Snap Shot
- The question: How much information can a witness, a suspect, or a juror hold in mind and work with at one time, and what happens to testimony, interviews, waivers, and deliberations when that limit is exceeded?
- What the research shows: Working memory holds only a few meaningful units at once, varies between people, is smaller in young children and many people with intellectual disability, declines with age, and is reduced by acute stress, alcohol, and sleep loss. Complex, compound, or jargon-laden questions lower the accuracy of answers, and people rarely ask for clarification. Within those limits, memory for small amounts of central information held briefly is generally robust.
- What it does not show: A capacity estimate cannot say what a particular witness did or did not take in, and a working-memory limit is not evidence that an account is inaccurate or untruthful. Working-memory training improves performance on the trained tasks but has not been shown to raise intelligence or other general abilities. Cognitive-load interviewing is a research tool, not a validated test of whether a particular person is lying.
- The law: Expert testimony on working memory is governed by Rule 702 and, in courts-martial, Houser; in Arizona, general testimony is permitted (Salazar-Mercado, Chapple) but not opinions on a particular witness’s accuracy (Nordstrom). Working-memory limits can bear on whether a Miranda or Article 31(b) waiver was knowing and intelligent (Moran v. Burbine, Fare v. Michael C.) and on competence to stand trial (Dusky).
- Issues for each side: Prosecutors can show that accurate memory for central facts is compatible with gaps in peripheral detail and should ensure that interviews and waivers use plain, single-idea questions; defense counsel can show how load, stress, intoxication, and fatigue limited encoding or comprehension, without treating a capacity limit as proof that a specific detail is wrong.
Working memory is the small, short-lived system that holds information in mind while a person uses it: keeping the first part of a question in mind while hearing the rest, comparing a face in a photo array with a recollection, or following a sentence of a jury instruction to its end. It is distinct from long-term memory, which retains an event for days or years and supplies what a witness later recalls, but the two work together. Information a person attends to and works with in the moment is the raw material for what is later stored, and retrieving a memory during an interview draws on working memory to organize and report it (Lane & Houston, 2021, pp. 20–22).
Working memory rarely appears in a case by name, but it bears on how much of a rapid event a witness could take in, how well a witness can answer a compound question, how well a suspect can follow a rights advisement, and how well a juror can apply a multi-part instruction. This paper describes the leading model, capacity, the conditions that reduce working memory, and its forensic applications, then the limits of the evidence and the law the topic touches.
The Multicomponent Model
The most influential account of working memory is the multicomponent model introduced by Baddeley and Hitch (1974). Rather than a single store, the model proposed a central executive of limited capacity that controls attention and coordinates two specialized subsystems: a phonological loop that holds speech-based and verbal material, and a visuospatial sketchpad that holds visual and spatial information. Baddeley (2000) later added an episodic buffer, a limited-capacity store that binds information from the subsystems and from long-term memory into integrated episodes, which helps explain how people hold a coherent scene or the meaning of a long sentence rather than isolated fragments.
Fifty years on, the model’s authors describe its core features as intact and note that competing models agree on most of the basic phenomena, with the nature of executive control the principal open question (Hitch et al., 2025). For legal purposes the executive processes that direct attention and resist distraction matter most, because research links them to the effects of stress, alcohol, sleep loss, and age.
Working memory and long-term memory are partly separable. After surgery removed much of his medial temporal lobes, the patient H. M. could not form lasting new memories but could still keep information in mind over brief delays (Scoville & Milner, 1957). Whether the hippocampus contributes to holding complex associations over short intervals is still debated (Slotnick, 2017). Either way, a witness’s ability to repeat a plate number moments after hearing it shows working memory, not that a lasting and accurate long-term memory was formed.
Capacity: How Much Can Be Held at Once
Miller (1956) put the span of immediate memory at roughly seven items, give or take two, and observed that grouping items into larger meaningful units, or chunks, lets people hold more. Subsequent research that limited chunking and rehearsal placed the core limit lower, at about three to five meaningful chunks in young adults (Cowan, 2001, 2010). Capacity varies between individuals and with the material, because familiar, meaningful information can be chunked efficiently.
