Snap Shot
- The question: Why do a witness’s accounts of the same event change across retellings, conversations, and interviews, and what do those changes mean?
- What the research shows: Later accounts often contain new details, and in non-suggestive mock-crime research those reminiscent details were often accurate. Remembering also reshapes memory: recalling some details can make unmentioned ones harder to retrieve, retelling for a purpose or an audience can bias later memory, and witnesses who talk can adopt each other’s details.
- What it does not show: Neither consistency nor inconsistency reliably shows that an account is accurate or inaccurate. Omissions and later additions are weak signs of inaccuracy; direct contradictions deserve more attention. The research cannot say why a particular account changed.
- The law: Changes in an account reach the factfinder through prior inconsistent statements under Rule 613 and Rule 801(d)(1)(A); a federal amendment scheduled to take effect December 1, 2026, unless Congress acts otherwise, drops the oath requirement for substantive use, while the military rule keeps it for now and Arizona has no oath requirement. Expert testimony is governed by Rule 702, Houser, Chapple, and Nordstrom, and may not vouch.
- Issues for each side: Prosecutors can explain that in non-suggestive mock-crime studies, new details in later accounts were often accurate, without treating added detail or growing confidence as corroboration; defense counsel can trace changes to identifiable conversations, interviews, and information, without treating every difference as fabrication.
By the time a witness testifies, the witness has usually remembered the event many times. Witnesses are commonly interviewed more than once (Lane & Houston, 2021, p. 127, citing a survey of police investigators by Kassin et al., 2007), and a witness also talks about the event with family, friends, co-workers, other witnesses, and counsel. Each of those occasions is an act of retrieval, and research summarized by Lane and Houston (2021, pp. 126–142) shows that retrieval does not leave memory unchanged. It can recover details that did not surface earlier, make other details harder to reach, and shift the content of what is remembered toward the way the event has been told.
These processes explain much of the variation found when a witness’s statements are compared, and they reach court whenever one side argues that an account has grown, shrunk, or shifted. The research cuts in both directions. It shows that, in non-suggestive mock-crime studies, a detail first reported in a later interview was often accurate, which runs against a common intuition, and it also shows that conversations, retellings, and interviews can introduce or reshape details without the witness’s awareness.
This paper covers reminiscence, retrieval-induced forgetting, retelling and audience tuning, co-witness discussion, repeated interviews, and what inconsistency across accounts does and does not indicate. The memory benefits of retrieval itself, including early interviews, are covered in the companion paper, “The Testing Effect.”
Remembering Can Add Detail: Reminiscence and Hypermnesia
When people are tested more than once on the same material, they typically recall some items on a later test that they did not recall on an earlier one. Recovering items not reported before is called reminiscence; a net improvement in total recall across tests hypermnesia (Payne, 1987). In eyewitness studies, changing the retrieval cues between interviews, for example by asking about the event in a different order or from a different perspective, tends to produce additional details not reported before (Gilbert & Fisher, 2006).
The accuracy of those new details is the point that matters most in court. A review of mock-crime research found that details first reported in a later interview were often accurate, and Lane and Houston (2021, p. 129) note that the review summarized 19 such studies (Fisher et al., 2009). In two studies with delays of up to a week, newly recalled details were highly accurate, comparable to details recalled earlier, although people asked to evaluate them judged them unreliable (Oeberst, 2012). In a study comparing experienced police detectives’ predictions with the actual performance of witnesses interviewed twice, the detectives expected accuracy to decline between interviews and judged reminiscent details to be as inaccurate as contradictions; in fact, accuracy remained stable and reminiscent details were almost as accurate as details reported consistently (Krix et al., 2015). Lane and Houston (2021, pp. 129, 141) argue that treating a new detail as a sign of unreliability reflects an intuitive but inaccurate view of how memory works, and Oeberst (2012) linked such judgments to an assumption that memory simply fades with time.
These findings show that a later detail is not by itself a sign of fabrication. They do not show that a particular later detail is accurate; that turns on the way the detail was obtained and on what the witness encountered in the meantime. Peripheral details that received little attention are less likely to have been stored, so a detail that first appears after repeated questioning or exposure requires attention to how it emerged.
