Process and outcome considerations in juror evaluation of eyewitness testimony.

Responds to comments by G. L. Wells (see record 1985-20040-001) on the present authors' (see record 1984-06612-001) argument that current empirical findings on perception and memory do not justify a role for psychologists in evaluating eyewitness testimony. The present authors argue that Wells's statements on process and outcome confuse the outcome of an individual trial and trials in the aggregate. The question of whether jurors tend to overbelieve eyewitness testimony is discussed. (4 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)