when a party offers brain imaging to explain or support an account. Images of the brain can carry special weight with factfinders, and the gap between what such research shows about groups and what it can show about one person is easy to miss.
This paper covers what the hippocampus does, what the case of H.M. showed, the consolidation debate, stress hormones, hippocampal volume in PTSD, injury, oxygen deprivation, and alcohol, the limits of neuroimaging for an individual witness, and the governing law.
What the Hippocampus Does
Memory researchers separate declarative memory, which a person can consciously bring to mind and report, from nondeclarative forms such as skills, habits, and priming, which show up in performance (see the Implicit Memory paper). The hippocampus and adjacent medial temporal lobe structures are needed to establish new declarative memories, but they are not needed for holding a small amount of information in mind for a few seconds, for general intellectual ability, or for learning many skills (Squire, 1992; Squire & Wixted, 2011). A person with severe hippocampal damage can carry on a conversation yet retain little of it later.
One influential account describes the hippocampus as binding together the elements of an experience, such as who was present, what happened, and where and when, so that the episode can later be retrieved as a whole, including the context that lets a witness say where something was encountered (Yonelinas et al., 2019).
The Case of H.M. and Its Limits
In 1953, to control severe epilepsy, surgeons removed much of the medial temporal lobe on both sides of the brain of a young man known in the literature as H.M., including large portions of the hippocampus. Afterward his intelligence and personality were largely unchanged, but he was profoundly impaired in forming new lasting memories of facts and events (Scoville & Milner, 1957). Over five decades of study, he showed preserved short-term memory and improved on motor skills with practice while having little memory of the sessions (Corkin, 2002; Squire & Wixted, 2011).
His older memories were largely spared, but not untouched. Scoville and Milner (1957) noted a partial loss of memory for the period before the operation, and later testing indicated a temporally graded retrograde amnesia reaching back years before the surgery, with general knowledge from earlier life relatively preserved (Corkin, 2002). A study using a method designed to measure how vividly a person re-experiences specific personal events found that H.M. and another patient with medial temporal lobe damage had relatively spared general knowledge about their pasts but severe impairment in recollecting specific personal episodes, with no sparing of the most remote periods (Steinvorth et al., 2005). A postmortem examination also found that more hippocampal tissue had survived the operation than had been assumed, along with damage elsewhere in the brain (Annese et al., 2014).
The case showed that the medial temporal lobe is necessary for forming new declarative memories. Because the surgery removed other structures too, it did not show that the hippocampus alone was responsible. A later patient, R.B., developed lasting anterograde amnesia after an episode of reduced blood flow to the brain; at autopsy, the only damage that could reasonably account for his memory impairment was a lesion confined to one field (CA1) of the hippocampus on both sides, and he showed little if any retrograde amnesia (Zola-Morgan et al., 1986). How far such rare, permanent deficits generalize to the partial and temporary disruptions seen in injured or intoxicated witnesses is a matter of inference.
Consolidation and the Systems Consolidation Debate
New memories are fragile at first and stabilize over time, a process called consolidation, so events in the hours after an experience, including injury, intoxication, and sleep, can affect what is retained. How long memories depend on the hippocampus is a long-running debate. The standard model holds that the hippocampus is needed for a limited period, after which the memory is reorganized in the neocortex and can be retrieved without it; its central evidence is temporally graded retrograde amnesia, in which recent memories are lost and remote ones spared (Squire & Alvarez, 1995). Multiple trace theory, later trace transformation theory, holds that detailed memories of personal episodes depend on the hippocampus for as long as they exist, while memories that become more general and gist-like can be supported by the neocortex (Nadel & Moscovitch, 1997; Moscovitch et al., 2016). A contextual binding account proposes that episodic memory stays hippocampus-dependent and that forgetting reflects interference from similar contexts (Yonelinas et al., 2019).
Each position has support. The finding that H.M.’s recollection of remote personal episodes was impaired is consistent with multiple trace theory (Steinvorth et al., 2005), while an imaging study in which healthy participants described recent and remote memories aloud found hippocampal activity that declined with the age of the memory, consistent with the standard model (Gilmore et al., 2021). For legal purposes, the theories agree on the points that matter most: new memories depend on the hippocampus, memories are vulnerable in the period after an event, and memories tend to lose specific detail over time while retaining gist. None of the theories provides a way to tell whether a particular old memory is accurate.
