Snap Shot
- The question: How do alcohol and cannabis affect what a witness, complainant, or accused person can later remember and report, and what can an intoxicated person’s account bear?
- What the research shows: In a meta-analysis of experimental studies, alcohol moderately reduced the number of correct details recalled without significantly increasing incorrect details, and several laboratory and field studies have found intoxicated witnesses’ lineup identifications about as accurate as sober witnesses’ at the levels tested. At moderate levels, completeness of recall is affected more than accuracy. At high doses alcohol can cause blackouts, which are failures to form memories rather than loss of consciousness. Some studies find greater suggestibility at high intoxication, after a delay, or during acute cannabis intoxication.
- What it does not show: Most laboratory studies stop at about 0.08–0.10% blood alcohol concentration (BAC), below many case levels, and one field study at higher levels found reduced recall accuracy as well as completeness. The research describes group tendencies; it cannot establish whether a particular person was in a blackout or whether a particular intoxicated account is accurate.
- The law: An intoxicated witness is competent to testify (Fed. R. Evid. 601; Mil. R. Evid. 601), and expert testimony on intoxication and memory is governed by Rule 702, Houser, and in Arizona by Salazar-Mercado, Chapple, Nordstrom, and Lindsey. Voluntary intoxication is not a defense (A.R.S. § 13-503; R.C.M. 916(l)(2)), although the military rule permits evidence of it on actual-knowledge, specific-intent, willfulness, and premeditated-design elements.
- Issues for each side: Prosecutors may show that an intoxicated account is often less complete rather than less accurate, without treating gaps or confidence as proof; defense counsel may show the limits of low-dose research and the risk of suggestion and reconstruction, recognizing that the same science applies to the accused.
Alcohol and other drugs are present in a large share of criminal cases. Officers surveyed about their practices reported that intoxicated witnesses and suspects are common (Evans et al., 2009), and intoxication is especially frequent in sexual assault cases: in three national self-report surveys (1997, 1999, and 2001) of randomly selected college women (23,980 respondents in all), 4.7% reported having been raped, and 72% of those women reported that the rape occurred while they were intoxicated (Mohler-Kuo et al., 2004); these are prevalence figures, not measures of the accuracy of any account. Intoxicated accounts are sometimes discounted entirely and sometimes treated as if intoxication made no difference; the research supports neither approach.
The question reaches court in several forms. A witness or complainant who was drinking may be cross-examined on what he or she could have perceived; an accused may describe a period of heavy drinking or report no memory of it; and a factfinder may have to weigh a blackout, a partial recollection, or an account that grew over time. Intoxication also raises legal questions, such as capacity to consent and criminal responsibility, that memory research informs but does not answer. The hub’s paper Alcohol and Memory treats alcohol’s non-blackout effects in more detail.
How Alcohol Affects Attention and Memory Formation
Alcohol’s main effect is on encoding and consolidation, the processes by which a new experience becomes a lasting memory, rather than on memories formed before drinking, and the effect increases with dose (White, 2003, p. 186). The hippocampus, central to forming new memories of events, is particularly sensitive to alcohol; White (2003) reviews the human research and the animal research from which much of the cellular account is derived.
Alcohol myopia theory, a widely cited account, holds that intoxication narrows attention to the most salient, immediate cues (Steele & Josephs, 1990), so that intoxicated witnesses should encode central details and miss peripheral ones. The evidence is mixed. In a bar-laboratory study, intoxicated participants reported about as much as placebo participants, but their reports held fewer peripheral details and more of their own impressions (Schreiber Compo et al., 2011; Lane & Houston, 2021, p. 33). In two staged-theft studies, by contrast, high intoxication impaired free recall but not recognition, without the predicted narrowing of attention (Crossland et al., 2016). In a recent experiment, alcohol reduced the accuracy of next-day descriptions of internal facial features such as the eyes and mouth (Harvey et al., 2025). The theory describes a tendency; it does not predict which details a particular person encoded.
