Name: The new science of eyewitness memory
Uploaded: 2026-02-03T15:36:14Z
Duration: 17 min 23 s
Description: We've built a legal system that distrusts eyewitness memory — backed by cautionary science and high-profile exonerations. John Wixted, a leading psychology researcher, challenges this conventional wisdom with a counterintuitive finding: the problem might not be memory itself but how (and when) courts test it.

We've built a legal system that distrusts eyewitness memory — backed by cautionary science and high-profile exonerations. John Wixted, a leading psychology researcher, challenges this conventional wisdom with a counterintuitive finding: the problem might not be memory itself but how (and when) courts test it.

The new science of eyewitness memory

Eyewitness memory is not inherently unreliable, but becomes contaminated when tested too late or improperly. Dozens of wrongful convictions, like Ronald Cotton’s, occurred because courts trusted confident trial testimony instead of the earliest memory test. New research shows that a witness’s first, uncontaminated identification—done soon after the crime and with proper procedures—can be highly reliable. Prioritizing this initial test could prevent innocent people from being imprisoned or even sentenced to death.

Eyewitness Memory Is Trustworthy—If Tested At The Right Moment

Eyewitness memory has long been viewed with suspicion, leading to wrongful convictions, like that of Ronald Cotton, who spent 11 years in prison before DNA proved his innocence. Decades of scientific research show human memory is easily contaminated, yet the first test of a witness's memory—conducted soon after the crime—can be highly accurate if handled properly. Later identifications, shaped by repeated questioning and feedback, often become distorted and misleading. Shifting focus to early, uncontaminated memory tests can both prevent and overturn injustices in the legal system.