John Wixted

The jury was convinced he was found guilty and sentenced to death.

He's been on death row for more than 25 years where he remains to this day.

And in all those years, no jury even heard what the witness did on the first test of her uncontaminated memory, much less about the new scientific consensus emphasizing the importance of focusing on that first test because that's where the reliable information is.

So you see, this isn't just an academic exercise.

It's about exonerating the wrongfully convicted, some of whom are on death row, and about preventing wrongful convictions from happening in the first place.

It's about understanding that memory is not an enemy to be distrusted, but a complex tool that, when properly used, can serve the cause of justice.

The reforms that need to be made going forward seem pretty clear.

Number one,

In both police investigations and legal proceedings, prioritize the first test of the witness's uncontaminated memory because that's where the reliable information is.

Number two, at the same time, de-emphasize confident suspect identifications made by a witness who earlier rejected that same face because that likely reflects memory contamination, not the truth.

And number three, to get these reforms underway, educate legal professionals.

police chiefs, defense attorneys, prosecutors, judges, about the new science of eyewitness memory.

Over the last couple of years, my colleagues and I have been doing just that, reaching out to defense attorneys and prosecutors alike to bring this new understanding to the legal system.

We find that, initially at least, defense attorneys are alarmed by this new message because they're uncomfortable with the idea that eyewitness memory can ever be reliable.

To them, listening to what an eyewitness has to say, even on the very first test of their uncontaminated memory, is just a recipe for another wrongful conviction.

And prosecutors, they're equally alarmed, but for the opposite reason.

To them, not listening to a witness who makes a confident suspect identification after previously rejecting that same face sounds like a recipe for letting the guilty walk free.

So we've managed to bring both sides of the aisle together in a way to both the defense and the prosecution.

Our new message sounds dangerous, but it's not dangerous.

It's just how memory works.