The capacity limit has two forensic implications that cut in different directions. A fast, information-rich event presents far more detail than anyone can hold at once, so a witness will take in only part of it, and gaps in an account are what the research would predict rather than a sign of evasion. At the same time, what a person does attend to, especially central and meaningful information, can be encoded well; a witness who reports a limited set of central facts accurately is doing what the system is designed to do. Capacity estimates come from laboratory span tasks and cannot be converted into a count of what a particular witness could have seen.
Conditions That Reduce Working Memory
Acute stress impairs working memory. A meta-analysis of laboratory studies found that acute stress reduced working-memory performance and cognitive flexibility, with effects moderated by factors such as sex, and that stress effects differed from the effects of administering cortisol alone (Shields et al., 2016). Laboratory stressors are milder than the fear of a violent crime; stress and memory for emotional events are addressed in the Emotion, Stress, Trauma, and Memory paper.
Alcohol affects some working-memory processes more than others. In one experiment, moderate doses impaired memory for sequences of items but not for arrays presented all at once, which the authors interpreted as alcohol disrupting rehearsal and executive strategies rather than shrinking basic holding capacity (Saults et al., 2007). In a study of interviewees who were moderately intoxicated (breath alcohol of about 0.06 to 0.07%) both when they saw an event and when they were questioned, intoxicated participants recalled fewer correct details than sober and placebo participants but did not report more false details and were not more suggestible on a standardized suggestibility test (Mindthoff et al., 2021). Higher doses and real-world drinking were not tested.
Sleep loss impairs attention and working memory. A meta-analysis of 70 articles on short-term total sleep deprivation found effects ranging from small and nonsignificant for reasoning accuracy to large for lapses of simple attention, with working memory among the affected domains (Lim & Dinges, 2010). In an experiment linking fatigue to a forensic outcome, participants were asked once to sign a statement falsely saying they had pressed a forbidden key, and after the first request 50% (22 of 44) of those kept awake overnight signed, versus 18% (8 of 44) of those who slept (odds ratio 4.5; Frenda et al., 2016). The act at issue was minor and the stakes were low; the finding shows a direction of effect, not a rate that applies to custodial interrogation.
Working Memory in Interviews, Testimony, and Deliberation
Questions, Interview Load, and Interpreters
The form of a question places demands on working memory. In an experiment in which participants were questioned a week after viewing a filmed incident, questions using negatives, double negatives, leading or multiple questions, complex syntax, or complex vocabulary reduced accuracy and weakened the confidence-accuracy relationship compared with simply phrased equivalents; participants seldom asked for clarification or qualified their answers (Kebbell & Johnson, 2000).
Interviewers face load as well. When mock interviewers watched five witnesses’ accounts while also performing interviewer tasks such as formulating questions, they remembered less of what was said than interviewers without the added load, and their memory for which witness supplied which detail was poor in both conditions (Hanway et al., 2024). The finding supports recording interviews.
Interpretation adds a further demand. In one experiment, interviewees who spoke through an interpreter gave less detail than those who spoke without one, in either their first language or in English as a foreign language, and verbal cues associated with deception appeared less often (Ewens et al., 2016). Less detail in an interpreted account may reflect the format rather than the witness’s memory or honesty.
Children, Older Adults, and People With Intellectual Disability
Working memory develops through childhood. In children aged 4 to 15, the components described by the multicomponent model were distinguishable from about age 6, and each expanded substantially through the school years into adolescence (Gathercole et al., 2004). Young children are therefore especially vulnerable to long, multi-part, or abstract questions; their capacity to give accurate accounts with good interviewing is addressed in the Suggestibility of Children’s Memory paper.
