“Do You Hear What I Hear?”: Empirical Research on Earwitness Testimony

Abstract

Despite recurring empirical interest in eyewitness research, legal scholars have conducted far less research exploring the significance and limitations of earwitness testimony. Nevertheless, earwitness expert testimony serves an important purpose, which dates back many centuries. This Article analyzes empirical studies regarding earwitness testimony and places them into a recognized legal framework regarding admission of expert testimony. The result of this analysis demonstrates that, if courts believe that eyewitness testimony meets the restrictions on "junk science" employed by both Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and the Federal Rules of Evidence, then the courts should also admit earwitness testimony under the same rationale. This Article, however, recognizes the many methodological issues in the study of earwitness testimony and addresses both the limitations in earwitness expert testimony and the hurdles it must face to meet the evidential standards of admissibility.