Memory Under Fire Slides Memory on the Stand
Forensic Psychology & The Misinformation Effect
Case Study: Cognitive Malleability
Immediate Debrief
"What Just Happened?"
The Objective
Without consulting your peers, document every detail of the person who just entered this room.
Physical description (height, age, hair)
Clothing and accessories
Specific actions and duration
"Memory is not like a video recording; it is a reconstructive process."
— Elizabeth Loftus
The Misinformation Effect
Exposure to misleading information between an event and its subsequent recall can corrupt the original memory.
Key Mechanism
Source Monitoring Error: Failing to distinguish between what was witnessed and what was suggested later.
The "Smash" vs "Hit" Experiment
"About how fast were the cars going when they ________ each other?"
Smashed Hit
Smashed: 40.5 mph + glass recall
Why It Matters
False Convictions
Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions overturned by DNA testing (approx. 70%).
Judicial Weight
Juries find eyewitness testimony extremely persuasive, often overestimating its accuracy regardless of confidence levels.
Systemic Reform
Understanding cognitive limits leads to better police protocols (the focus of our next lesson).
Can We Create Entirely False Memories?
Through suggestive interviewing, Loftus and Pickrell (1995) convinced 25% of participants they had been lost in a shopping mall as a child—an event that never occurred.
Implication: Memory is suggestive, subjective, and malleable.
Witness Report Worksheet Incident Witness Report
Metropolitan University Forensic Psychology Dept.
Case No. 2026-EYEWIT-01
Witness Name (Reporting Officer)
Date of Incident
January 17, 2026
Section I: Suspect Description
Estimated Height
Estimated Age
Hair Color/Style
Facial Features/Marks
Eye Color
Build (Thin/Athletic/Large)
Section II: Attire & Accessories
Outerwear (Jacket, Hoodie, Shirt color/logo)
Accessories (Hat, Glasses, Backpack, Jewelry)
Section III: Statement of Events
Describe the sequence of actions as accurately as possible. Include any words spoken by the suspect.
Section IV: Reliability Self-Assessment
On a scale of 1-10, how confident are you in the accuracy of your description?
1 (Not Confident)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
10 (Certain)
Confidential Legal Document - Educational Use Only
Identification Problem Slides The Identification Problem
Lineup Protocols & Interviewing Psychology
Systemic Reform Procedural Justice
The Cognitive Trap
Relative Judgment
Witnesses tend to choose the person who looks most like the perpetrator relative to other members of the lineup.
The Problem
If the real perp is absent, the relative judgment process still yields a positive ID—a false identification .
Standard Simultaneous Lineup
System Variables: Lineup Structure
A
Simultaneous
All suspects shown at once. Encourages relative judgment .
B
Sequential
Suspects shown one at a time. Requires an absolute judgment for each.
NEXT
The AP-LS Recommendations
Double-Blind Admin
The officer administering the lineup must not know who the suspect is to prevent subtle cueing.
Warning Instructions
"The perpetrator may or may not be present in the lineup."
Fair Fillers
Fillers must match the witness’s initial description, not just the physical appearance of the suspect.
Confidence Statement
Record confidence immediately after the ID to prevent confidence inflation over time.
Retrieval Strategies: The Cognitive Interview (CI)
Context Reinstatement
Mentally returning to the scene (sights, sounds, feelings).
Report Everything
Encouraging even trivial details that might trigger larger memories.
Varied Order
Recalling events in reverse or starting from the middle.
Change Perspective
Imagine the scene from a different physical location.
Lineup Reform Checklist Lineup Reform Checklist
Evaluation Tool for Systemic Identification Reform
Lesson 02: Procedure
Evaluator Name
Date of Evaluation
Instructions: Use this checklist to evaluate the police lineup procedures shown in the simulation or case file. For each criteria, mark whether the protocol was followed and provide a brief justification based on psychological principles of memory and social influence.
1. Blind Administration
YES NO
Was the officer unaware of the suspect's identity to prevent cues or feedback?
2. Instruction Warning
YES NO
Did the witness hear that the "suspect may or may not be present"?
3. Functional Size (Fair Fillers)
YES NO
Do all lineup members (usually 5-6) fit the witness's original description?
4. Immediate Confidence Statement
YES NO
Was confidence recorded in the witness's own words at the moment of ID?
Recommendation for the Detective:
Based on your evaluation, what is the single most critical procedural change needed to improve the reliability of this identification?
