Snap Shot
- The question: Can a person lose all memory of a traumatic experience, such as childhood sexual abuse, and later recover an accurate memory of it, and how should a recovered memory be evaluated?
- What the research shows: Researchers on both sides generally agree that recovered memories are sometimes accurate and sometimes the product of suggestion. Some recovered memories have been corroborated: in one small study, independent corroboration was found for 45% of continuous memories and 37% of memories recovered outside therapy, but for none of 16 memories recovered in therapy. Suggestive recovery techniques are linked to false memories, and detailed, confident false memories of childhood events can be created in the laboratory.
- What it does not show: The research does not settle how memories of trauma become inaccessible, whether a special unconscious repression mechanism exists, or how often complete amnesia occurs. No validated method shows whether a particular recovered memory is true or false, and vividness, emotion, and confidence do not distinguish them.
- The law: Recovered-memory expert testimony is screened under Rule 702 and Houser; Cohen v. Cohen (3d Cir. 2025) vacated a civil judgment and remanded for a new trial because the trial court admitted such testimony without an adequate Rule 702 analysis. In Arizona, Logerquist (2000) predates the 2012 adoption of Daubert, and Doe v. Roe (1998) applied the discovery rule to repressed-memory claims.
- Issues for each side: Prosecutors and plaintiffs should document what was remembered before any therapy and seek corroboration, without treating vividness or confidence as proof; defense counsel should examine how and in what setting the memory returned, without asserting that recovered memories are false as a class.
Few questions in memory science are as contested as whether a person can lose all memory of a traumatic experience, most often childhood sexual abuse, and later recover an accurate memory of it. Such claims reach criminal courts, courts-martial, and civil courts, often decades after the alleged events, and raise questions about limitation periods, the admissibility of expert testimony, and the weight owed to an account the witness says was unavailable for years.
Two points frame what follows. First, child sexual abuse is common and harmful, and most people who report it say they always remembered it; the dispute concerns a specific claim of complete forgetting and later recovery, not whether abuse occurs. Second, the research favors no party. A recovered memory may be accurate, inaccurate, or a mixture, and memory error is not lying. This paper sets out the terminology, the evidence offered on each side of the debate, what researchers on both sides generally accept, the limits of the evidence, and the federal, military, and Arizona law.
Terms: Repression, Dissociative Amnesia, and Ordinary Forgetting
Three situations are often described with the same words and should be kept apart. In the first, a person always remembered an event but did not tell anyone, which is a delay in disclosure, not a gap in memory. In the second, a person did not think about an event for a long time and was later reminded of it; ordinary forgetting followed by reminding is uncontroversial. In the third, a person reports having had no memory of the event at all, sometimes for decades, until it returned, sometimes during psychotherapy. Only the third raises the scientific dispute described here.
Repression, in the sense debated in court, refers to a proposed defensive process that pushes a traumatic memory out of awareness while keeping it intact and retrievable, so that it can later return accurately. The idea comes from psychoanalytic theory, and researchers disagree about whether anyone in the current literature actually holds the strong, unconscious version of the theory (Brewin, 2021; Otgaar et al., 2021).
Dissociative amnesia is a diagnosis in the current diagnostic manual. It describes an inability to recall important autobiographical information, usually of a traumatic or stressful nature, that is inconsistent with ordinary forgetting, causes clinically significant distress or impairment, and is not better explained by substances, a neurological or medical condition, or another disorder (American Psychiatric Association, 2022). The diagnosis describes a clinical presentation; it does not establish that a forgotten memory was preserved intact or that a later recovered memory is accurate. Some researchers regard dissociative amnesia as a newer name for repression (Otgaar et al., 2019); others treat it as a descriptive clinical category and argue that forgetting of trauma can be explained by ordinary cognitive processes such as avoidance, inhibition, and failure to rehearse (Brewin & Andrews, 1998; Brewin, 2021).