Stress Hormones and the Hippocampus
The hippocampus has many receptors for glucocorticoids, the stress hormones that include cortisol, and it is among the brain regions most sensitive to them. Much of the mechanistic evidence comes from animal research. In rodents, severe or prolonged stress and elevated glucocorticoids can impair hippocampal synaptic plasticity, a cellular process thought to underlie memory formation, and can impair hippocampus-dependent learning (Kim & Diamond, 2002). A review of animal and human studies concluded that the effects of stress hormones on the brain depend on the timing and duration of exposure and on prior adversity (Lupien et al., 2009).
Human studies of acute stress show that the direction of the effect depends on timing. A meta-analysis of 113 laboratory studies found that stress before or during encoding generally impaired memory, except when the stressor closely preceded and was related to the material; stress shortly after encoding generally improved memory; and stress at retrieval generally impaired it (Shields et al., 2017). These studies use mild laboratory stressors and do not predict what a particular person encoded during a particular frightening event. Models in which strong emotion first enhances and then suppresses hippocampal function rest largely on animal research and are discussed in the Emotion, Stress, Trauma, and Memory paper.
The Hippocampus in PTSD: Predisposition or Consequence?
Groups of people with posttraumatic stress disorder have, on average, smaller hippocampi than comparison groups. The largest study to date, pooling 1,868 participants from 16 cohorts, found smaller hippocampal volume in people with current PTSD than in trauma-exposed people without PTSD, but the difference was small (Cohen’s d = −0.17) (Logue et al., 2018). Because severe stress can damage the hippocampus in animals, the difference was long read as damage caused by trauma.
A twin study challenged that reading. In identical twin pairs in which one twin had been exposed to combat trauma and the other had not, PTSD severity in the exposed twin correlated with smaller hippocampal volume in both twins, including the unexposed co-twin (Gilbertson et al., 2002), suggesting that smaller volume may be, at least in part, a pre-existing risk factor. Later prospective studies point in a similar but not identical direction. Among 100 civilian trauma survivors scanned 1, 6, and 14 months after an emergency department admission, those whose PTSD did not remit had smaller right hippocampal volume at the first scan, and no group showed volume loss over the following year (Ben-Zion et al., 2023). In 107 soldiers scanned before deployment to Iraq, total hippocampal volume did not predict PTSD symptoms in response to war-zone stressors, although differences between the right and left hippocampus did, in a pattern the authors called complex (Cobb et al., 2023).
The fair summary is that hippocampal volume differences in PTSD are small, are found in group averages, and may reflect vulnerability that predates trauma as well as, or instead of, damage caused by it. Volumes overlap heavily between people with and without PTSD and cannot diagnose PTSD, establish that a person experienced trauma, or assess the accuracy of a trauma memory; memory accuracy in PTSD is covered in the False Memory in Trauma and PTSD paper.
Injury, Oxygen Deprivation, and Alcohol
Several conditions that come up in court disrupt hippocampal function. Traumatic brain injury commonly produces a period of post-traumatic amnesia, during which a person may be awake and responsive but does not lay down continuous memories, often accompanied by a shorter retrograde loss for events just before the injury (Kopelman, 2002). Oxygen deprivation, as in cardiac arrest, near-drowning, or strangulation, can damage the hippocampus, whose CA1 neurons are particularly vulnerable; the case of R.B. shows that such damage can produce lasting anterograde amnesia (Zola-Morgan et al., 1986). Chronic heavy alcohol use with thiamine deficiency can cause Korsakoff syndrome, a severe amnesia involving structures connected to the hippocampus (Kopelman, 2002).
Acute intoxication is frequently at issue when a witness or an accused reports a memory gap. Alcohol primarily impairs the formation of new long-term memories while leaving previously established memories and brief short-term retention relatively intact, and large or rapidly consumed amounts can produce fragmentary or complete blackouts (White, 2003). Animal research indicates that alcohol disrupts activity of hippocampal neurons and their inputs (White et al., 2000). In the studies Wetherill and Fromme reviewed, about half of the college students who drink reported having experienced a blackout (a lifetime report, not a rate for any one night), and individual differences as well as the amount consumed predict them (Wetherill & Fromme, 2016). In a 2024 longitudinal study of 800 adolescents and young adults, a history of blackouts predicted slower hippocampal growth independent of overall drinking (Lorkiewicz et al., 2024). A person in a blackout may appear normal to others, and a missing memory is not evidence that nothing happened; the Alcohol and Memory and Intoxication and Memory papers cover these issues.
Claims of amnesia for an offense arise most often in violent crimes; genuine cases are associated with extreme emotional arousal, intoxication, and head injury (Kopelman, 2002), and some claims are feigned (Jelicic, 2018). No scan or single test confirms or excludes a claimed amnesia in an individual case.