Data based on American Psychology-Law Society (AP-LS) Scientific Recommendations.
Coerced Truths Slides Coerced Truths
The Psychology of False Confessions
The Power of Persuasion
Interrogation Psychology
"The confession is the 'gold standard' of evidence. Once a jury hears it, almost no other evidence matters—even if the confession is demonstrably false."
The Paradox
Why would an innocent person admit to a crime they didn't commit? To the average juror, it seems impossible. To a psychologist, it is a predictable outcome of high-pressure social influence.
Interrogation Goals
Break down resistance
Increase psychological distress
Offer a "way out" (Minimization)
The Reid Technique: A 9-Step Process
1. Confrontation
Asserting the suspect's guilt as an absolute fact. Presenting (sometimes false) evidence.
2. Theme Development
Creating excuses or justifications for the crime to make confession feel "easier" (Minimization).
3. Stopping Denials
Interrupting any attempt to say "I didn't do it." Denials are treated as proof of guilt.
4. Overcoming Objections
Turning "I couldn't have done it" into a reason why they actually did.
5. The Choice
"Did you plan this, or was it an accident?" (Both options admit guilt).
6. Admission
Getting the suspect to verbally agree to the "face-saving" theme.
Taxonomy of Admissions (Kassin, 1997)
Voluntary
Made without any external pressure. Usually for fame, protection of others, or underlying pathology (e.g., the Black Dahlia case).
Coerced-Compliant
The suspect knows they are innocent but confesses to end the interrogation, escape a threat, or gain a promised reward.
Coerced-Internalized
The suspect actually comes to believe they committed the crime—often following memory-distrust or false evidence presentation.
Who is at Risk?
Age & Development
Juveniles are significantly more likely to falsely confess due to suggestibility and lack of foresight.
Cognitive Impairment
Individuals with low IQ or mental health issues are highly susceptible to coercive tactics.
The DNA Reality
False confessions are present in 25% of DNA exoneration cases.
Interrogation Analysis Worksheet Interrogation Analysis
Forensic Psychology Case Review
Status
CONFESSION UNDER REVIEW
Investigating Student
Date of Review
Observation Task
As you observe the interrogation footage, identify specific markers of the Reid Technique . Note the timing and the suspect's verbal and non-verbal reactions to these high-pressure social influence tactics.
01
Confrontation & Denials
How did the investigator assert guilt? How did they react when the suspect attempted to deny the charges?
Investigator Actions
Suspect Reactions
02
Theme Development & Minimization
What "face-saving" story did the investigator offer? How did this make the crime seem "less bad" or accidental?
Theme Details & Moral Justification Provided
03
The Alternative Question
Identify the "choice" offered to the suspect. Why is this considered a "forced choice" in legal psychology?
Specific Phrasing of the Choice
Psychological Classification
Based on your observations, if this confession were to be proven false later by DNA, which category would it likely fall into? Justify your answer.
Voluntary
Coerced-Compliant
Coerced-Internalized
Justification of Classification
Metropolitan University | Forensic Psychology Lab | Session 03
Picking the Panel Slides Picking the Panel
The Social Psychology of Jury Selection
Voir Dire: "To Speak the Truth"
Legal Purpose
To identify and remove jurors who cannot be impartial or who hold biases that would prevent a fair trial.
Psychological Purpose
To identify "pro-prosecution" or "pro-defense" leanings and build a rapport with the jury from the very first moment.
It's not about selecting a jury—it's about de-selection.
Removing Potential Jurors
!
Challenge for Cause
Requires a specific legal reason why the juror cannot be fair (e.g., related to a party, clear bias).
UNLIMITED QUANTITY
Peremptory Challenge
Removal for no stated reason . Based on attorney intuition, demographic profiles, or behavioral cues.
LIMITED QUANTITY (VARIES BY JURISDICTION)
Scientific Jury Selection (SJS)
Community Surveys
Attorneys survey the local population to find correlations between demographics and verdict leanings.
Focus Groups
Testing case themes on a sample audience to see which arguments "stick" with different types of people.
In-Court Monitoring
Psychologists observe non-verbal behavior (body language, eye contact) during questioning.
"Is SJS more effective than attorney intuition? The research is mixed, but the perceived advantage in high-stakes trials is massive."
Constitutional Guardrails
Batson v. Kentucky (1986)
Peremptory challenges cannot be used to exclude jurors solely based on race (later extended to gender ).