The Debate: Two Positions and Their Evidence
The controversy intensified in the 1990s, when memories of abuse recovered in therapy began to appear in civil and criminal cases. In 2019, Otgaar and colleagues argued that the “memory wars” had not ended. Their review reported that belief in repressed memory occurred on a nontrivial scale (58% in the data they reviewed), that the concept of dissociative amnesia had grown in popularity, and that some therapeutic techniques linked to memory recovery carry risks (Otgaar et al., 2019). Later summaries by the same group concluded that plausible explanations exist for reports of forgotten trauma that do not require a special blocking mechanism (Otgaar et al., 2022).
Brewin (2021) responded that this critique overlooked a long-standing consensus that recovered memories of trauma may be genuine, false, or a mixture, and that it targeted a theory of unconscious repression that no major publication in his citation analysis endorsed. He argued that belief surveys had not measured the key elements of that theory, that recovered memories occur in many forms of therapy, including ones that use no suggestive techniques, and that suggestive attempts to uncover memories have been recognized as hazardous since the 1990s. Otgaar et al. (2021) replied that some scholars endorse ideas close to unconscious repression and that newer surveys of students and of eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) clinicians found large proportions endorsing it.
The two sides also disagree about public understanding. Brewin, Li, Ntarantana, Unsworth, and McNeilis (2019) found that lay views of memory were more nuanced than single questionnaire items suggest and that nonpsychologists tended to use the term repression in ways consistent with the evidence; Otgaar et al. (2020) replied that belief in unconscious repressed memory remains widespread. A U.K. survey of 717 laypeople, legal professionals including judges and barristers, and clinicians found that more than 78% of participants across the lay, legal, and clinical samples endorsed repression and more than 87% endorsed dissociative amnesia (Radcliffe & Patihis, 2024). The authors read these figures as a concern for legal decision-making; on the reading offered by Brewin et al. (2019), some endorsement may reflect a looser, evidence-consistent use of the term. Belief surveys measure opinion; they do not show how often memories become inaccessible, and whether the beliefs are mistaken is itself part of the dispute.
Evidence That Recovered Memories Can Be Accurate
Several lines of evidence indicate that some recovered memories correspond to real events. In a prospective study, Williams (1994) interviewed 129 women about 17 years after hospital records documented their sexual abuse in childhood; 38% did not report the documented incident, although some of them described other abuse, and the abuse had often occurred when they were very young. In a follow-up analysis of the 80 women who recalled the documented abuse, 16% said there had been a time when they had forgotten it, and their accounts had about the same number of discrepancies from the original records as those of women who said they had always remembered (Williams, 1995). The finding rests on the women’s own reports of earlier forgetting.
In a study of 128 adults recruited by advertisement, raters who did not know each participant’s group looked for independent corroboration. Corroboration was found for 45% of the 71 continuous memories, 37% of the 41 memories recovered outside therapy, and none of the 16 memories recovered in therapy (Geraerts et al., 2007); the samples were small, and the study does not show how often any recovered memory is accurate. A related laboratory study found a double dissociation: people who recovered memories through suggestive therapy were more prone to false memories in the laboratory, while people who recovered memories spontaneously tended to underestimate how often they had remembered the abuse before, but were not more prone to false memories (Geraerts et al., 2009). The authors concluded that recovered memories may at times be fictitious and at other times authentic. Lane and Houston (2021, pp. 70–71) describe the 1990s debate as ending in general agreement to the same effect, with suggestion-linked recoveries associated with greater laboratory false-memory proneness.
These findings suggest that some recovered-memory experiences reflect ordinary processes, such as not thinking about an event not understood as abuse at the time and later encountering a reminder. A 2026 systematic review of 42 studies found that reported rates of recovered memory ranged from 1% to 3% in legally documented abuse cases to 22% to 39% in self-reported survivor samples, varying with definitions, samples, and recovery contexts, and found no cognitive mechanism unique to recovered memories (Carey et al., 2026). The review did not assess how often recovered memories are accurate.
Evidence for Caution: Memory for Trauma and False Memory
Other research cautions against assuming that trauma is especially likely to be forgotten. Adults asked to compare their most traumatic and most positive experiences described traumatic memories as at least as detailed, vivid, and coherent (Porter & Birt, 2001), and a longitudinal study found traumatic memories more consistent over time than other emotional memories (Peace & Porter, 2004). The diagnostic criteria for posttraumatic stress disorder center on intrusive memories of the event, although they also recognize an inability to remember an important aspect of it (American Psychiatric Association, 2022); persistent intrusion, not wholesale loss of the memory, is the characteristic pattern.