Working memory declines in older adulthood. A meta-analysis of verbal span tasks found age differences in all of them, with tasks requiring both storage and processing more sensitive to age than simple storage (Bopp & Verhaeghen, 2005). A review of interviewing older adult witnesses and victims recommends rapport building, free recall, accommodations, and assistive technology to obtain detailed, accurate accounts (Wyman & Malloy, 2024).
Children with mild and moderate intellectual disabilities scored lower than children of average ability on working-memory measures, with the largest differences on demanding tasks that combine storage and processing (Henry, 2001). The eyewitness findings are more nuanced. Children with mild intellectual disability matched same-age peers in free recall and in resisting misleading questions but did less well on general follow-up questions and changed answers more often when re-interviewed; children with moderate disability performed below same-age peers on most question types (Henry & Gudjonsson, 2003). Free narrative can be a strength for many of these witnesses; complex specific questioning is where errors tend to rise.
Cognitive Load and Lie Detection
Cognitive-load approaches to lie detection assume that lying is more mentally demanding than telling the truth, so that adding load, for example by asking for an account in reverse order or posing unexpected questions, will make lies easier to detect. A meta-analysis of the cognitive approach to lie detection, which combines imposing cognitive load, encouraging interviewees to say more, and asking unexpected questions, reported 71% total accuracy compared with 56% for standard interviews (Vrij et al., 2017); a re-analysis of those studies concluded that the advantage was much smaller than claimed and that the most supportive findings came from the least reliable data (Levine et al., 2018), and a theoretical review concluded that the justifications for the approach have not been specified clearly enough to permit rigorous testing (Neequaye, 2023). Added load also burdens truthful people with limited working memory, including children, older adults, people with intellectual disability, and people questioned through an interpreter, so a sparse or disorganized account under load is not by itself a sign of deception. The Detecting Deception paper reviews these methods in detail.
Rights Advisements and Jury Instructions
A rights advisement asks a suspect to hold several abstract propositions at once. An analysis of 560 Miranda warnings from across the United States found estimated reading levels from about second grade to postgraduate, with wide variation in content (Rogers et al., 2007); a replication with 385 further warnings documented legalistic vocabulary and sentence complexity that the authors concluded affect comprehension and retention (Rogers et al., 2008). These studies analyzed the warnings, not whether any suspect understood them.
Jurors face similar demands. A synthesis of published mock-jury studies found that reducing the conceptual complexity of instructions and the proportion of supplementary information was associated with better application of the instructions, while simply shortening them, simplifying language, or providing them in writing was not, and that reducing the amount of information was associated with more punitive verdicts (Baguley et al., 2017).
Working-Memory Training
Computerized working-memory training programs have been promoted as improving attention, academic skills, and even intelligence. A meta-analysis of 87 publications with 145 experimental comparisons found reliable improvements on other verbal and visuospatial working-memory measures immediately after training, but no convincing evidence of improvement in far-transfer measures (nonverbal ability, verbal ability, word decoding, reading comprehension, arithmetic) when trained groups were compared with control groups given an alternative activity; across studies, the size of working-memory gains was unrelated to far-transfer effects, and the treated-control studies showed no evidential value after publication bias was examined (Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016). Meta-analyses spanning many kinds of cognitive training found minimal effects on general cognitive skills, with differences between studies explained by design quality and statistical artifacts (Sala & Gobet, 2019), and a later review described the overall far-transfer effect as null (Gobet & Sala, 2023). On current evidence, claims that training has raised a person’s general cognitive ability are not supported.
Limits of the Evidence
Most working-memory research uses laboratory span tasks with university students, and capacity figures describe performance on those tasks, not how much of a real event a person perceived. Stress, alcohol, and sleep studies use mild stressors, moderate doses, and controlled settings, so effects in real cases may be larger or smaller. Studies of questioning, interpreters, and interviewer load are mostly single experiments with mock events. Members of special populations vary widely, and many give accurate accounts. Most important, group differences in working memory do not tell a court whether a particular witness encoded a particular detail, whether a particular suspect understood a particular warning, or whether a particular statement is true.
