Hemos construido un sistema judicial que desconfía de la memoria de los testigos, una postura reforzada por investigaciones científicas que llaman a la cautela y por casos de exoneraciones muy mediáticas. John Wixted, reconocido investigador en psicología, pone en tela de juicio esa idea convencional al presentar un hallazgo contraintuitivo: el inconveniente quizá no radique en la memoria misma, sino en la manera y el momento en que los tribunales la evalúan.

La nueva ciencia de la memoria de los testigos

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.