Opinion ID: 4027532
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Memory Decay

Text: The period between memory formation and memory recall is known as the “retention interval” and constitutes another important estimator variable. A meta-analysis of fiftythree facial memory studies found “that memory strength will be weaker at longer retention intervals than at briefer ones.”139 Most of the studies analyzed in this meta-analysis examined retention intervals of less than one month, many of them less than one week. This meta-analysis also found agreement among experts that “the rate of memory loss for an event is greatest right after an event and then levels off over time.”140 Furthermore, [t]he effect of the retention interval also is influenced by the strength and quality of the initial memory that is encoded, which, in turn, 138 Jonathan M. Fawcett et al., Of Guns and Geese: A MetaAnalytic Review of the ‘Weapon Focus’ Literature, Psychol., Crime & L. 1, 22 (2011). 139 Kenneth A. Deffenbacher et al., Forgetting the Once-Seen Face: Estimating the Strength of an Eyewitness’s Memory Representation, 14 J. Experimental Psychol.: Applied 139, 142 (2008); see also Carol Krafka & Steven Penrod, Reinstatement of Context in a Field Experiment on Eyewitness Identification, 49 J. Personality & Soc. Psychol. 58, 65 (1985) (finding a substantial increase in the misidentification rate in target-absent arrays from two to twenty-four hours after event). 140 Deffenbacher et al., Forgetting the Once-Seen Face, supra, at 143. 32 may be influenced by other estimator variables associated with witnessing the crime (such as the degree of visual attention) and viewing factors (such as distance, lighting, and exposure duration).141 The in-court identifications of Dennis were made nearly one year after the crime occurred—a very significant retention interval under the relevant studies. Research is hardly necessary to appreciate the difficulty of trying to accurately recall the details of this chaotic and traumatizing event— lasting only a matter of seconds—a year later. The jurors should have been informed of that difficulty and its possible impact on the accuracy of these identifications. They were not.