Probative v. prejudicial value of eyewitness memory research

A commentary is given on Ebbesen and Konecnis (1996) critical review ofeyewitness memory research and their conclusions that expert testimony hasgreater prejudicial than probative value and should not be admissible incourt. Selective attention is given to issues of admissibility, researchprocedures, face validity, voice identification, lineup fairness, showupsand lineups, and common knowledge. It is concluded that Ebbesen andKonecnis review is a necessary contribution to the field of eyewitnessmemory research. However, the psycho-legal conclusions drawn from thisreview appear to reflect a negative predisposition rather than a balancedscientific appraisal of the literature.