Evidence offered for frequent amnesia has also been questioned. A finding that 59% of adults in therapy who reported childhood sexual abuse described an earlier period in which the abuse was unavailable to memory (Briere & Conte, 1993) rests on a retrospective question asked of a clinical sample, and not reporting an incident in an interview, as in Williams (1994), is not the same as being unable to remember it. A review of 128 published case studies of dissociative amnesia from 2000 to 2020 found that the evidence offered for the diagnosis was often weak and that most cases did not rule out alternatives such as ordinary forgetting and malingering (Mangiulli et al., 2022).
Laboratory research shows that false memories of entire childhood events can be created. After repeated suggestion in the “lost in the mall” study, roughly one participant in four reported a full or partial memory of an invented childhood event (Loftus & Pickrell, 1995), and similar procedures produced false memories of negative events such as a serious animal attack (Porter et al., 1999). Across such studies, about 30% of participants formed false autobiographical memories (Otgaar et al., 2022). The suggested events were generally less traumatic and stigmatizing than sexual abuse, which limits generalization in either direction. False memories can be detailed, emotional, and confidently held, so these qualities do not separate true from false memories.
The setting in which a memory returns matters. In an age-representative U.S. sample of 2,326 adults, about 4% (weighted) reported recovering memories of abuse in therapy for which they had no previous memory, and those whose therapists discussed the possibility of repressed abuse were about 20 times more likely to report such recoveries (Patihis & Pendergrast, 2019). The association is correlational. Hypnosis, guided imagery, interpreting dreams or symptoms as evidence of hidden abuse, and repeated imagining are the practices most often identified as risky, and researchers on both sides agree that suggestive recovery practices are hazardous (Brewin, 2021; Otgaar et al., 2019).
What Researchers on Both Sides Generally Accept
The published positions overlap on several points. People can stop thinking about abuse and later remember it. Memories that return after a long interval can be accurate, inaccurate, or partly accurate. Suggestion, expectation, and repeated imagining can produce false or distorted memories in some people, and suggestive memory-recovery techniques increase that risk. The context of recovery and the existence of independent corroboration bear on how much weight a recovered memory can carry (Brewin, 2021; Geraerts et al., 2009; Lane & Houston, 2021; Otgaar et al., 2019). What remains disputed is the mechanism by which memories become inaccessible, whether that mechanism differs from ordinary forgetting, and how often complete amnesia for repeated or severe abuse occurs.
Limits of the Evidence
No study can traumatize participants and observe whether memory is lost and later recovered. Prospective studies depend on participants’ own reports of earlier forgetting; corroboration studies use modest samples and capture only evidence that happened to exist and could be found; case reports of dissociative amnesia are often incompletely documented; and recovered-memory rates vary several-fold with definitions and samples. Implantation studies use plausible, generally benign events, and their rates cannot be transferred to a forensic case in either direction. Above all, group research cannot show whether a particular person’s recovered memory is accurate; an expert can describe the conditions associated with accurate and inaccurate recovery but cannot tell a court whether this memory is true.
Questions to Ask About This Research
If the 38% figure from Williams (1994) is offered as a rate of amnesia, ask what the study measured: whether a woman mentioned the documented incident in one interview, which is different from being unable to remember it. When Williams (1995) or Geraerts et al. (2007) is cited to show that recovered memories can be accurate, ask how much evidence it rests on: 16% of 80 women in one study, and 37% of 41 memories recovered outside therapy in another, under corroboration standards below proof of the specific event. When Patihis and Pendergrast (2019) is cited for a twentyfold association between therapist discussion of repression and recovered memories, ask whether the conclusion follows from the design, since a survey association does not show that therapy caused any particular memory. For every study, ask whether it applies to this person, given how the memory returned, what was remembered before, and what independent evidence exists. These questions are explained in “Reading Research Claims: A Guide for Attorneys” on this site.