Questions to Ask About This Research
When a capacity figure such as about four chunks (Cowan, 2001) is offered as proof that a witness could not have noticed a detail, what was counted: items in a laboratory span task with chunking restricted, or meaningful elements of a real scene? When the 71% accuracy figure for cognitive-load interviewing (Vrij et al., 2017) is cited, does it apply here, given that Levine et al. (2018) disputed its size, the studies used mock suspects, and load also burdens truthful people? When intoxication is said to have made a witness more suggestible, how does that square with Mindthoff et al. (2021), who found fewer correct details but no rise in false details or suggestibility at moderate doses, without testing higher doses? When an expert relies on the readability of warnings (Rogers et al., 2007), did the expert also assess this suspect’s comprehension of the advisement actually given? These questions are explained in “Reading Research Claims: A Guide for Attorneys” on this site.
Working Memory and the Law
Federal and Military Standards
Expert testimony about working 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 each of the rule’s requirements is met, including that the opinion reflects a reliable application of reliable methods 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 testimony based on technical or other specialized knowledge. In courts-martial, Military Rule of Evidence 702 tracks the federal rule; under Military Rule of Evidence 1102, the 2023 amendment became part of the military rule in 2025 (Joint Service Committee on Military Justice, 2025), and practitioners should confirm current text. Military judges also apply the six factors of United States v. Houser (1993): qualifications, subject matter, basis, relevance, reliability, and probative value. Because every person is competent to be a witness unless the rules provide otherwise (Fed. R. Evid. 601; Mil. R. Evid. 601), a witness’s working-memory limits ordinarily go to weight rather than admissibility.
Working memory can also bear on comprehension questions the law addresses directly. A waiver of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) rights must be voluntary and made with full awareness of the right and the consequences of abandoning it (Moran v. Burbine, 1986); a juvenile’s waiver is judged on the totality of the circumstances, including age, experience, education, background, and intelligence (Fare v. Michael C., 1979). Because coercive police activity is a necessary predicate for finding a statement involuntary (Colorado v. Connelly, 1986), limited capacity alone does not make a statement involuntary, though it can bear on whether a waiver was knowing and intelligent. Under Mil. R. Evid. 305(e)(1), a waiver after Article 31 and counsel warnings must be made freely, knowingly, and intelligently, and the suspect must affirmatively acknowledge understanding the rights. Competence to stand trial requires a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings and a sufficient present ability to consult with counsel (Dusky v. United States, 1960); the military standard appears in R.C.M. 909(a).
Arizona
Arizona Rule of Evidence 702 adopted the Daubert standard effective January 1, 2012, and was amended effective January 1, 2024, to conform to 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 even when the expert has no knowledge of the case. State v. Chapple (1983), Arizona’s leading case on eyewitness expert testimony, held that excluding a qualified expert on factors affecting eyewitness reliability was an abuse of discretion on its facts, while leaving admission generally within the trial court’s discretion; State v. Nordstrom (2001) upheld limiting such an expert to general factors and barring an opinion on a particular witness’s accuracy. Experts may not opine on a particular witness’s credibility (State v. Lindsey, 1986, 149 Ariz. at 475). Every person is competent to be a witness in an Arizona criminal trial (A.R.S. § 13-4061). The judge decides voluntariness of a confession outside the jury’s presence, and if the statement is admitted the jury may hear voluntariness evidence and weigh it (A.R.S. § 13-3988). Competence to stand trial is governed by Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 and A.R.S. § 13-4501 et seq.
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. Because working memory is limited, an account that omits peripheral details of a fast or frightening event is what the research would predict, and such gaps do not by themselves indicate inaccuracy or dishonesty; a limited set of central facts can be encoded and reported accurately. Children with mild intellectual disability matched same-age peers in free recall and in resisting misleading questions, and moderate intoxication in one study reduced the amount recalled without increasing false details or suggestibility. Recorded interviews, short single-idea questions, competent interpreters, and a suspect’s explanation of the rights in his or her own words all protect the value of the evidence.