Neuroimaging and the Individual Witness
Laboratory imaging studies have found that true memories, on average, involve more reactivation of sensory processing regions than false memories (Slotnick & Schacter, 2004). Lane and Houston (2021, pp. 91–94) explain why this cannot yet be used for an individual witness: the signals are averaged across many trials and participants, the studies test simple materials shortly after study rather than personally significant events after long delays, and rehearsed false memories may differ from those created in a brief laboratory session. They conclude that imaging is unlikely in the near term to determine whether a particular person’s memory is false.
Studies designed to decode individual memories reach a similar conclusion. Using pattern-classification methods, researchers could decode with high accuracy whether a participant subjectively experienced a face as old or new, but they had little ability to determine whether the face had actually been seen, once the person’s subjective experience was held constant (Rissman et al., 2010). A legal and scientific review of brain-based memory detection argued that courtroom admissibility is, for now, a misdirected pursuit, while seeing value in continued research (Murphy & Rissman, 2020).
Limits of the Evidence
Much foundational knowledge comes from a few patients whose surgical, ischemic, or disease-related damage was more severe and permanent than most witnesses’ injuries. Mechanistic research on stress hormones and alcohol relies substantially on rodents, and ethics limit human laboratory stressors and alcohol doses. Imaging studies are often small, structural differences such as hippocampal volume in PTSD are small group effects, and the consolidation debate is unresolved. None of this research can establish whether a particular witness encoded, retained, or accurately recalls a particular event.
Questions to Ask About This Research
When hippocampal volume in PTSD is cited, counsel should ask what exactly was found and in whom: Logue et al. (2018) reported a small group difference (d = −0.17), and Gilbertson et al. (2002) and Ben-Zion et al. (2023) suggest smaller volume may precede trauma, so neither the existence nor the cause of a difference in one person follows. When animal research on stress hormones is offered to explain a complainant’s or an accused’s memory, counsel should ask whether the cited findings were obtained in humans and under what conditions, and whether the timing pattern in human studies (Shields et al., 2017) fits the facts. When imaging is offered about an individual, counsel should ask whether the method has been validated for classifying individual memories as true or false, given that Rissman et al. (2010) found brain patterns tracked subjective rather than objective memory. These questions are explained in “Reading Research Claims: A Guide for Attorneys” on this site.
The Hippocampus and the Law
Federal and Military Standards
Neuroscience testimony 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, reflects reliable principles and methods, and reflects a reliable application of those methods to the case. Under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993) and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael (1999), the trial judge screens all expert testimony, scientific or otherwise, and General Electric Co. v. Joiner (1997) permits exclusion of an opinion connected to the data only by the expert’s say-so. In United States v. Semrau (2012), the Sixth Circuit affirmed the exclusion, under Rules 702 and 403, of fMRI evidence offered to show that the defendant was truthful; that case and lie-detection technology are discussed in the Detecting Deception paper. Amnesia for the charged events is not, standing alone, a bar to competency under Dusky v. United States (1960); courts, including military judges, may weigh the factors in Wilson v. United States (1968), among them the effect of the amnesia on the accused’s ability to assist counsel and testify and the extent to which other evidence can reconstruct what happened.
In courts-martial, expert testimony is assessed under Mil. R. Evid. 702 and the six factors of United States v. Houser (1993): qualifications, subject matter, basis, legal relevance, reliability, and probative value. The December 1, 2023 amendment to Federal Rule 702 became part of Mil. R. Evid. 702 in 2025 through Mil. R. Evid. 1102 (Joint Service Committee on Military Justice, 2025); practitioners should confirm the current text.
Arizona
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. In State v. Bernstein (2015), the Arizona Supreme Court held that Rule 702(d) requires trial courts to consider whether a methodology was correctly applied, but that errors in application warrant exclusion only when they make the expert’s conclusions unreliable. State v. Chapple (1983) held that excluding eyewitness expert testimony was an abuse of discretion in that case, State v. Nordstrom (2001) approved general testimony about factors affecting reliability while barring opinions on a particular witness’s accuracy, and State v. Lindsey (1986) bars expert opinion on whether a particular witness is telling the truth.
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. Intoxication, head injury, and oxygen deprivation can prevent memories from being formed, so a complainant’s gap in memory is consistent with impaired storage and is not evidence that the events did not occur; a person in an alcohol blackout can be awake and acting while forming no lasting memory. Memories that were formed tend to retain their gist even as detail fades, and an accused’s amnesia for an offense neither establishes a lack of intent at the time nor, by itself, makes the accused incompetent. Prosecutors are well positioned to establish the independent evidence, such as witnesses, messages, and video, that allows events within a memory gap to be reconstructed.
