Contemporaneous notes and juror decision-making: Do reminiscence and expert testimony play a role?

Eyewitnesses are often advised to write down their recollection of the event soon after it occurs. However, they sometimes omit details in the written note and recall them later, a phenomenon known as reminiscence. This research examined the impact of testimonial reminiscence and expert testimony on mock-jurors' decision-making. Undergraduate students (N = 222) read a fictitious trial transcript, in which an eyewitness had written a contemporaneous note about the event. When testifying, the eyewitness either was consistent with the note or exhibited reminiscence. The transcript also included an expert witness testifying about eyewitness memory before the eyewitness testified, after the eyewitness, or not at all. Neither reminiscence nor expert testimony influenced juror verdicts; however, the reminiscent eyewitness was perceived to be significantly less credible than the consistent eyewitness. Expert testimony, regardless of when it was delivered, helped mitigate this by enhancing juror ratings of the reminiscent eyewitness's credibility.