The research also counsels caution. Compound, negatively phrased, or jargon-heavy questions lower accuracy on direct examination as well as in interviews. Argument that a sparse or disorganized account under cognitive load reveals deception goes beyond the research, which has not validated cognitive-load methods as a test for a particular person. A waiver from a tired, intoxicated, young, or cognitively impaired suspect warrants careful documentation of comprehension.
Special Issues for Defense
The research supports several propositions defense counsel can legitimately present. Working memory holds only a few meaningful units, and acute stress, alcohol, and sleep loss reduce it, so conditions at the scene and during questioning can limit what a witness encoded and how well anyone questioned could follow complex questions. Confusing questions lower accuracy and weaken the confidence-accuracy relationship, and people rarely ask for clarification. Rights advisements vary widely in complexity, sleep deprivation increased compliance with a false accusation in a laboratory study, and capacity limits in children, older adults, and people with intellectual disability can bear on whether a waiver was knowing and intelligent. Expert testimony on these principles, tied to the record of how questions and warnings were delivered, can help the factfinder.
The research also counsels caution. A capacity estimate from laboratory span tasks cannot establish that a witness could not have perceived a particular detail, and limited working memory is not evidence that a specific memory is wrong. Moderate intoxication did not increase false details or suggestibility in at least one study, many people with intellectual disability give accurate free-recall accounts, and claims that a person’s cognitive ability was raised by training are not supported. An expert may not tell the factfinder that a particular witness’s account is inaccurate or that a particular suspect did not understand a warning; that is for the court or jury on all the evidence.
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
Baddeley, A. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(11), 417–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01538-2
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 8, pp. 47–89). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60452-1
Baguley, C. M., McKimmie, B. M., & Masser, B. M. (2017). Deconstructing the simplification of jury instructions: How simplifying the features of complexity affects jurors’ application of instructions. Law and Human Behavior, 41(3), 284–304. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000234
Bopp, K. L., & Verhaeghen, P. (2005). Aging and verbal memory span: A meta-analysis. The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 60(5), P223–P233. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/60.5.P223
Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(1), 87–114. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X01003922
Cowan, N. (2010). The magical mystery four: How is working memory capacity limited, and why? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(1), 51–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721409359277
Ewens, S., Vrij, A., Leal, S., Mann, S., Jo, E., & Fisher, R. P. (2016). The effect of interpreters on eliciting information, cues to deceit and rapport. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 21(2), 286–304. https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12067
Frenda, S. J., Berkowitz, S. R., Loftus, E. F., & Fenn, K. M. (2016). Sleep deprivation and false confessions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(8), 2047–2050. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1521518113
Gathercole, S. E., Pickering, S. J., Ambridge, B., & Wearing, H. (2004). The structure of working memory from 4 to 15 years of age. Developmental Psychology, 40(2), 177–190. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.40.2.177
Gobet, F., & Sala, G. (2023). Cognitive training: A field in search of a phenomenon. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 18(1), 125–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916221091830
Hanway, P., Akehurst, L., Vernham, Z., & Hope, L. (2024). Who said what? The effects of cognitive load on source monitoring and memory for multiple witnesses’ accounts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 38(6), Article e70011. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.70011
Henry, L. A. (2001). How does the severity of a learning disability affect working memory performance? Memory, 9(4–6), 233–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210042000085
Henry, L. A., & Gudjonsson, G. H. (2003). Eyewitness memory, suggestibility, and repeated recall sessions in children with mild and moderate intellectual disabilities. Law and Human Behavior, 27(5), 481–505. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025434022699
Hitch, G. J., Allen, R. J., & Baddeley, A. D. (2025). The multicomponent model of working memory fifty years on. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 78(2), 222–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218241290909
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
Kebbell, M. R., & Johnson, S. D. (2000). Lawyers’ questioning: The effect of confusing questions on witness confidence and accuracy. Law and Human Behavior, 24(6), 629–641. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005548102819
Lane, S. M., & Houston, K. A. (2021). Understanding eyewitness memory: Theory and applications. New York University Press.
