Eyewitness Science and the Legal System

Literature Cited

1. Bernstein DM, Laney C, Morris EK, Loftus EF 2005.a False memories about food can lead to food avoidance. Soc. Cogn. 23:10–33
   [Google Scholar]
2. Bernstein DM, Laney C, Morris EK, Loftus EF 2005.b False beliefs about fattening foods can have healthy consequences. PNAS 102:13724–31
   [Google Scholar]
3. Bernstein DM, Loftus EF 2009. How to tell if a particular memory is true or false. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 4:370–74
   [Google Scholar]
4. Caldwell E 1972. Angela Davis acquitted on all charges. New York Times June 5. https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/98/03/08/home/davis-acquit.html
   [Google Scholar]
5. Connors E, Lundregan T, Miller N, McEwen T 1998. Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science Alexandria, VA: Natl. Inst. Justice
   [Google Scholar]
6. Cutler BL 2013. Reform of Eyewitness Identification Procedures Washington, DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc. Press
   [Google Scholar]
7. Davis D, Loftus EF 2009. The scientific status of “repressed” and “recovered” memories of sexual abuse. Psychological Science and Non-Science in the Courtroom: Consensus and Controversy JS Skeem, KS Douglas, SO Lilienfeld 55–79 New York: Guilford
   [Google Scholar]
8. Deffenbacher KA, Loftus EF 1982. Do jurors share a common understanding concerning eyewitness behavior. Law Hum. Behav. 6:15–30
   [Google Scholar]
9. Dillon MK, Jones AM, Bergold AN, Hui CYT, Penrod SD 2017. Henderson instructions: Do they enhance evidence evaluation?. J. Forensic Psychol. Res. Pract. 17:1–24 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15228932.2017.1235964
   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
10. Doyle JM 2005. True Witness New York: Palgrave Macmillan
    [Google Scholar]
11. Finer JJ 1996. Therapists' liability to the falsely accused for inducing illusory memories of childhood sexual abuse—current remedies and a proposed statute. J. Law Health 11:45–131
    [Google Scholar]
12. Frenda SJ, Nichols RM, Loftus EF 2011. Current issues and advances in misinformation research. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 20:20–23
    [Google Scholar]
13. Garrett BL 2011. Convicting the Innocent Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
14. Lepore J 2014. The Secret History of Wonder Woman New York: Knopf
    [Google Scholar]
15. Loftus EF 1974. Reconstructing memory: the incredible eyewitness. Psychol. Today 8:116–19
    [Google Scholar]
16. Loftus EF 1979. Eyewitness Testimony Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
17. Loftus EF 1986. Ten years in the life of an expert witness. Law Hum. Behav. 10:241–63
    [Google Scholar]
18. Loftus EF 2003. Make-believe memories. Am. Psychol. 58:864–73
    [Google Scholar]
19. Loftus EF 2005. Planting misinformation in the human mind: a 30-year investigation of the malleability of memory. Learn. Mem. 12:361–66
    [Google Scholar]
20. Loftus EF 2017. Eavesdropping on memory. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 68:1–18
    [Google Scholar]
21. Loftus EF, Davis D 2006. Recovered memories. Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 2:469–98
    [Google Scholar]
22. Loftus EF, Hoffman HG 1989. Misinformation and memory: the creation of memory. J. Exp. Psychol. 118:100–4
    [Google Scholar]
23. Loftus EF, Ketcham K 1991. Witness for the Defense: The Accused, the Eyewitness, and the Expert Who Puts Memory on Trial New York: St. Martin's
    [Google Scholar]
24. Loftus EF, Ketcham K 1994. The Myth of Repressed Memory New York: St. Martin's
    [Google Scholar]
25. Loftus EF, Pickrell JE 1995. The formation of false memories. Psychiatr. Ann. 25:720–25
    [Google Scholar]
26. McNally R 2003. Remembering Trauma Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
27. Munsterberg H 1908. On the Witness Stand New York: Doubleday, Page
    [Google Scholar]
28. Munsterberg H 2009. On the Witness Stand Greentop, MO: Greentop Acad reissue with new forward by E. Loftus
    [Google Scholar]
29. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2014. Report urges caution in handling and relying upon eyewitness identification in criminal cases. Recommends best practices for law enforcement and courts Press Release Oct 2
    [Google Scholar]
30. Natl. Res. Counc. 2014. Identifying the Culprit: Assessing Eyewitness Identification Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
    [Google Scholar]
31. Papalliou AP, Yokum DV, Robertson CT 2015. The novel New Jersey eyewitness instruction induces skepticism but not sensitivity. PLOS ONE 10:12e0142695 http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0142695
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
32. Patihis L, Ho LY, Tingen IW, Lilienfeld SO, Loftus EF 2014. Are the “memory wars” over? A scientist-practioner gap in beliefs about repressed memory. Psychol. Sci. 25:519–30
    [Google Scholar]
33. People v. Guzman 47 Cal. App. 3d 380, 121 Cal. Rptr 69 1975.
    [Google Scholar]
34. People v. Lerma 2016 IL 118496, 47 N.E. 3d 985 2016.
    [Google Scholar]
35. People v. McDonald 37 Cal. 3d 351, 208 Cal. Rptr. 236, 690 P. 2d 709 1984.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Rakoff J, Loftus EF 2018. The intractability of inaccurate eyewitness identification. Daedelus In press
    [Google Scholar]
37. Scheck B, Neufeld P, Dwyer J 2000. Actual Innocence New York: Doubleday
    [Google Scholar]
38. Schmechel RS, O'Toole TP, Easterly C, Loftus EF 2006. Beyond the ken: testing juror's understanding of eyewitness reliability evidence. Jurimetr. J. 46:177–214
    [Google Scholar]
39. Scoboria A, Wade KA, Lindsay DS, Azad T, Strange D et al. 2017. A mega-analysis of memory reports from eight peer-reviewed false memory implantation studies. Memory 25:146–63
    [Google Scholar]
40. Semmler C, Brewer N, Douglass AB 2012. Jurors believe eyewitnesses. Conviction of the Innocent BL Cutler 185–209 Washington, DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc. Press
    [Google Scholar]
41. Seven R 1993. Psychiatry of repressed memory on trial. Seattle Times July 9
    [Google Scholar]
42. State v. Chapple 135 Ariz. 281, 660 P. 2d 1208 1983.
    [Google Scholar]
43. State v. Henderson 27 A. 3d 872 (N.J 2011.
    [Google Scholar]
44. Wells GL, Memon AM, Penrod SD 2006. Eyewitness evidence: improving its probative value. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 7:45–75
    [Google Scholar]
45. Wigmore JH 1909. Professor Munsterberg and the psychology of evidence. Ill. Law Rev. 3:399–445
    [Google Scholar]