The research also counsels caution. Testimony that a complainant’s memory pattern reflects specific hormonal or hippocampal mechanisms usually rests on animal research or laboratory averages that cannot be applied to one person. Hippocampal volume findings in PTSD are small and may reflect pre-existing vulnerability, and they cannot show that a person was traumatized.
Special Issues for Defense
The research supports several propositions defense counsel can legitimately present. When a witness was heavily intoxicated, injured, or deprived of oxygen, some events may never have been stored, and a later, fuller account of that period may reflect inference, reconstruction, or information from others instead of a recovered memory. An accused who genuinely cannot remember the offense may be limited in assisting counsel, which bears on the Wilson fairness factors, and statements obtained while an accused was impaired raise questions about what the person could have encoded.
The research also counsels caution about the limits that apply to the defense. Memory loss does not show that an event did not occur, a blackout is not unconsciousness, and later amnesia says nothing by itself about the accused’s mental state at the time of the offense. Claims of amnesia can be genuine or feigned, and no scan or single test resolves which. Brain imaging offered to show that a denial or a memory is false is not validated for individual use (Semrau).
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
Annese, J., Schenker-Ahmed, N. M., Bartsch, H., Maechler, P., Sheh, C., Thomas, N., Kayano, J., Ghatan, A., Bresler, N., Frosch, M. P., Klaming, R., & Corkin, S. (2014). Postmortem examination of patient H.M.’s brain based on histological sectioning and digital 3D reconstruction. Nature Communications, 5, Article 3122. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms4122
Ben-Zion, Z., Korem, N., Spiller, T. R., Duek, O., Keynan, J. N., Admon, R., Harpaz-Rotem, I., Liberzon, I., Shalev, A. Y., & Hendler, T. (2023). Longitudinal volumetric evaluation of hippocampus and amygdala subregions in recent trauma survivors. Molecular Psychiatry, 28(2), 657–667. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-022-01842-x
Cobb, A. R., Rubin, M., Stote, D. L., Baldwin, B. C., Lee, H.-J., Hariri, A. R., & Telch, M. J. (2023). Hippocampal volume and volume asymmetry prospectively predict PTSD symptom emergence among Iraq-deployed soldiers. Psychological Medicine, 53(5), 1906–1913. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291721003548
Corkin, S. (2002). What’s new with the amnesic patient H.M.? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 3(2), 153–160. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn726
Gilbertson, M. W., Shenton, M. E., Ciszewski, A., Kasai, K., Lasko, N. B., Orr, S. P., & Pitman, R. K. (2002). Smaller hippocampal volume predicts pathologic vulnerability to psychological trauma. Nature Neuroscience, 5(11), 1242–1247. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn958
Gilmore, A. W., Quach, A., Kalinowski, S. E., González-Araya, E. I., Gotts, S. J., Schacter, D. L., & Martin, A. (2021). Evidence supporting a time-limited hippocampal role in retrieving autobiographical memories. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(12), Article e2023069118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2023069118
Jelicic, M. (2018). Testing claims of crime-related amnesia. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 9, Article 617. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00617
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
Kim, J. J., & Diamond, D. M. (2002). The stressed hippocampus, synaptic plasticity and lost memories. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 3(6), 453–462. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn849
Kopelman, M. D. (2002). Disorders of memory. Brain, 125(10), 2152–2190. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awf229
Lane, S. M., & Houston, K. A. (2021). Understanding eyewitness memory: Theory and applications. New York University Press.