Blackouts: Fragmentary and En Bloc
A blackout is a stretch of time, usually after heavy drinking, that the drinker was awake and acting through but did not store as a lasting memory. In an e-mail survey of 772 college students, 51% of those who had ever consumed alcohol reported at least one blackout, and many later learned that during it they had driven, had sexual intercourse, or engaged in other risky behavior (White et al., 2002). A review of 2010–2015 research reported similar rates and concluded that individual differences, not consumption alone, affect who experiences blackouts (Wetherill & Fromme, 2016). Women who reported recent blackouts had drunk far less than men who did (White et al., 2002), but studies comparing the sexes directly have been inconsistent: some found women more susceptible, one found men more so, and several found no difference (Wetherill & Fromme, 2016).
Researchers distinguish two forms. An en bloc blackout is a dense and usually lasting gap; a fragmentary blackout is partial, with islands of memory, and cues can sometimes bring back some of the missing material (White, 2003). In a sample of 136 heavy-drinking young adults, fragmentary blackouts were more than three times as common as en bloc blackouts, and the two types were reported at similar ranges of estimated BAC (Hartzler & Fromme, 2003). Blackouts are associated with rapid increases in BAC and high peak levels (White, 2003).
Three points are often misunderstood. First, a blackout is not passing out: during one a person may move about, converse, and handle complex interactions that look normal to others, without storing lasting memories of them. Second, the absence of memory does not show that events did not happen; it shows that they were not stored or cannot now be retrieved. Third, because cues can restore fragments, an account that grows after a fragmentary blackout is consistent with genuine retrieval, but the same cues, such as messages, photographs, and friends’ descriptions, can also supply information the person never encoded. In a survey of university students, people reconstructing a blackout relied heavily on what others told them and sometimes relaxed their standards for accepting a recollection as genuine (Nash & Takarangi, 2011). No method available after the fact can confirm that a blackout occurred (Pressman & Caudill, 2013), and that limit applies to anyone who reports one.
Intoxicated Eyewitnesses: Completeness and Accuracy
The central distinction is between how much a witness reports and how accurate the reported details are. A meta-analysis of experimental studies found that intoxication moderately reduced the number of correct details recalled (Hedges’ g = 0.40), while its effect on incorrect details was not statistically significant; the reduction in correct details varied with intoxication level, the delay before recall, and whether recall was free or cued (Jores et al., 2019). A review of free-recall research reached a similar conclusion for the BAC levels studied: reports may contain less, but equally accurate, information (Hildebrand Karlén, 2018). In a study of a live staged theft, intoxicated witnesses did not differ from placebo or sober witnesses in accurate details, inaccurate details, or “don’t know” answers (Schreiber Compo et al., 2012). Across several studies, then, intoxication affected completeness more than accuracy.
That pattern has limits that matter in court. In a field study of 138 bar patrons with BACs above 0.08%, alcohol reduced the quantity and quality of recall, including the percentage of accurate information, and cued questions increased the percentage of inaccurate information (Altman et al., 2018). Lane and Houston (2021, pp. 33–34) note that laboratory studies generally stop near 0.08% BAC, below the roughly 0.11% average in archival studies of real cases, and that field studies have recorded levels up to 0.29%. In another field study, highly intoxicated bar patrons had poorer recall and accepted more suggestive cues, and the effects persisted when they were retested sober (van Oorsouw et al., 2015).
Identification findings are more consistent. In two bar field studies, with BACs reaching 0.24% in one, intoxication reduced recall but had no effect on identification accuracy from lineups or show-ups (Altman et al., 2018; Altman et al., 2019). In a laboratory study in which women dosed to about 0.08% BAC took part in a hypothetical sexual assault scenario, identification accuracy was similar for the alcohol and control groups, and confidence predicted accuracy in both, although sober participants were more confident (Flowe et al., 2017). Lane and Houston (2021, p. 34) conclude that neither laboratory nor field research has shown alcohol impairing identification at the levels tested. These studies used fair procedures and short or moderate delays; they do not show that any particular intoxicated identification is accurate.
Intoxicated Complainants and Accused Persons
Sexual assault scenario studies show a similar pattern. Women who took part in an interactive hypothetical scenario after drinking more often answered “don’t know” at later testing, but the accuracy of what they did report did not differ from that of sober participants, suggesting that intoxicated participants were monitoring their memories; peripheral details were less accurate than central details in both groups (Flowe et al., 2016). In a balanced-placebo study of 90 women at a mean breath alcohol concentration of about 0.06%, alcohol did not affect accuracy a week later for the perpetrator’s behaviors, and accuracy rose with confidence, although participants were overconfident overall (Stevens et al., 2023). In a hypothetical rape scenario at a similar dose, participants who had consumed alcohol were no more likely than sober participants to report misleading post-event information (Flowe et al., 2019). These studies used moderate doses, scripted scenarios, and participants who were not harmed, and they do not address blackout-level intoxication.