Recovered Memory and the Law
Federal and Military Standards
Federal Rule of Evidence 702, as amended December 1, 2023, requires the proponent of expert testimony to show that it is more likely than not that the testimony rests on sufficient facts or data and reliable methods reliably applied to the case. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993) assigned the trial judge a gatekeeping role, and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael (1999) extended that obligation to all expert testimony, including non-scientific technical or specialized knowledge. In Cohen v. Cohen, 125 F.4th 454 (3d Cir. 2025), a civil suit alleging childhood sexual abuse, the Third Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion by admitting the plaintiff’s expert testimony on repressed and recovered memory without independently analyzing its reliability and fit under Rule 702, and, because the plaintiff’s counsel relied on that testimony in closing, vacated the judgment and remanded for a new trial. The court found that the expert’s opinions that recovered memories are as accurate as continuous memories and that freely recalled memories are 85 to 95 percent accurate lacked good grounds, because the cited studies were almost thirty years old and did not support the broad conclusions, and that the testimony did not fit the plaintiff’s circumstances. It also stated that the availability of an opposing expert does not replace the court’s gatekeeping, and it did not decide whether the expert was qualified. The decision concerned the adequacy of the trial court’s gatekeeping rather than announcing that recovered-memory testimony is inadmissible as a category.
In courts-martial, Military Rule of Evidence 702 tracks the federal rule, admissibility is assessed under the six factors of United States v. Houser (1993), and under Military Rule of Evidence 1102 the 2023 federal amendment became part of the military rule in 2025 (Joint Service Committee on Military Justice, 2025); practitioners should confirm the current text. No published decision of the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces addressing recovered-memory testimony was located. In any forum, an expert may describe the research but may not opine that a particular witness’s memory is true or false.
Arizona
In Doe v. Roe (1998), a civil suit by an adult who alleged that she recovered memories of abuse by her father, the Arizona Supreme Court held that the discovery rule can delay accrual of a claim based on recovered memories of childhood abuse, that when discovery occurred is ordinarily a jury question, and that whether the period was tolled for unsound mind under A.R.S. § 12-502 was also a jury question on that record; it expressly did not decide the Frye question about the scientific validity of repressed memory (¶¶ 15, 32, 46, 55), although it observed that such memories can exist and can also be inaccurate or implanted (¶ 26), and a concurring justice, joining only the judgment, objected to that discussion as unnecessary (¶¶ 56–58). In 2019 the Legislature enacted A.R.S. § 12-514, which, as enacted, allows civil actions based on sexual conduct or contact with a minor to be brought within twelve years after the plaintiff turns 18 and revived otherwise time-barred claims filed before December 31, 2020, subject to particular proof and damages provisions (2019 Ariz. Sess. Laws ch. 259). As enacted, the statute does not refer to repressed memory or discovery. Its current text, any later amendments, and its interaction with Doe v. Roe should be checked against current authority.
In Logerquist v. McVey (2000), a civil suit alleging abuse by a pediatrician two decades earlier, a divided (3–2) Arizona Supreme Court held that Frye did not apply to an expert’s testimony on repressed memory based on his own clinical experience and research, declined to adopt Daubert as interpreted in Joiner and Kumho, and left the accuracy of the plaintiff’s memories to the jury, while noting that experts may not opine on a witness’s credibility (196 Ariz. 470, ¶¶ 20, 30, 32, 61–62). Arizona’s 2012 amendment of Rule 702 adopted the Daubert framework and is generally understood to have superseded Logerquist‘s approach, and a further amendment effective January 1, 2024, tracks the 2023 federal amendment (Ariz. Sup. Ct. Order R-23-0004), so recovered-memory testimony is now tested under the current rule. Arizona courts bar experts from opining on the truthfulness of a particular witness or class of witnesses (State v. Lindsey, 1986, 149 Ariz. at 475), and where a memory emerged under hypnosis, Arizona’s limits on hypnotically induced recall may apply (State ex rel. Collins v. Superior Court, 1982), as discussed in the Hypnosis and Memory paper.
Other Jurisdictions
Other courts have divided. Tyson v. Tyson (1986) and Doe v. Maskell (1996) declined to apply the discovery rule to repressed-memory claims, and State v. Hungerford (1997) required a pretrial reliability showing in a criminal case, while Commonwealth v. Shanley (2010) upheld expert testimony on dissociative amnesia and a conviction resting on recovered memories.
