Recently in a sexual abuse case in Arizona’s Coconino County, a lawyer opened her defense for a 72-year-old man on trial with claims that interview protocols were not followed during the victim’s interviews, giving way to “suggestiveness” in the interviews (McManimon, 2014). This implication of false memories being created in victims is, from what Goldstein (2011) teaches about false memory, likely. However, I think it is sickening that a lawyer would use this as part of her defense in a case with multiple victim’s testimonies and DNA evidence.

There have been hundreds of wrongful convictions in the US, most due to false memories in witnesses (Goldstein, 2011). Thankfully, DNA evidence has been able to exonerate many of the people who were wrongly convicted, but there may still be people serving sentences for crimes they were wrongly convicted for. Modern technological and scientific advances have been able to create more reliable evidence in court cases, but witness accounts are still used in court.

While there are studies that show how easy it is to plant false memories (Hyman and colleagues, 1995) and how improper questioning can influence witness reports (Wells and Bradfield, 1998; Chan and colleagues, 2009), how much weight do claims of possible false memories actually have in court? Goldstein suggests that “trauma-memory oriented therapists” can pollute their patient’s memories and cause them to falsely recall a traumatic event by using visualization therapy, pictures, and suggestions that a traumatic event actually occured (2011). One researcher from The University of Sydney has shown how simply talking about events with a fellow witness can contaminate memories, even when witnesses are told that a co-witness has given them false information (The University of Syndey, 2010). So is research on false memories enough for some people to completely disregard a witness’ or victim’s testimony?

Luckily, we have methods such as DNA testing that can create more reliable evidence, but I don’t think that the possible unreliability of memory should lead to testimonies being completely thrown out the window. It is definitely helpful to be aware of the constructive nature of memory, but it is also important to recognize that memory is what it is, a “process involved in retaining, retrieving, and using information about stimuli, images, events, ideas, and skills after the original information is no longer present” (Goldstein, 2011). Just because we know how susceptible it is to contamination does not mean we should disregard it. Victim and witness accounts, whether presented as accurate or false, should never be used as the cornerstone of a case, as the defense lawyer in Arizona seems to be doing.

Goldstein, E.B. (2011). Cognitive psychology: Connecting mind, research, and everyday experience (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning

McManimon, Michelle. (2014). Flagstaff man’s child molestation trial begins. AZ Daily Sun. Retrieved from http://azdailysun.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/flagstaff-man-s-child-molestation-trial-begins/article_9bb826b0-c5ed-11e3-a8aa-001a4bcf887a.htm

The University of Sydney. (2010). Sydney study finds false memories are common. Retrieved from lhttp://sydney.edu.au/news/science/397.html?newsstoryid=5366