"He said, she said": A psychological perspective on historical memory evidence in the courtroom

Abstract

Canadian courts are hearing an increasing number of allegations based on historical incidents. In most cases, complainants or witnesses report remembering the alleged offense continuously since its occurrence. In other cases (e.g., R. v. François, 1994), a witness reports that his/her memory was "recovered" after being blocked from conscious awareness for a lengthy period. Both continuous and delayed historical memory cases pose difficulties for legal decision-makers given the typical absence of corroborating evidence. Without clear guidelines for the assessment of allegations based on historical incidents, judges and juries may rely upon questionable assumptions about memory to assess the credibility of the allegation. A large body of psychological research on applied memory is relevant to the understanding and evaluation of such historical memory evidence. A review of this research indicates that the central details of most distant emotional/criminal experiences are recalled vividly and often accurately over time. However, some level of peripheral distortion can be expected for such events. In addition, amnesia for traumatic events may occur in rare cases. Conversely, completely mistaken memories for historical experiences also can occur. Guidelines are presented to assist in the evaluation of allegations based on historical events.