The same principles apply to an accused who was drinking. In three experiments with sober men and women randomly assigned the role of complainant or accused in a sexual assault scenario with a male or female date, susceptibility to misinformation did not differ by role (Greene et al., 2025). An accused who reports no memory cannot be shown to have been in a blackout, any more than a complainant can (Pressman & Caudill, 2013), and an accused’s detailed account of a period of heavy intoxication warrants the same attention to the sources of each detail as a complainant’s. Expert testimony that applies these principles to only one party’s account is not supported by the research.
Cannabis and Other Drugs
Research on other drugs is much more limited. In a field study of 120 Amsterdam coffee-shop visitors, those who had used cannabis reported fewer correct details than sober participants but no more incorrect ones; cannabis use was not significantly associated with lineup performance, and intoxicated witnesses were better at judging whether their identifications were accurate (Vredeveldt et al., 2018). Cannabis may, however, increase false memory. In a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with 64 volunteers, THC increased false recognition on a word-list task and susceptibility to misinformation in virtual-reality eyewitness and perpetrator scenarios, effects largely confined to acute intoxication, although false recognition on the word-list task was still elevated when participants were retested sober a week later (Kloft et al., 2020). A review concluded that alcohol is most likely to increase suggestibility at high intoxication levels or after a delay, whereas cannabis affects it during acute intoxication but not necessarily once the person is sober (Kloft et al., 2021).
Interview method may matter. In a quasi-experimental study of 131 regular cannabis users and non-users interviewed with a Sketch Cognitive Interview, users intoxicated at both encoding and retrieval, or at retrieval only, did not differ from sober users or non-users in correct or incorrect details, confabulations, or identification performance; stronger subjective intoxication was associated with poorer memory, and participants intoxicated at both encoding and retrieval were more confident in their lineup errors (Kloft-Heller et al., 2026). The cannabis literature is small, and for benzodiazepines, stimulants, and other drugs the review found too little ecologically valid research to draw conclusions (Kloft et al., 2021).
When to Interview
Police practice on whether to interview an intoxicated witness immediately or after sobering varies. In experiments with Swedish police officers and recruits, a witness with a breath alcohol concentration as low as 0.04% was rated less credible than a sober witness, and willingness to interview ended at levels below those at which research has found intoxicated witnesses comparable to sober ones (Pettersson et al., 2022). The research on timing points in two directions. Delay is costly: among witnesses below 0.10% BAC, alcohol had no main effect on the quantity or quality of statements, recall was fuller and more accurate immediately than after a week, and a second interview yielded about 30% new details, most of them accurate (Hagsand et al., 2017; see also Hildebrand Karlén, 2018). On the other hand, suggestibility may be greatest during acute cannabis intoxication (Kloft et al., 2020) and may increase at high alcohol levels (Kloft et al., 2021). An early, brief, open-ended, recorded account followed by a fuller interview once the person is sober is consistent with both lines of research, though no study has tested that sequence as a protocol across intoxication levels.
Limits of the Evidence
For ethical reasons most experiments stop at about 0.08–0.10% BAC, so they say little directly about the higher or blackout-level intoxication described in many cases. Field studies reach higher levels but lose control over dose, other substances, and expectancies. Participants are usually college-age volunteers viewing videos or scripted scenarios, without the fear, injury, or stakes of a real crime. Effects vary with dose, delay, question type, and the individual. Blackout research relies largely on retrospective self-report. BAC estimates in actual cases are often reconstructed from imprecise reports of drinks and timing, and the same dose generally produces a higher BAC in women than in men (Mumenthaler et al., 1999). Several key studies tested only women (Flowe et al., 2016, 2017, 2019; Stevens et al., 2023), the cannabis field study was mostly men (Vredeveldt et al., 2018), and the mixed-sex studies reviewed here did not report sex comparisons. The research describes group tendencies and cannot determine whether a particular person encoded a particular detail, was in a blackout, or is accurate.
