A time to speak, or a time to keep silence?

Michael McCloskey, Howard E. Egeth

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


Responds to E. F. Loftus's (see record) comments on M. McCloskey and H. E. Egeth's (see record) previous article in which the authors argue against psychologists testifying in court as expert witnesses on the validity of eyewitness testimony. Loftus presents documented cases of convictions of innocent people based on faulty eyewitness accounts, and she argues that expert testimony by psychologists could correct misconceptions jurors may hold. The present authors answer Loftus's criticisms and contrast their views with hers in the areas of empirical support for conclusive statements, perspectives on interventions, and focus on innocence. (10 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved).

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)573-575
Number of pages3
JournalAmerican Psychologist
Issue number5
StatePublished - May 1 1983


  • need for psychologists to testify in court cases concerning validity of eyewitness testimony, reply to criticism of E. F. Loftus

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychology(all)


Dive into the research topics of 'A time to speak, or a time to keep silence?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this