Remembering Can Suppress Detail: Retrieval-Induced Forgetting
Retrieving some information can make related information harder to retrieve later. In the standard experiment, participants study items from several categories and then practice recalling some items from some categories; later, the unpracticed items from practiced categories are recalled less well than items from categories that were never practiced (Anderson et al., 1994). This is retrieval-induced forgetting. A meta-analysis found that the effect is reliable and that the results largely supported an account based on inhibition of competing items, while also presenting findings that are difficult for that account, so the mechanism is still debated (Murayama et al., 2014).
The effect also occurs in conversation. When one person selectively recounts shared material while another listens, the listener later has more difficulty recalling related details that went unmentioned, which researchers call socially shared retrieval-induced forgetting (Cuc et al., 2007). It has been found for memories of a real public event, the September 11 attacks, after conversation (Coman et al., 2009). Retrieval-induced forgetting has faded quickly in some studies: a 2026 study with a single retrieval session found none after a day and a week (Meixensperger & Bäuml, 2026), but a 2025 study found socially shared forgetting persisted up to three weeks after repeated selective recounting spaced over time, including in free-flowing conversation (Sozer et al., 2025). The implication for witnesses is that conversations can shape not only what is added to an account but also what drops out of it: details nobody mentioned may become harder to retrieve, even though no false information was introduced (Lane & Houston, 2021, pp. 133–134). The broader topic of forgetting through inhibition is covered in “Memory Inhibition.”
Retelling and Audience Tuning
People recount their experiences for many purposes besides accuracy, such as to entertain, to explain, or to persuade, and they shape the telling to fit. In a study of everyday retellings, participants judged that a substantial share of their own retellings, 42 percent, were inaccurate in some respect, and exaggeration was most common in retellings meant to amuse (Marsh & Tversky, 2004; Lane & Houston, 2021, p. 135). Retellings can then affect memory. In one experiment, people who read a story about two housemates and then described one of them for a slanted purpose, such as complaining about that person, later remembered the original story in a way that fit the slant they had adopted (Tversky & Marsh, 2000). A detailed review of an event increased later misattribution of suggested details to the event itself (Lane et al., 2001), and retelling an event with an emotional rather than a factual focus produced more major errors in later recall (Marsh et al., 2005; Lane & Houston, 2021, pp. 136–137).
The audience matters too. In the “saying is believing” effect, a speaker who tailors a description of a person to suit a listener’s apparent opinion later remembers the person in a way that matches the tailored description (Higgins & Rholes, 1978). The effect was larger when speakers trusted the audience and experienced a shared view of the person (Echterhoff et al., 2005), and a 2025 series of three studies with 1,070 participants found that the audience-congruent memory bias persisted whether or not the speaker had first formed an independent judgment (Wagner & Echterhoff, 2025). For witnesses, this research suggests that the way an account has been told, and to whom, can gradually shape how the event is remembered.
Retelling is not only a source of distortion. In recent experiments, participants who retold stories as if to friends recalled more the next day than participants who did not retell them, although less than participants who retold them with an emphasis on accuracy (Harris & McDermott, 2025). The research supports asking how and why an account was told, not presuming that retelling has degraded it.
Co-Witness Discussion
Witnesses often talk to each other. In a questionnaire survey of 60 real eyewitnesses at a police identification unit in England, 88 percent reported that there had been other witnesses, and 58 percent of those had discussed the event with at least one of them (Skagerberg & Wright, 2008; Lane & Houston, 2021, p. 138). In an experiment in which pairs of participants watched different versions of the same event, 71 percent of those who discussed it before individual recall reported at least one detail they could have learned only from their partner (Gabbert et al., 2003). Wright et al. (2009) describe three routes to this memory conformity: going along with the other person to avoid disagreement, deferring to someone believed to have had a better view, and an actual change in memory, after which the adopted detail is experienced as personally remembered. When two accounts agree, the agreement may reflect a shared observation or a shared conversation, and the accounts alone may not reveal which. Discussion can also spread accurate details (see “External Sources of Memory Distortion”).