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. Most people who report historical abuse always remembered it, and a delay in telling is not a gap in memory (Carey et al., 2026). People can stop thinking about abuse, particularly abuse not understood as such at the time, and later remember it; some recovered memories have been corroborated; in one small study, independent corroboration was found for 37% of 41 memories recovered outside therapy and 45% of continuous memories (Geraerts et al., 2007; Williams, 1995), a finding that says nothing about any particular complainant. Traumatic experiences are often, but not always, well remembered, and researchers on both sides agree that recovered memories can be accurate (Brewin, 2021; Lane & Houston, 2021). Prosecutors can strengthen such a case by documenting what the complainant remembered and said before any therapy, how the memory returned, and what independent evidence exists.
The research also counsels caution. A memory that emerged during suggestive therapy, hypnosis, or guided imagery carries a recognized risk of distortion, and the laboratory link between suggestion-linked recovery and false-memory proneness (Geraerts et al., 2009) will be raised. Vividness and confidence do not show accuracy, and expert testimony that describes repression as an established mechanism, or relies on the dissociative amnesia diagnosis to show that a recovered memory is accurate, goes beyond the research and invites a Rule 702 challenge (see Cohen v. Cohen, 2025).
Special Issues for Defense
The research supports several propositions the defense can legitimately present. False memories of entire childhood events, including negative ones, can be created and held with confidence, and confidence and detail do not distinguish them from true memories (Loftus & Pickrell, 1995; Porter et al., 1999). Recovered memories are associated with therapist discussion of repressed abuse (Patihis & Pendergrast, 2019), no independent corroboration was found for any of the 16 memories recovered in therapy in one study, which does not show that they were false (Geraerts et al., 2007), and published case reports of dissociative amnesia often fail to exclude ordinary forgetting (Mangiulli et al., 2022). Expert testimony explaining these points, together with evidence of how and in what setting a memory returned, is a legitimate way to help the factfinder, and a Rule 702 challenge is available where an expert’s opinion outruns the data.
The research also counsels caution about the limits that apply to the defense. Abuse is real and common, most survivors remember it continuously, and some recovered memories have been corroborated; the research does not support the claim that recovered memories are false as a class. A therapy history is not, by itself, evidence of a false memory, implantation studies do not show how often recovered memories of abuse are false, and a defense expert who suggests that a particular memory was implanted faces the same limits on credibility testimony that apply to prosecution experts.
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
American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed., text rev.). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425787
Brewin, C. R. (2021). Tilting at windmills: Why attacks on repression are misguided. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(2), 443–453. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620927674
Brewin, C. R., & Andrews, B. (1998). Recovered memories of trauma: Phenomenology and cognitive mechanisms. Clinical Psychology Review, 18(8), 949–970. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7358(98)00040-3
Brewin, C. R., Li, H., Ntarantana, V., Unsworth, C., & McNeilis, J. (2019). Is the public understanding of memory prone to widespread “myths”? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(12), 2245–2257. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000610
Briere, J., & Conte, J. (1993). Self-reported amnesia for abuse in adults molested as children. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 6(1), 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.2490060104
Carey, O. G., Dempsey, M., Minihane, K., & Murphy, G. (2026). When, where, and how often do individuals recover memories of traumatic experiences? A systematic review. Memory, 34(2), 238–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2025.2601699
Geraerts, E., Lindsay, D. S., Merckelbach, H., Jelicic, M., Raymaekers, L., Arnold, M. M., & Schooler, J. W. (2009). Cognitive mechanisms underlying recovered-memory experiences of childhood sexual abuse. Psychological Science, 20(1), 92–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02247.x
Geraerts, E., Schooler, J. W., Merckelbach, H., Jelicic, M., Hauer, B. J. A., & Ambadar, Z. (2007). The reality of recovered memories: Corroborating continuous and discontinuous memories of childhood sexual abuse. Psychological Science, 18(7), 564–568. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01940.x
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
Lane, S. M., & Houston, K. A. (2021). Understanding eyewitness memory: Theory and applications. New York University Press.
