Questions for John Wixted regarding his talk on **Emerging Insights into the Reliability of Eyewitness Memory**

[jamesallenevans]

Questions for John Wixted regarding his talk on Emerging Insights into the Reliability of Eyewitness Memory. Eyewitness misidentifications have contributed to many wrongful convictions. However, despite expressing high confidence at trial, eyewitnesses often make inconclusive misidentifications on the first test conducted early in a police investigation. According to a new scientific consensus, it is important to focus on the results of the first test because, if the perpetrator is not in the lineup, the test itself leaves a memory trace of the innocent suspect in the witness’s brain. Thus, all subsequent tests of the witness’s memory for the same suspect constitute tests of contaminated memory. Unfortunately, when evidence of an initial inconclusive identification is introduced at trial, the rules of evidence provide a witness with an opportunity to explain their prior inconsistent statement. In response, witnesses often provide an opinion about why they did not confidently identify the suspect on the initial test despite doing so now (e.g., “I was nervous on the first test”). However, witnesses lack expertise in—and have no awareness of—the subconscious mechanisms of memory contamination that have been elucidated by decades of scientific research. The combination of a sincerely held (false) memory and a believable (but erroneous) explanation for a prior inconsistent statement is often persuasive to jurors. This is a recipe for a wrongful conviction, one that has been followed many times. These wrongful convictions, which have long been attributed to the unreliability of eyewitness memory, instead reflect a system that unwittingly prioritizes false memories elicited at trial over true memories elicited early in a police investigation. The Federal Rules of Evidence were enacted almost a half-century ago, and it may be time to revisit them in light of the principles of memory that have been established since that time. Paper sent by email.

[bhavyapan]

Thanks for sharing your work! Given the impact of the first identification test on the memory of eyewitnesses and the subsequent influence on wrongful convictions, and your recommendations for the need of a systemic solution -- what can be some of the procedural tweaks in the system that have worked in the past/you imagine might work to enable the contemporary understanding of memory contamination and safeguard against the persuasive but often erroneous testimony of witnesses at trial?

[QIXIN-LIN]

This research explores how the system unintentionally gives precedence to false memories that emerge during a trial, as opposed to true memories brought up in the initial stages of a police investigation. Given the discovery that the workings and principles of human memory are at odds with the legal standards of evidence, I'm curious if there are similar fundamental conflicts in other fields and how they might be addressed. Thank you for sharing your work!

[XiaotongCui]

Very interesting research! I wonder can advancements in technology, such as video recording of initial identifications or virtual lineup procedures, help mitigate the risks associated with memory contamination? Are there technological tools or protocols that could assist law enforcement in conducting more reliable eyewitness identification procedures?

[oliang2000]

This research is particularly intriguing as it delves into a comparative analysis of the understanding of memory within the legal system vs. scientific research, offering concrete recommendations concerning current federal regulations. One might posit that the influence of prior exposure on memory exerts a significant influence not only in the realm of eyewitness identification of faces but also across various other procedures within the courtroom. In light of this, I wonder what we should think of the reliability of anecdotal evidence relative to direct evidence, given what we know scientifically?

[zcyou018]

Thank you for your insightful research! I'm wondering how can the insights from recent scientific research on memory contamination and eyewitness identification be effectively integrated into the current legal framework to reduce the risk of wrongful convictions?

[C-y22]

Thank you for sharing your interesting research! How do the principles outlined in the Federal Rules of Evidence regarding memory and eyewitness testimony align with current scientific understanding of memory mechanisms, as discussed in the document?

[natashacarpcast]

Hi! Thank you for the interesting research :) I'm wondering if you have presented these results directly to policy makers or legal professionals. If so, have you perceived resistance from them?

[ecg1331]

Thank you so much for sharing your research!

I thought it was really interesting that you pointed out that your research allows you to make suggestions based on science, but not “prescriptions based on expertise in the interpretation of the rules that govern the admissibility of evidence in a criminal trial” due to your lack of legal expertise.

I’m wondering, have you gotten any opinions from anyone in the legal system? Do they see things changing based on the evidence presented in your paper?

[Anmin-Yang]

Thank you for sharing your research. Considering the pervasive influence of social media and the vast amount of information available in today's society, do you believe that eyewitness misidentifications could become more intricate? With the Federal Rules of Evidence being over 50 years old, what particular aspects do you propose should be reassessed? Additionally, what challenges might arise in this process?

[lguo7]

I really like this topic.
What ethical guidelines should be established for law enforcement and legal practitioners to minimize the risk of memory contamination during the investigation and trial phases? Evaluate the balance between effective crime investigation and the preservation of the integrity of human memory.

[Marugannwg]

This research topic really holds social significance -- even outside the justice system, it is meaningful for everyone to have a grasp on how credible a person's testimony is; and more importantly, how trustworthy our own belief is. A general question I have is: how should we evaluate (on ourselves) the credibility of any kind of memory and belief based on this finding? Can we reduce the bias after we know we are biased?

[naivetoad]

Considering the difficulty of addressing the lack of credibility in identification at trial, is it possible to exclude such identifications but use video recordings of the first identification test for testimony?

[secorey]

Hi Prof. Wixted,
Thanks for coming to present your work—a fascinating paper.
Do you think the greater problem lies with how witnesses are treated in the courtroom or how they are treated when they are questioned by police directly after the event? My thought is that police questioning takes place in a less restrictive context than a courtroom does, so the police have more freedom to implant (whether intentionally or unintentionally) ideas into the witnesses' heads.

[Jessieliao2001]

Hi Thanks for your sharing! My question is: Considering the scientific insights into the mechanisms of memory contamination, particularly the impact of initial eyewitness identification attempts on subsequent memory tests, how can legal frameworks, like the Federal Rules of Evidence, be updated to accommodate these findings and reduce wrongful convictions?

[yuzhouw313]

Dear Professor Wixted,
Thank you for presenting your work! I am very intrigued by the concept of memory contamination, and I am curious to know if the same contamination apply beyond legal system, for example to into psychological therapy settings or daily cognitive processes and what potential research can be done in those areas?