Responds to comments by G. L. Wells on the present authors' argument that current empirical findings on perception and memory do not justify a role for psychologists in evaluating eyewitness testimony. The present authors argue that Wells's statements on process and outcome confuse the outcome of an individual trial and trials in the aggregate. The question of whether jurors tend to overbelieve eyewitness testimony is discussed. (4 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved).
- role in evaluating eyewitness testimony, psychologists, reply to comments by G. L. Wells
ASJC Scopus subject areas