For an overview of the legal and scientific issues involved in research and expert testimony about eyewitness memory, see this article in Court Review (PDF), the journal of the American Judges Association, by Brigham and colleagues.

Eyewitness memory

John C. Brigham, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus
Dept. of Psychology, Florida State University

Home

 Biographical Sketch

 Curriculum Vita

 Publications

 Expert Testimony

Presentations

Contact Information

  

Careful analyses of documented cases where innocent persons were wrongfully convicted have shown that mistakes in eyewitness memory have accounted for more of these injustices than have all other factors combined.  Taking a scientific perspective on this problem, in recent years thousands of research studies have investigated the specific factors that affect the accuracy of eyewitness memory, and a significant body of scientific findings has been created. 

Change in Tennessee law:    In a May, 2007 decision, the Tennessee Supreme Court opened the door for expert testimony on eyewitness testimony on eyewitness memory. The court reversed the murder conviction of Arthur T. Copeland, and remanded the case for a new trial, on the grounds that Dr. Brigham's expert testimony had been improperly excluded in the 2000 trial in Bount County, TN. Previously, Tennessee law had prohibited such expert testimony.

I have been an active researcher in this area for the past 35 years, publishing over 55 studies, and making numerous professional presentations on this issue to scientists, attorneys, and judges in the U. S., Canada, and Europe.  It is my firm belief that knowledge derived from the scientific studies can be extremely helpful to attorneys working with cases involving disputed eyewitness evidence, in terms of pretrial preparation (e.g., witness depositions, motions to suppress, scientific analyses of lineup fairness) and at trial (expert testimony).  Research has shown that “common sense”, which is usually a good basis for making decisions, is often incorrect in this unusual area.  Thus, in cases involving disputed eyewitness memory testimony, providing jurors with factual information about factors that affect the accuracy of eyewitness memory, via expert testimony, can be extremely helpful by giving them a scientifically-valid frame of reference with which to evaluate the disputed memory testimony.

I have testified as an expert witness on eyewitness memory in various judicial proceedings in Florida and many other states, as well as in federal court.  Detailed information about my research and my testimony, as well as important research by other scientists, can be found by clicking on the various buttons on this page.  

Return to Top
Home