Questions to Ask About This Research
When the meta-analytic finding that intoxication reduced correct details without significantly increasing errors (Jores et al., 2019) is offered to support an intoxicated account, counsel can ask who was studied and at what dose, because most included studies stopped well below many case levels, and a higher-level field study found reduced recall accuracy too (Altman et al., 2018). When that field study is offered to discount an account, counsel can ask what was measured, since it found no effect on identification accuracy. When the 51% blackout figure (White et al., 2002) is cited, counsel can ask whether a self-reported lifetime prevalence among college students says anything about whether this person was in a blackout on this occasion. When the cannabis false-memory trial (Kloft et al., 2020) is cited, counsel can ask whether a sample of 64 supports the weight placed on it and whether the finding holds with other interview methods, given the null recall findings with a cognitive interview (Kloft-Heller et al., 2026). These questions are explained in “Reading Research Claims: A Guide for Attorneys” on this site.
Intoxication, Memory, and the Law
Federal and Military Standards
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 601 and Military Rule of Evidence 601, every person is competent to be a witness unless the rules provide otherwise; the rules do not mention intoxication, and intoxication during the event is ordinarily explored on cross-examination and weighed by the factfinder. Expert testimony about intoxication 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, reflects reliable principles and methods, and reflects a reliable application of them; Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993) makes the court a gatekeeper, and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael (1999) extends that obligation to all expert testimony, including non-scientific technical or 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), and military judges also apply the six factors of United States v. Houser (1993). Voluntary intoxication, whether from alcohol or drugs, is not a defense, although evidence of it may be introduced to raise a reasonable doubt about actual knowledge, specific intent, willfulness, or premeditation when one of those is an element (R.C.M. 916(l)(2)). In a plurality opinion, with a fifth Justice concurring in the judgment, the Supreme Court upheld a state statute barring consideration of voluntary intoxication in determining a defendant’s mental state (Montana v. Egelhoff, 1996).
Arizona
Arizona Rule of Evidence 702 was amended effective January 1, 2012, to adopt the federal formulation and the Daubert standard, and effective January 1, 2024, to track the 2023 federal amendment (Ariz. Sup. Ct. Order R-23-0004). State v. Salazar-Mercado (2014) permits general, educational expert testimony that satisfies Rules 702 and 403. State v. Chapple (1983) is Arizona’s leading case on eyewitness expert testimony, and excluding that testimony was an abuse of discretion on its facts; State v. Nordstrom (2001) approved limiting such an expert to the general factors without an opinion on a particular witness’s accuracy, and State v. Lindsey (1986) bars expert opinion on a particular witness’s credibility. Under A.R.S. § 13-503, temporary intoxication from voluntary use of alcohol or other psychoactive substances, or from abuse of prescribed medication, is not insanity and is not a defense to any criminal act or requisite state of mind. A complainant’s intoxication may bear on consent, because “without consent” includes incapacity due to drugs or alcohol that the defendant knew or should reasonably have known of (A.R.S. § 13-1401(A)(7)(b)). Memory research can explain why a blackout and incapacity differ, but capacity is for the factfinder.
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. At the moderate doses studied in laboratories, intoxicated witnesses and complainants generally reported fewer details rather than more errors, and in sexual assault scenarios they tended to answer “don’t know” rather than guess. Intoxication has not been shown to impair lineup identification in laboratory or field studies at the levels tested. A gap in memory does not indicate that the events did not occur or that an account is fabricated, and a fragmentary blackout predicts partial recall that may grow with cues. Prosecutors can also protect the evidence by obtaining an early, recorded, open-ended account and documenting what the witness later learned from others.
The research also counsels caution. Low-dose findings may not hold at higher levels, where field studies have found reduced accuracy and increased suggestibility that persisted after sobering. A witness’s confidence and the addition of details after a blackout are not by themselves evidence of accuracy, because cues from others can supply information the person never encoded. A blackout is not by itself proof of incapacity, and testimony that equates the two goes beyond the research. The same principles apply to the accused’s statements.
