This amicus brief argues that expert testimony on eyewitness identification and memory is critical when identity is disputed and scientifically recognized risk factors are present. Drawing on decades of research and wrongful-conviction data, it explains that eyewitness testimony is highly persuasive but frequently unreliable, that memory is reconstructive and vulnerable to contamination, and that jurors often misunderstand factors such as stress, lighting, lineup procedures, post-identification feedback, and the relationship between confidence and accuracy. Expert testimony is therefore necessary to give jurors the tools to evaluate identification evidence intelligently.
The brief further argues that such testimony does not invade the jury’s role because it addresses the general reliability of identification evidence rather than whether a particular witness is truthful. It also contends that courts should not exclude expert testimony merely because the prosecution claims other evidence corroborates the identification, because assessing the strength and significance of that evidence belongs to the jury.