Levine, T. R., Blair, J. P., & Carpenter, C. J. (2018). A critical look at meta-analytic evidence for the cognitive approach to lie detection: A re-examination of Vrij, Fisher, and Blank (2017). Legal and Criminological Psychology, 23(1), 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12115
Lim, J., & Dinges, D. F. (2010). A meta-analysis of the impact of short-term sleep deprivation on cognitive variables. Psychological Bulletin, 136(3), 375–389. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018883
Melby-Lervåg, M., Redick, T. S., & Hulme, C. (2016). Working memory training does not improve performance on measures of intelligence or other measures of “far transfer”: Evidence from a meta-analytic review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(4), 512–534. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616635612
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158
Mindthoff, A., Evans, J. R., Schreiber Compo, N., Polanco, K., & Hagsand, A. V. (2021). No evidence that low levels of intoxication at both encoding and retrieval impact scores on the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale. Psychopharmacology, 238(6), 1633–1644. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-021-05797-9
Neequaye, D. A. (2023). A metatheoretical review of cognitive load lie detection. Collabra: Psychology, 9(1), Article 87497. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.87497
Rogers, R., Harrison, K. S., Shuman, D. W., Sewell, K. W., & Hazelwood, L. L. (2007). An analysis of Miranda warnings and waivers: Comprehension and coverage. Law and Human Behavior, 31(2), 177–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9054-8
Rogers, R., Hazelwood, L. L., Sewell, K. W., Harrison, K. S., & Shuman, D. W. (2008). The language of Miranda warnings in American jurisdictions: A replication and vocabulary analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 32(2), 124–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-007-9091-y
Sala, G., & Gobet, F. (2019). Cognitive training does not enhance general cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(1), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.10.004
Saults, J. S., Cowan, N., Sher, K. J., & Moreno, M. V. (2007). Differential effects of alcohol on working memory: Distinguishing multiple processes. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 15(6), 576–587. https://doi.org/10.1037/1064-1297.15.6.576
Scoville, W. B., & Milner, B. (1957). Loss of recent memory after bilateral hippocampal lesions. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 20(1), 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.20.1.11
Shields, G. S., Sazma, M. A., & Yonelinas, A. P. (2016). The effects of acute stress on core executive functions: A meta-analysis and comparison with cortisol. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 68, 651–668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.06.038
Slotnick, S. D. (2017). Cognitive neuroscience of memory. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316026687
Vrij, A., Fisher, R. P., & Blank, H. (2017). A cognitive approach to lie detection: A meta-analysis. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 22(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12088
Wyman, J., & Malloy, L. (2024). Increasing disclosures of older adult maltreatment: A review of best practices for interviewing older adult eyewitnesses and victims. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 31(2), 274–292. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2023.2192260
Legal Authorities
Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1986).
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960).
Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707 (1979).
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999).
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (1986).
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).
10 U.S.C. § 831 (Article 31, Uniform Code of Military Justice).
Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-3988.
Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-4061.
Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 13-4501 et seq.
Fed. R. Evid. 601, 702.
Mil. R. Evid. 305, 601, 702, 1102.
Ariz. R. Evid. 702.
Ariz. Sup. Ct. Order R-23-0004 (amending Ariz. R. Evid. 702, effective Jan. 1, 2024).
Ariz. R. Crim. P. 11.
Rule for Courts-Martial 909.
Related topic papers: Types and Stages of Memory · Detecting Deception · The Hippocampus · Emotion, Stress, Trauma, and Memory · Intellectual Disability and Memory · Aging and Memory
Related topics from Arizona Forensic Services: False Confessions · False Confessions: Suggestibility · Alcohol Blackouts