Abstract

The present study explores retention interval and post-event information as two potential factors of impact in eyewitness testimony; those factors have been proven scientifically long time ago, but continue to be in the shadows of criminal procedure jurisprudence. The article aims to answer two questions: (i) considering all the scientific evidence available, why do factors as retention interval and post-event information continue to be ignored by the law, and, specifically by the criminal procedure jurisprudence?; (ii) how is it possible to rearrange criminal procedures in order to consider and deal with memory retention interval and post-event information? To do so, in the first part it presents two reasons that contribute to keep those problems in the shadows (presuntivism and false dichotomy between truth and lie); in the second part, it presents the problems; and in the third part it presents three proposals to try to deal with them (immediate production, when possible, and the existence of protocols about the ways of questioning and about the need that interviews are recorded. The methodology used is the analysis of bibliography on psychology and epistemology of testimony, as well as criminal procedure jurisprudence.

Keywords
Eyewitness testimony; Evidential reasoning; Psychology of Testimony