Repeated Interviews
Repeated interviews raise both benefits and risks. A review focused largely on child witnesses concluded that well-conducted repeated interviews need not be harmful and can elicit additional accurate information, while emphasizing that suggestive questions repeated across interviews increase the risk of error (La Rooy et al., 2010). A first interview conducted with open-ended questions can also protect memory and make later interviews more productive, as described in “The Testing Effect.” Two cautions apply. An initial recall test followed by misleading information has increased suggestibility in laboratory studies, and confidence can rise across interviews without any gain in accuracy, so growing certainty is not itself evidence that a memory is correct. Whether recalling a memory renders it open to being rewritten is debated: in a misinformation study designed to test that possibility, reactivating a memory changed what participants reported but the original detail remained recoverable (Rindal et al., 2016; Lane & Houston, 2021, pp. 139–140). That debate is discussed in “Reconstruction and Recall.”
What Inconsistency Does and Does Not Mean
Researchers distinguish three kinds of inconsistency: omissions, in which something reported once is not reported again; reminiscence, in which something appears for the first time later; and contradictions, in which two accounts assert incompatible things. The legal system has traditionally treated all three as signs of inaccuracy, while cognitive research indicates that the relationship between consistency and accuracy is weaker and more specific than that assumption (Fisher et al., 2009). In eyewitness studies, consistency across statements has been at most a weak predictor of accuracy (Brewer et al., 1999). Omissions and new details are, as described above, often explained by ordinary retrieval processes.
Contradictions are different. A contradiction means that at least one version is wrong, and in the study of witnesses interviewed twice the number of direct contradictions was associated with lower overall accuracy (Krix et al., 2015). Even so, a contradiction does not show which version is wrong or why. The research also does not support the opposite inference: a highly consistent account may reflect accurate memory, rehearsal, or an early error repeated faithfully. Factfinders may need help with these distinctions. In a 2026 study with 222 undergraduate mock jurors, a witness who reported details at trial that were absent from a contemporaneous written note was rated less credible than a witness whose testimony matched the note, though verdicts did not differ, and expert testimony about memory improved ratings of the reminiscent witness’s credibility (Lin & Paterson, 2026). The application of this research to complainants’ accounts of sexual assault, including the debate over trauma and memory fragmentation, is addressed in the paper “Inconsistent and Incomplete Accounts” in the Counterintuitive Testimony resource.
Limits of the Evidence
Most of this research uses undergraduate participants, filmed or staged events or written stories, low personal stakes, and delays of minutes to a few weeks. Real witnesses retrieve emotionally significant events over months or years, in conversations no one recorded, and the research does not establish how the size of these effects changes under those conditions. The reminiscence findings come from studies with non-suggestive questioning, and the conformity and retelling findings come from studies designed to produce the effect. All of the findings describe groups. None of them can tell a court whether a particular added detail was remembered or acquired, or whether a particular omission reflects forgetting, suppression, or a choice not to repeat something.
Questions to Ask About This Research
When testimony relies on the finding that reminiscent details were almost as accurate as consistently reported ones (Krix et al., 2015; Oeberst, 2012), counsel can ask who was studied and whether it applies to this person: these were mock witnesses who watched a staged event and were interviewed without suggestion, with delays of up to a week, so the extension to a witness interviewed over months, with conversations in between, must be argued rather than assumed. The same study found that contradictions were associated with lower accuracy, which raises the question of what exactly was counted, since omissions, additions, and contradictions are different measures. When the 71 percent figure from Gabbert et al. (2003) or the 58 percent figure from Skagerberg and Wright (2008) is cited, counsel can ask what was counted and out of whom: at least one borrowed detail in a laboratory task, and having discussed the event at all, among surveyed witnesses who had co-witnesses, are not measures of how much of a real account was contaminated. When socially shared retrieval-induced forgetting (Cuc et al., 2007) is offered to explain an omission, the question is whether the study design supports that use and whether there is evidence of a conversation that covered related material and left that detail out. These questions are explained in “Reading Research Claims: A Guide for Attorneys” on this site.