Logue, M. W., van Rooij, S. J. H., Dennis, E. L., Davis, S. L., Hayes, J. P., Stevens, J. S., Densmore, M., Haswell, C. C., Ipser, J., Koch, S. B. J., Korgaonkar, M., Lebois, L. A. M., Peverill, M., Baker, J. T., Boedhoe, P. S. W., Frijling, J. L., Gruber, S. A., Harpaz-Rotem, I., Jahanshad, N., . . . Morey, R. A. (2018). Smaller hippocampal volume in posttraumatic stress disorder: A multisite ENIGMA-PGC study: Subcortical volumetry results from posttraumatic stress disorder consortia. Biological Psychiatry, 83(3), 244–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2017.09.006
Lorkiewicz, S. A., Müller-Oehring, E. M., Baker, F. C., Elkins, B. V., & Schulte, T. (2024). A longitudinal study of the relationship between alcohol-related blackouts and attenuated structural brain development. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 69, Article 101448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2024.101448
Lupien, S. J., McEwen, B. S., Gunnar, M. R., & Heim, C. (2009). Effects of stress throughout the lifespan on the brain, behaviour and cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10(6), 434–445. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2639
Moscovitch, M., Cabeza, R., Winocur, G., & Nadel, L. (2016). Episodic memory and beyond: The hippocampus and neocortex in transformation. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 105–134. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143733
Murphy, E. R. D., & Rissman, J. (2020). Evidence of memory from brain data. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 7(1), Article lsaa078. https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsaa078
Nadel, L., & Moscovitch, M. (1997). Memory consolidation, retrograde amnesia and the hippocampal complex. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 7(2), 217–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4388(97)80010-4
Rissman, J., Greely, H. T., & Wagner, A. D. (2010). Detecting individual memories through the neural decoding of memory states and past experience. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(21), 9849–9854. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1001028107
Scoville, W. B., & Milner, B. (1957). Loss of recent memory after bilateral hippocampal lesions. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 20(1), 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.20.1.11
Shields, G. S., Sazma, M. A., McCullough, A. M., & Yonelinas, A. P. (2017). The effects of acute stress on episodic memory: A meta-analysis and integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 143(6), 636–675. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000100
Slotnick, S. D., & Schacter, D. L. (2004). A sensory signature that distinguishes true from false memories. Nature Neuroscience, 7(6), 664–672. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1252
Squire, L. R. (1992). Memory and the hippocampus: A synthesis from findings with rats, monkeys, and humans. Psychological Review, 99(2), 195–231. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.99.2.195
Squire, L. R., & Alvarez, P. (1995). Retrograde amnesia and memory consolidation: A neurobiological perspective. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 5(2), 169–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4388(95)80023-9
Squire, L. R., & Wixted, J. T. (2011). The cognitive neuroscience of human memory since H.M. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 34, 259–288. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-neuro-061010-113720
Steinvorth, S., Levine, B., & Corkin, S. (2005). Medial temporal lobe structures are needed to re-experience remote autobiographical memories: Evidence from H.M. and W.R. Neuropsychologia, 43(4), 479–496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2005.01.001
Wetherill, R. R., & Fromme, K. (2016). Alcohol-induced blackouts: A review of recent clinical research with practical implications and recommendations for future studies. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 40(5), 922–935. https://doi.org/10.1111/acer.13051
White, A. M. (2003). What happened? Alcohol, memory blackouts, and the brain. Alcohol Research & Health, 27(2), 186–196.
White, A. M., Matthews, D. B., & Best, P. J. (2000). Ethanol, memory, and hippocampal function: A review of recent findings. Hippocampus, 10(1), 88–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-1063(2000)10:1<88::AID-HIPO10>3.0.CO;2-L
Yonelinas, A. P., Ranganath, C., Ekstrom, A. D., & Wiltgen, B. J. (2019). A contextual binding theory of episodic memory: Systems consolidation reconsidered. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 20(6), 364–375. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-019-0150-4
Zola-Morgan, S., Squire, L. R., & Amaral, D. G. (1986). Human amnesia and the medial temporal region: Enduring memory impairment following a bilateral lesion limited to field CA1 of the hippocampus. Journal of Neuroscience, 6(10), 2950–2967. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.06-10-02950.1986
Legal Authorities
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960).
General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997).
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999).
State v. Bernstein, 237 Ariz. 226, 349 P.3d 200 (2015).
State v. Chapple, 135 Ariz. 281, 660 P.2d 1208 (1983).
State v. Lindsey, 149 Ariz. 472, 720 P.2d 73 (1986).
State v. Nordstrom, 200 Ariz. 229, 25 P.3d 717 (2001).
United States v. Houser, 36 M.J. 392 (C.M.A. 1993).
United States v. Semrau, 693 F.3d 510 (6th Cir. 2012).
Wilson v. United States, 391 F.2d 460 (D.C. Cir. 1968).
Ariz. Sup. Ct. Order R-23-0004 (2023) (amending Ariz. R. Evid. 702, effective Jan. 1, 2024).
Fed. R. Evid. 403.
Fed. R. Evid. 702.
Ariz. R. Evid. 702.
Mil. R. Evid. 702.
Mil. R. Evid. 1102.
Related topic papers: Implicit Memory · Episodic Memory · Forgetting · Emotion, Stress, Trauma, and Memory · Alcohol and Memory · Detecting Deception
Related topics from Arizona Forensic Services: Alcohol Blackouts: Alcohol Blackout / Amnesia · Courts-Martial