Special Issues for Defense
The research supports several propositions defense counsel can legitimately present. Intoxication reduces the amount a witness encodes and later recalls, and the effect grows with dose and delay. Most experimental studies stop at moderate doses, and at higher field levels alcohol has reduced the accuracy as well as the completeness of recall. Some studies find greater suggestibility at high intoxication, after a delay, or during acute cannabis intoxication, and accounts reconstructed after a blackout may rest partly on what others said. Testimony explaining these principles, with evidence of the witness’s intoxication and of what the witness learned from others, legitimately helps the factfinder weigh an account.
The research also counsels caution about the limits that apply to the defense. Intoxicated witnesses are often accurate in what they do report, and intoxication has not been shown to impair identification at the levels tested. Gaps in memory are common in true accounts and are not evidence of a false report. An expert cannot tell the factfinder that a particular witness was in a blackout or is mistaken. The same principles apply to the accused: a claimed blackout cannot be verified, voluntary intoxication is not a defense in Arizona or in courts-martial (although the military rule allows it on specified mental elements), and the accused’s own account of an intoxicated period raises the same reconstruction concerns.
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
Altman, C. M., McQuiston, D. E., & Schreiber Compo, N. (2019). How elevated blood alcohol concentration level and identification format affect eyewitness memory: A field study. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(3), 426–438. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3535
Altman, C. M., Schreiber Compo, N., McQuiston, D., Hagsand, A. V., & Cervera, J. (2018). Witnesses’ memory for events and faces under elevated levels of intoxication. Memory, 26(7), 946–959. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2018.1445758
Crossland, D., Kneller, W., & Wilcock, R. (2016). Intoxicated witnesses: Testing the validity of the alcohol myopia theory. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30(2), 270–281. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3209
Evans, J. R., Schreiber Compo, N., & Russano, M. B. (2009). Intoxicated witnesses and suspects: Procedures and prevalence according to law enforcement. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 15(3), 194–221. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016837
Flowe, H. D., Colloff, M. F., Karoğlu, N., Zelek, K., Ryder, H., Humphries, J. E., & Takarangi, M. K. T. (2017). The effects of alcohol intoxication on accuracy and the confidence–accuracy relationship in photographic simultaneous line-ups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 31(4), 379–391. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3332
Flowe, H. D., Humphries, J. E., Takarangi, M. K. T., Zelek, K., Karoğlu, N., Gabbert, F., & Hope, L. (2019). An experimental examination of the effects of alcohol consumption and exposure to misleading postevent information on remembering a hypothetical rape scenario. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(3), 393–413. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3531
Flowe, H. D., Takarangi, M. K. T., Humphries, J. E., & Wright, D. S. (2016). Alcohol and remembering a hypothetical sexual assault: Can people who were under the influence of alcohol during the event provide accurate testimony? Memory, 24(8), 1042–1061. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2015.1064536
Greene, C. M., Brassil, M., & Murphy, G. (2025). He said, she said: The “accused” and “complainant” in a sexual assault scenario are equally susceptible to misinformation. Scientific Reports, 15(1), Article 27693. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-13587-y
Hagsand, A. V., Roos af Hjelmsäter, E., Granhag, P. A., Fahlke, C., & Söderpalm Gordh, A. (2017). Witnesses stumbling down memory lane: The effects of alcohol intoxication, retention interval, and repeated interviewing. Memory, 25(4), 531–543. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2016.1191652
Hartzler, B., & Fromme, K. (2003). Fragmentary and en bloc blackouts: Similarity and distinction among episodes of alcohol-induced memory loss. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 64(4), 547–550. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsa.2003.64.547
Harvey, A., Bayless, S., Abbot, F., Jack, D., Cisowski, K., & Kelleher, H. (2025). The influence of acute alcohol intoxication and hair visibility on delayed face recall. Memory, 33(3), 349–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2024.2445614
Hildebrand Karlén, M. (2018). Interviewing intoxicated witnesses: Memory performance in theory and practice. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 59(2), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12404
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
Jores, T., Colloff, M. F., Kloft, L., Smailes, H., & Flowe, H. D. (2019). A meta-analysis of the effects of acute alcohol intoxication on witness recall. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(3), 334–343. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3533
Kloft, L., Monds, L. A., Blokland, A., Ramaekers, J. G., & Otgaar, H. (2021). Hazy memories in the courtroom: A review of alcohol and other drug effects on false memory and suggestibility. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 124, 291–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.02.012
Kloft, L., Otgaar, H., Blokland, A., Monds, L. A., Toennes, S. W., Loftus, E. F., & Ramaekers, J. G. (2020). Cannabis increases susceptibility to false memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(9), 4585–4589. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1920162117
Kloft-Heller, L., Junk, A., Dando, C. J., Sauerland, M., Otgaar, H., & Ramaekers, J. G. (2026). Cannabis intoxication does not impair eyewitness recall with the Sketch Cognitive Interview but increases confidence in lineup errors. Scientific Reports, 16(1), Article 10203. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-45069-0
Lane, S. M., & Houston, K. A. (2021). Understanding eyewitness memory: Theory and applications. New York University Press.