Remembering Changes Memory and the Law
Federal and Military Standards
Changes in an account reach the factfinder mainly through prior inconsistent statements. Under Federal and Military Rule of Evidence 613, a witness may be examined about a prior statement, and extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement is generally admissible only if the witness has an opportunity to explain or deny it. Under Federal Rule 801(d)(1)(A) as it has long stood, a testifying witness’s prior inconsistent statement may be used for its truth only if it was given under penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, other proceeding, or deposition; an amendment approved by the Supreme Court and transmitted to Congress is scheduled to take effect December 1, 2026, unless Congress acts otherwise. It removes the oath requirement, so that a testifying witness’s unsworn prior inconsistent statement may be considered substantively; the Advisory Committee’s note, in its May 2025 report to the Standing Committee, states that any difficulties in proof can be taken into account by the court under Rule 403. Military Rule 801(d)(1)(A), as published in the 2024 Manual for Courts-Martial, retains the oath requirement; under Military Rule of Evidence 1102, a federal amendment generally amends the parallel military rule by operation of law eighteen months after its federal effective date unless the President acts otherwise, and practitioners should confirm current text. The research in this paper bears on how such statements are weighed: a difference between accounts may reflect reminiscence, forgetting, conversational influence, a genuine error, or a deliberate change, and the research cannot say which.
Expert testimony about these processes is governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 702, as amended December 1, 2023, under which the proponent must show that it is more likely than not that the rule’s requirements are met, including a reliable application of reliable methods. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993) made the judge a gatekeeper, and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael (1999) extended that obligation to all expert testimony, including technical or other specialized knowledge. Military Rule of Evidence 702 tracks the federal rule, and under Military Rule of Evidence 1102 the Joint Service Committee’s 2025 compilation reflects the 2023 amendment (Joint Service Committee on Military Justice, 2025); practitioners should confirm current text. Military judges also apply the six factors of United States v. Houser (1993). Testimony may explain why accounts change but may not tell the factfinder that a particular account, or a particular change, is accurate or false.
Arizona
Arizona Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(A) has long treated a testifying witness’s prior inconsistent statement as non-hearsay without an oath requirement, so such statements may be considered for their truth; in State v. Allred (1982) the Arizona Supreme Court held that using a prior inconsistent statement as a pretext for its substantive use is an abuse of discretion under Rule 403 when the witness denies the statement, nothing corroborates it, and it is the only evidence of guilt; the court affirmed one defendant’s conviction and reversed another’s on that analysis. Arizona Rule of Evidence 702 adopted the Daubert standard effective January 1, 2012, and was amended effective January 1, 2024, to track the 2023 federal amendment (Ariz. Sup. Ct. Order R-23-0004). State v. Chapple (1983) is Arizona’s leading case on expert testimony about the reliability of memory: excluding a qualified eyewitness expert was an abuse of discretion on its facts, while admission otherwise remains discretionary (State v. Nordstrom, 2001). Experts may describe general principles but may not opine on whether a particular witness is truthful (State v. Lindsey, 1986, 149 Ariz. at 475; State v. Moran, 1986).
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 educational testimony that witnesses commonly recall different details on different occasions, that, in non-suggestive mock-crime studies, details first reported in a later interview were often accurate, and that omissions and additions are weak indicators of inaccuracy (Fisher et al., 2009; Krix et al., 2015; Oeberst, 2012). In one 2026 study of 222 undergraduate mock jurors, a witness who reported details absent from a contemporaneous note was rated less credible, and expert testimony about memory was associated with higher credibility ratings for that witness (Lin & Paterson, 2026); verdicts did not differ, the research does not show that any particular added detail is accurate, and an expert cannot say whether a witness is credible. Prosecutors are well positioned to make that testimony useful by documenting each account, recording when and in response to what question each new detail emerged, separating witnesses before interviews, and asking each witness whom they have spoken with about the event.
The research also counsels caution. Conversations, retellings, and repeated interviews can add or reshape details, co-witnesses can adopt each other’s details, and confidence can grow without any gain in accuracy, so testimony that frames added detail, convergence between witnesses, or growing certainty as corroboration overstates what the research shows. Direct contradictions are associated with lower accuracy and should not be folded into the reassuring findings about reminiscence. When a disputed detail first appears after a conversation with someone who could have supplied it, the factfinder is entitled to weigh that sequence.
