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-ACT]

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?

[hchen0628]

Thank you very much for your insightful sharing. I am curious as to why the knowledge about memory malleability and the unreliability of eyewitness identification revealed by scientific research has not effectively facilitated reforms in legal practices, thereby reducing the reliance on erroneous eyewitness testimony within the current judicial system. What obstacles and challenges have been encountered in this process, and why have they arisen?

[ymuhannah]

Thanks for your work, Prof. Wixted! I have a question regarding the mechanisms behind witness memory contamination. Why does an eyewitness's exposure to a suspect's photo in earlier tests lead to the misidentification of an innocent defendant later on? Does this mean that eyewitnesses only retain impressions of faces they have seen, without remembering the context in which they saw them? Do they only remember the events they witnessed, but not the subjects involved? Why does this misplaced matching occur? What implications does this type of false memory have for our understanding of memory mechanisms?

[Caojie2001]

Thank you for sharing your interesting research! I wonder how different legal systems around the world address the challenges caused by memory contamination and whether there have been innovative approaches that have proven effective in reducing the negative influence caused by memory contamination.

[shaangao]

Thank you for sharing your research! Given the challenges we encounter with eyewitness memories, would you say that using eyewitness testimonials would still do us more good than harm, especially in certain situations such as when the eyewitnesses underwent trauma & stress due to the crime? Subsequently, can we identify a consistent set of situations where we should be particularly wary when considering eyewitness testimonials?

[Vindmn1234]

How does signal detection theory enhance our understanding of the reliability of eyewitness memory? Are there particular aspects of this theory that have proven most illuminating or surprising in your research?

[MaxwelllzZ]

Thank you Prof. Wixted for sharing the work.

I get that most of the time the witness will be asked point out the suspect and the idea that memory got contaminated. However, I want to know whether explicitly informing witnesses that the suspect may not be included in a lineup can help maintain the accuracy of their memory and reduce the likelihood of memory contamination during eyewitness identification procedures. Would frankly telling the witness that maybe somebody else is responsible reduce the compromising justice, saying from the ethical dimensions within policying practices?

[Weiranz926]

Thank you for your sharing! Given the recent advancements in our understanding of memory contamination and the potential for wrongful convictions due to eyewitness misidentifications, how do you envision the legal system adapting to incorporate these insights? Specifically, are there any innovative approaches or technologies that could be employed during the initial identification process to minimize the risk of memory contamination and ensure more reliable eyewitness testimony?

[Yuxin-Ji]

Thanks for sharing your work! Very interesting and meaningful study. I am not very familiar with criminal trial data, but I imagine that like many other cases, the data itself does not represent the exact truth. There could be cases of undiscovered wrong conviction (wrong conviction but we never find out) and thus undiscovered misidentification, or seemingly correct evidence of innocent due to undiscovered wrong conviction. How much do you think such situations exist in your data and how could it potentially affect results?

[alejandrosarria0296]

Thank for sharing your work prof. Wixted. Race, gender, and other sources of stereotypical biases have been shown to affect eyewitness testimony in court settings. I'm curious about how you think this phenomenon may interact with your findings.

[anzhichen1999]

Thanks for sharing your work! It is really an interesting piece! I am curious how does the concept of the "first test" of uncontaminated memory challenge traditional legal approaches to eyewitness testimony, and what implications does this have for the reliability of such testimonies at trial?

[yiang-li]

Thanks for sharing the work. Could you elaborate on the subconscious mechanisms of memory contamination? How do these processes undermine the reliability of eyewitness identifications made at later stages?

[ksheng-UChicago]

Thanks for sharing. Since the first test of a witness’s memory seems very important in your discussion, is there any way to further enhance the credibility and reliability of the first test of a witness’s memory? Thanks!

[yuhanwang7]

Thanks for sharing. How do the principles and mechanisms of human memory challenge the current legal frameworks and practices surrounding the admissibility of eyewitness testimony in U.S. courts?

[Zhuojun1]

Thanks for sharing! In light of your research on the reliability of eyewitness memory, what are your thoughts on the role of expert testimony in court regarding memory contamination? Do you believe that educating jurors about the subconscious mechanisms of memory contamination could lead to fairer trials, and if so, how might this be effectively implemented in the legal system?

[jinyz1220]

Thank you for sharing your work! My question is: Could VR be used to recreate crime scenes for witnesses, potentially helping them recall details more accurately?

[lbitsiko]

What implications does the phenomenon have on the legal system's treatment of eyewitness testimony and how might this challenge traditional legal frameworks?

Any thoughts on situated testimony?

[ethanjkoz]

Given the evident and immediate ramifications this research has detailed, what ought to be done to change the current, unfair system? The law is based on precedent and is often resistant to changes what are specific policy recommendations that could be offered to mitigate or reduce these current issue: for the police detectives, for the court itself? Furthermore given this discussion on confidence in eyewitness testimony, should there be some arbitrary cutoff for ascertaining reliability or confidence in a witness's memory? Is there substantial difference between someone 60% or 75% confident in the eyes of the law?

[nalinbhatt]

Under what circumstances would the current legal status quo be preferred?