Loftus, E. F., & Pickrell, J. E. (1995). The formation of false memories. Psychiatric Annals, 25(12), 720–725. https://doi.org/10.3928/0048-5713-19951201-07
Mangiulli, I., Otgaar, H., Jelicic, M., & Merckelbach, H. (2022). A critical review of case studies on dissociative amnesia. Clinical Psychological Science, 10(2), 191–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/21677026211018194
Otgaar, H., Howe, M. L., Dodier, O., Lilienfeld, S. O., Loftus, E. F., Lynn, S. J., Merckelbach, H., & Patihis, L. (2021). Belief in unconscious repressed memory persists. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(2), 454–460. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691621990628
Otgaar, H., Howe, M. L., & Patihis, L. (2022). What science tells us about false and repressed memories. Memory, 30(1), 16–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2020.1870699
Otgaar, H., Howe, M. L., Patihis, L., Merckelbach, H., Lynn, S. J., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Loftus, E. F. (2019). The return of the repressed: The persistent and problematic claims of long-forgotten trauma. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(6), 1072–1095. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619862306
Otgaar, H., Wang, J., Howe, M. L., Lilienfeld, S. O., Loftus, E. F., Lynn, S. J., Merckelbach, H., & Patihis, L. (2020). Belief in unconscious repressed memory is widespread: A comment on Brewin, Li, Ntarantana, Unsworth, and McNeilis (2019). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149(10), 1996–2000. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000721
Patihis, L., & Pendergrast, M. H. (2019). Reports of recovered memories of abuse in therapy in a large age-representative U.S. national sample: Therapy type and decade comparisons. Clinical Psychological Science, 7(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702618773315
Peace, K. A., & Porter, S. (2004). A longitudinal investigation of the reliability of memories for trauma and other emotional experiences. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18(9), 1143–1159. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1046
Porter, S., & Birt, A. R. (2001). Is traumatic memory special? A comparison of traumatic memory characteristics with memory for other emotional life experiences. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15(7), S101–S117. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.766
Porter, S., Yuille, J. C., & Lehman, D. R. (1999). The nature of real, implanted, and fabricated memories for emotional childhood events: Implications for the recovered memory debate. Law and Human Behavior, 23(5), 517–537. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022344128649
Radcliffe, P. J., & Patihis, L. (2024). Judges and lawyers’ beliefs in repression and dissociative amnesia may imperil justice: Further guidance required. Memory, 32(8), 1083–1099. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2024.2383311
Williams, L. M. (1994). Recall of childhood trauma: A prospective study of women’s memories of child sexual abuse. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62(6), 1167–1176. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.62.6.1167
Williams, L. M. (1995). Recovered memories of abuse in women with documented child sexual victimization histories. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 8(4), 649–673. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.2490080408
Legal Authorities
Cohen v. Cohen, 125 F.4th 454 (3d Cir. 2025).
Commonwealth v. Shanley, 455 Mass. 752, 919 N.E.2d 1254 (2010).
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
Doe v. Maskell, 342 Md. 684, 679 A.2d 1087 (1996).
Doe v. Roe, 191 Ariz. 313, 955 P.2d 951 (1998).
General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997).
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999).
Logerquist v. McVey, 196 Ariz. 470, 1 P.3d 113 (2000).
State ex rel. Collins v. Superior Court, 132 Ariz. 180, 644 P.2d 1266 (1982).
State v. Hungerford, 142 N.H. 110, 697 A.2d 916 (1997).
State v. Lindsey, 149 Ariz. 472, 720 P.2d 73 (1986).
Tyson v. Tyson, 107 Wash. 2d 72, 727 P.2d 226 (1986).
United States v. Houser, 36 M.J. 392 (C.M.A. 1993).
Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 12-502.
Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 12-514.
2019 Ariz. Sess. Laws ch. 259 (H.B. 2466).
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. 702.
Mil. R. Evid. 1102.
Related topic papers: False Memory · Dissociation and Memory · Hypnosis and Memory · Emotion, Stress, Trauma, and Memory · Childhood Amnesia · Memory Expert Testimony
Related topics from Arizona Forensic Services: Child Abuse Allegations · Counterintuitive Testimony · Courts-Martial