Special Issues for Defense
The research supports tracing the history of an account. Co-witness discussion, slanted or emotional retelling, tailoring to an audience, and suggestive questioning repeated across interviews can each shape what a witness later reports, and selective conversation can suppress details nobody mentioned (Cuc et al., 2007; Gabbert et al., 2003; La Rooy et al., 2010; Tversky & Marsh, 2000). Defense counsel are well positioned to develop how many times the witness recounted the event, to whom, in response to what questions, and whether a disputed detail appears only after an identifiable source. Expert testimony on these processes, tied to that record, is a legitimate way to help the factfinder weigh a changed account.
The research also counsels caution about overclaiming. In non-suggestive mock-crime studies, later details were often accurate, omissions are often ordinary forgetting, and discussion can spread accurate as well as inaccurate information, so a changed or discussed account is not on that basis unreliable. The research cannot show that a particular detail was acquired rather than remembered, and testimony that treats every difference as fabrication goes beyond it; memory error is not lying. Contradictions on central points are the stronger ground for argument. The same processes affect an accused’s account, which may also have been shaped by conversations, interviews, and what the accused learned about the allegation.
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
Anderson, M. C., Bjork, R. A., & Bjork, E. L. (1994). Remembering can cause forgetting: Retrieval dynamics in long-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(5), 1063–1087. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.20.5.1063
Brewer, N., Potter, R., Fisher, R. P., Bond, N., & Luszcz, M. A. (1999). Beliefs and data on the relationship between consistency and accuracy of eyewitness testimony. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13(4), 297–313. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199908)13:4<297::AID-ACP578>3.0.CO;2-S
Coman, A., Manier, D., & Hirst, W. (2009). Forgetting the unforgettable through conversation: Socially shared retrieval-induced forgetting of September 11 memories. Psychological Science, 20(5), 627–633. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02343.x
Cuc, A., Koppel, J., & Hirst, W. (2007). Silence is not golden: A case for socially shared retrieval-induced forgetting. Psychological Science, 18(8), 727–733. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01967.x
Echterhoff, G., Higgins, E. T., & Groll, S. (2005). Audience-tuning effects on memory: The role of shared reality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(3), 257–276. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.3.257
Fisher, R. P., Brewer, N., & Mitchell, G. (2009). The relation between consistency and accuracy of eyewitness testimony: Legal versus cognitive explanations. In R. Bull, T. Valentine, & T. Williamson (Eds.), Handbook of psychology of investigative interviewing: Current developments and future directions (pp. 121–136). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470747599.ch8
Gabbert, F., Memon, A., & Allan, K. (2003). Memory conformity: Can eyewitnesses influence each other’s memories for an event? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17(5), 533–543. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.885
Gilbert, J. A. E., & Fisher, R. P. (2006). The effects of varied retrieval cues on reminiscence in eyewitness memory. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(6), 723–739. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1232
Harris, K., & McDermott, K. (2025). The effect of social retelling on event recall. Memory, 33(2), 166–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2024.2415907
Higgins, E. T., & Rholes, W. S. (1978). “Saying is believing”: Effects of message modification on memory and liking for the person described. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14(4), 363–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(78)90032-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
Kassin, S. M., Leo, R. A., Meissner, C. A., Richman, K. D., Colwell, L. H., Leach, A.-M., & La Fon, D. (2007). Police interviewing and interrogation: A self-report survey of police practices and beliefs. Law and Human Behavior, 31(4), 381–400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9073-5
Krix, A. C., Sauerland, M., Lorei, C., & Rispens, I. (2015). Consistency across repeated eyewitness interviews: Contrasting police detectives’ beliefs with actual eyewitness performance. PLOS ONE, 10(2), Article e0118641. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118641
La Rooy, D., Katz, C., Malloy, L. C., & Lamb, M. E. (2010). Do we need to rethink guidance on repeated interviews? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16(4), 373–392. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019909
Lane, S. M., & Houston, K. A. (2021). Understanding eyewitness memory: Theory and applications. New York University Press.