Mohler-Kuo, M., Dowdall, G. W., Koss, M. P., & Wechsler, H. (2004). Correlates of rape while intoxicated in a national sample of college women. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 65(1), 37–45. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsa.2004.65.37
Mumenthaler, M. S., Taylor, J. L., O’Hara, R., & Yesavage, J. A. (1999). Gender differences in moderate drinking effects. Alcohol Research & Health, 23(1), 55–64.
Nash, R. A., & Takarangi, M. K. T. (2011). Reconstructing alcohol-induced memory blackouts. Memory, 19(6), 566–573. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2011.590508
Pettersson, D., Bergquist, M., & Hagsand, A. V. (2022). Police decision-making in the absence of evidence-based guidelines: Assessment of alcohol-intoxicated eyewitnesses. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 761956. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.761956
Pressman, M. R., & Caudill, D. S. (2013). Alcohol-induced blackout as a criminal defense or mitigating factor: An evidence-based review and admissibility as scientific evidence. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 58(4), 932–940. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.12134
Schreiber Compo, N., Evans, J. R., Carol, R. N., Kemp, D., Villalba, D., Ham, L. S., & Rose, S. (2011). Alcohol intoxication and memory for events: A snapshot of alcohol myopia in a real-world drinking scenario. Memory, 19(2), 202–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2010.546802
Schreiber Compo, N., Evans, J. R., Carol, R. N., Villalba, D., Ham, L. S., Garcia, T., & Rose, S. (2012). Intoxicated eyewitnesses: Better than their reputation? Law and Human Behavior, 36(2), 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093951
Steele, C. M., & Josephs, R. A. (1990). Alcohol myopia: Its prized and dangerous effects. American Psychologist, 45(8), 921–933. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.45.8.921
Stevens, L. M., Monds, L. A., Riordan, B., Hayre, R. K., & Flowe, H. D. (2023). Acute alcohol intoxication and alcohol expectancy effects on women’s memory for consensual and non-consensual sexual activity. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 1008563. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1008563
van Oorsouw, K., Merckelbach, H., & Smeets, T. (2015). Alcohol intoxication impairs memory and increases suggestibility for a mock crime: A field study. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 29(4), 493–501. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3129
Vredeveldt, A., Charman, S. D., den Blanken, A., & Hooydonk, M. (2018). Effects of cannabis on eyewitness memory: A field study. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 32(4), 420–428. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3414
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., Jamieson-Drake, D. W., & Swartzwelder, H. S. (2002). Prevalence and correlates of alcohol-induced blackouts among college students: Results of an e-mail survey. Journal of American College Health, 51(3), 117–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448480209596339
Legal Authorities
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999).
Montana v. Egelhoff, 518 U.S. 37 (1996) (plurality opinion).
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).
State v. Salazar-Mercado, 234 Ariz. 590, 325 P.3d 996 (2014).
United States v. Houser, 36 M.J. 392 (C.M.A. 1993).
Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-503.
Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-1401.
Fed. R. Evid. 601.
Fed. R. Evid. 702.
Ariz. R. Evid. 702.
Ariz. Sup. Ct. Order R-23-0004 (amending Ariz. R. Evid. 702, effective Jan. 1, 2024).
Mil. R. Evid. 601.
Mil. R. Evid. 702.
Mil. R. Evid. 1102.
Rule for Courts-Martial 916(l)(2).
Related topic papers: Alcohol and Memory · The Hippocampus · Eyewitness Memory · The Misinformation Effect · Remembering Changes Memory · Memory Expert Testimony
Related topics from Arizona Forensic Services: Alcohol Blackouts · Alcohol Blackouts: Alcohol Blackout / Amnesia · Courts-Martial