The "Race-Neutral" Requirement
Voir Dire Simulation Activity Voir Dire Simulation
Scientific Jury Selection & Strategy
Simulation Lab 04
The Case: State v. Marcus Thorne
Defendant: Marcus Thorne, 24, a local tech developer with no prior criminal record.
Charges: Felony possession of proprietary code and trade secret theft from a major corporation. The defense argues Thorne was a whistleblower exposing privacy violations.
Defense Goal
Find jurors who value privacy over corporate property; anti-establishment leaning.
Prosecution Goal
Find jurors who value contract law, property rights, and corporate stability.
The Potential Jurors (The Venire)
01
Name Sarah L.
Occ CEO, Marketing Firm
Voir Dire Response "Proprietary information is the lifeblood of business. Without it, there is no innovation."
02
Name James M.
Occ University Librarian
Voir Dire Response "Information should be free. I worry about how much power these big tech companies have over our data."
03
Name Robert K.
Occ Retired Police Officer
Voir Dire Response "A crime is a crime. If you sign a contract, you follow the law. It's that simple."
04
Name Elena V.
Occ Freelance Writer
Voir Dire Response "I believe individuals have a moral duty to expose wrongdoing, even if it means breaking some rules."
Strategic Questioning
Draft two specific questions you would ask the pool to uncover latent bias toward "whistleblowing."
Question 1
Question 2
Peremptory Strikes
You have TWO strikes. Which jurors do you remove and why? (Assume you are the Prosecution ).
X
Strike #1: Juror Name/No.
Justification
X
Strike #2: Juror Name/No.
Justification
Metropolitan University | Psychology of the Courtroom Simulation
Deliberation Dynamics Slides Deliberation Dynamics
Social Influence in the Jury Room
Conformity on the Panel
Informational Influence
Changing one's mind because others provide compelling evidence or logic. ("They must know something I don't." )
Normative Influence
Conforming to the group to avoid social rejection or conflict. ("I'll just go along with them so we can go home." )
Research shows that the initial first-ballot vote predicts the final verdict in roughly 90% of cases.
The "Majoritarian" Rule
Group Polarization
When people with similar leanings deliberate, their initial opinions become stronger and more extreme .
Shift Toward Extremity
The Lenience Bias
In criminal trials, deliberation often produces a shift toward "not guilty"—partially due to the "reasonable doubt" standard.
Legal Constraints
Unlike social groups, juries are bound by specific instructions which can (sometimes) mitigate polarization.
Power of the Holdout
Case Study: 12 Angry Men
How does a single juror sway a group of 11?
Consistency over time
Confidence in presentation
Appearing unbiased and logical
"One man is dead. Another man's life is at stake. If there is a reasonable doubt... you must bring me a verdict of Not Guilty."
Structure & Leadership
The Foreperson Effect
• Usually selected quickly (low-level social status cues).
• Speaks disproportionately more (25-35% of the time).
• Influences the process (order of speakers) more than the outcome .
Jury Size: 6 vs 12
• 12-person juries deliberate longer.
• 12-person juries are more likely to contain minorities.
• 12-person juries reach better evidence recall.
Group Size Matters: More heads are better than one—statistically.
Jury Room Observer Guide Jury Room Observer Guide
Deliberation Dynamics & Social Influence
Observation Type
Minority Influence Analysis
Student Observer
Simulation Date
Task: As you observe the mock jury or film clip, track how the group moves from their initial vote split to a final verdict. Focus on the social influence tactics used by both the majority and any dissenting minority members.
1
Initial State of the Panel
Vote Split (e.g., 11 Guilty / 1 Not Guilty)
/
Climate of the Room (Aggressive, Calm, Bored?)
2
Tactics of Persuasion
Informational Influence
Identify a moment where a juror changed their mind due to a specific piece of evidence or logical argument.
Normative Influence
Identify a moment where social pressure, bullying, or the desire for consensus forced a juror to change their vote.
3
Minority Influence Analysis
If a "holdout" juror exists, what specific psychological behaviors made them effective (or ineffective)? Reference consistency , confidence , and neutrality .
4
Post-Verdict Reflection
Did the group demonstrate 'Group Polarization'? Explain.
How did the Foreperson manage the flow of the discussion? Was it balanced?
Metropolitan University | Social Psychology of the Courtroom | Lesson 05
