The jury is still out: A reply to Deffenbacher

Howard E. Egeth, Michael McCloskey

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


Responds to comments by K. A. Deffenbacher concerning the present authors' arguments against the use of psychological testimony on eyewitness reliability. It is argued that there is currently no sufficient basis for the conclusion that jurors need to be made more skeptical of eyewitness testimony or that psychology can provide useful information concerning areas such as the decline of retention with time or the effect of arousal levels on eyewitness performance. (10 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved).

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1068-1069
Number of pages2
JournalAmerican Psychologist
Issue number9
StatePublished - Sep 1984


  • role in evaluating reliability of eyewitness testimony, psychologists, reply to comments by K. A. Deffenbacher

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychology(all)


Dive into the research topics of 'The jury is still out: A reply to Deffenbacher'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this