Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law

Further Readings

Benton, T. P., McDonnell, S., Ross, D., Thomas, W. N., &

Bradshaw, E. (2007). Has eyewitness testimony research

penetrated the American legal system? A synthesis of case

history, juror knowledge, and expert testimony.In

R. C. L. Lindsay, D. W. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. P. Toglia

(Eds.),Handbook of eyewitness psychology: Vol. 2.

Memory for people. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Benton, T. R., Ross, D. F., Bradshaw, E., Thomas, W. N., &

Bradshaw, G. S. (2006). Eyewitness memory is still not

common sense: Comparing jurors, judges, and law

enforcement to eyewitness experts. Applied Cognitive

Psychology, 20,115–130.

Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. D. (1995). Mistaken

identification: The eyewitness, psychology, and the law.

New York: Cambridge University Press.

Devenport, J. L., Penrod, S. D., & Cutler, B. L. (1997).

Eyewitness identification evidence: Evaluating

commonsense evaluations. Psychology, Public Policy, and

Law, 3,338–361.

Kassin, S. M., Tubb, V. A., Hosch, H. M., & Memon, A.

(2001). On the “general acceptance” of eyewitness

testimony research. American Psychologist, 56,405–416.

Schmechel, R. S., O’Toole, T. P., Easterly, C., & Loftus, E. F.

(2006). Beyond the ken? Testing jurors’ understanding of

eyewitness reliability evidence. Jurimetrics, 46,177–214.

Eyewitness Memory, Lay Beliefs About——— 303

E-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:42 PM Page 303