[erikaz1]

How exactly is the line between due process and scientific truth defined? It seems that the answer to this may serve as the beginning for further conversation regarding how seriously courts consider a "process-oriented approach to finding workable solutions" (56), or the broad operationalizability of academic studies, multi-modal sources of evidence/evidence-gathering, etc. when it comes to assessing such testimonies as evidence.

[saniazeb8]

Thank you for sharing intriguing work.

I want to know more about how is the subjectivity controlled for in such models.

[YutaoHeOVO]

Hi Professor Wixted,

Thanks for sharing your work. It is really interesting.

I think the key is that how people’s memory will decay and when it deviates too much from the ‘truth’, it is no longer credible. Yet we still need to think of federal law to let such evidence fit in.

My concern is that could there be a measure to quantitatively define how reliable for eyewitness memory to be considered valid? And more importantly, could we really know whether eyewitness record is ‘induced’ by law enforcement rather than actual record made by witness? I think the DGP (data generating process) could be a very important thing for this research.

Best, Yutao He

[zhuoqingli526]

Your research is really interesting and comprehensive! The article thoroughly discusses the issue of eyewitness memory being prone to contamination. Based on this, how can it specifically differentiate between the mechanisms of eyewitness memory contamination in different contexts (such as police lineup settings versus courtroom environments)

[nourabdelbaki]

Thank you so much for presenting your research! It was a very interesting and engaging read. I really appreciated the layout of the evidence of memory contamination and then the exploring of the memory conceptualization from both the law's perspective and scientific perspective.

[JerryCG]

Dear John,

Thanks for your interesting introduction of the unreliable eyewitness memory. It is converning to see wrongful conclusions about an innocent suspect can be reinforced by subsequent beliefs, and worsestill, jurors tend to believe this as well. How can we reduce this misidentification from an pyschological aspect to resent the truth? Is it related to moral or just natural behavioral bias? The reasons behind may vary and thus treatment will vary accordingly.

Best, Jerry Cheng (chengguo)

[jiayan-li]

Hi thank you for sharing the research; it's truly fascinating, especially when considering the significant consequences of memory contamination in this context. I'm curious about potential alternatives or strategies to mitigate the effects of memory contamination while still utilizing witnesses effectively. What measures could be implemented to minimize this influence as much as possible?

Jiayan

[zihua-uc]

Thanks for sharing the interesting work! What do you think about the use of "lie detectors" on witnesses to establish their credibility?

[zhian21]

The study discusses the discrepancies between the legal system's handling of eyewitness testimony and the scientific understanding of memory, particularly focusing on issues like memory contamination and the reliability of initial versus subsequent memory tests. It proposes adjustments to legal practices to better align with scientific insights, such as prioritizing initial memory tests and reconsidering the admissibility of prior inconsistent statements.

How might the legal system implement the scientific recommendations on eyewitness testimony without compromising the rights of the accused and ensuring due process?

[CanaanCui]

Thanks for sharing! Given your insights on the reliability of eyewitness memory and the procedural influence on memory contamination, how can the legal system be reformed to mitigate the risks of wrongful convictions due to eyewitness misidentification, especially considering the persuasive effect of false memories and explanations on jurors?

[jialeCharloote]

In light of your findings on the contamination of eyewitness memory through lineup procedures, what methodological improvements do you recommend for the initial identification process to ensure the preservation of untainted eyewitness memories? Thanks!

[fabrice401]

Thanks for sharing the interesting work! How does the integration of modern scientific understanding of memory mechanisms challenge and potentially reform the Federal Rules of Evidence, particularly in the context of eyewitness testimony?

[isaduan]

Thanks for sharing your research with us! Based on your finding, what are concrete policy recommendations/technical tools to mitigate the risks of wrongful convictions due to eyewitness misidentification?

[PaulaTepkham]

Thank you for your thought-provoking research. I watched a documentary before about the wrong conviction that led to jailed a wrong person for almost two decade because of false memory of the witness. Therefore, I strongly agree that this matter is really important to understand. My question is how you come up with the research design and how the identify confidence level and compare it between witnesses?

[Hai1218]

Considering the study’s emphasis on the discrepancies between legal procedures and the scientific understanding of memory, particularly regarding eyewitness testimony, what specific legal reforms do you suggest to incorporate scientific findings on memory contamination and the reliability of initial memory tests? How can these reforms be implemented in a way that respects the balance between securing convictions and protecting the rights of the accused? Should there be a legal redefinition of memory based on your scientific findings?

[QichangZheng]

Your research sheds light on the discrepancies between the legal system's and scientific research's understanding of memory, particularly regarding eyewitness testimony and its influence on wrongful convictions. Given the vast information available today and the outdated Federal Rules of Evidence, what procedural changes do you suggest to mitigate memory contamination and address the reliability of evidence in light of recent scientific findings? How might the challenges of implementing these changes, especially with the rise of social media, be navigated?

[HamsterradYC]

Thank you for sharing this insightful work. I'm curious about the specific criteria or methods you employed in selecting these cases to ensure their representativeness. Additionally, did you consider other potential explanations for these cases, and how did you balance these different interpretations to avoid oversimplification of the memory contamination issue?