Lane, S. M., Mather, M., Villa, D., & Morita, S. K. (2001). How events are reviewed matters: Effects of varied focus on eyewitness suggestibility. Memory & Cognition, 29(7), 940–947. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195756
Lin, S., & Paterson, H. M. (2026). Contemporaneous notes and juror decision-making: Do reminiscence and expert testimony play a role? Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 33(5), 1603–1625. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2025.2568400
Marsh, E. J., & Tversky, B. (2004). Spinning the stories of our lives. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18(5), 491–503. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1001
Marsh, E. J., Tversky, B., & Hutson, M. (2005). How eyewitnesses talk about events: Implications for memory. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19(5), 531–544. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1095
Meixensperger, S. R., & Bäuml, K.-H. T. (2026). Items that are subject to retrieval-induced forgetting show slowed forgetting over time. Memory, 34(3), 302–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2026.2615993
Murayama, K., Miyatsu, T., Buchli, D., & Storm, B. C. (2014). Forgetting as a consequence of retrieval: A meta-analytic review of retrieval-induced forgetting. Psychological Bulletin, 140(5), 1383–1409. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037505
Oeberst, A. (2012). If anything else comes to mind… better keep it to yourself? Delayed recall is discrediting—unjustifiably. Law and Human Behavior, 36(4), 266–274. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093966
Payne, D. G. (1987). Hypermnesia and reminiscence in recall: A historical and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin, 101(1), 5–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.101.1.5
Rindal, E. J., DeFranco, R. M., Rich, P. R., & Zaragoza, M. S. (2016). Does reactivating a witnessed memory increase its susceptibility to impairment by subsequent misinformation? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(10), 1544–1558. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000265
Skagerberg, E. M., & Wright, D. B. (2008). The prevalence of co-witnesses and co-witness discussions in real eyewitnesses. Psychology, Crime & Law, 14(6), 513–521. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160801948980
Sozer, E., Fagin, M., Meksin, R., & Hirst, W. (2025). Durability of retrieval-induced forgetting: Effects of different practice schedules. Memory & Cognition, 53(4), 1095–1111. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-024-01634-4
Tversky, B., & Marsh, E. J. (2000). Biased retellings of events yield biased memories. Cognitive Psychology, 40(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1999.0720
Wagner, U., & Echterhoff, G. (2025). Audience tuning effects on communicators’ memory: The role of the communicator’s own initial judgment. Memory, 33(7), 845–860. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2025.2534147
Wright, D. B., Memon, A., Skagerberg, E. M., & Gabbert, F. (2009). When eyewitnesses talk. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(3), 174–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01631.x
Legal Authorities
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999).
State v. Allred, 134 Ariz. 274, 655 P.2d 1326 (1982).
State v. Chapple, 135 Ariz. 281, 660 P.2d 1208 (1983).
State v. Lindsey, 149 Ariz. 472, 720 P.2d 73 (1986).
State v. Moran, 151 Ariz. 378, 728 P.2d 248 (1986).
State v. Nordstrom, 200 Ariz. 229, 25 P.3d 717 (2001).
United States v. Houser, 36 M.J. 392 (C.M.A. 1993).
Fed. R. Evid. 403.
Fed. R. Evid. 613.
Fed. R. Evid. 702.
Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(A) (amendment approved by Supreme Court order of Apr. 8, 2026; scheduled to take effect Dec. 1, 2026).
Mil. R. Evid. 613.
Mil. R. Evid. 702.
Mil. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(A).
Mil. R. Evid. 1102.
Ariz. R. Evid. 702.
Ariz. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(A).
Ariz. Sup. Ct. Order R-23-0004 (amending Ariz. R. Evid. 702, effective Jan. 1, 2024).
Related topic papers: The Testing Effect · Reconstruction and Recall · Memory Inhibition · External Sources of Memory Distortion · The Misinformation Effect · Consistency Bias
Related topics from Arizona Forensic Services: Counterintuitive Testimony · Child Abuse Allegations