Lessons for the courtroom from the study of Flashbulb memory: an integrative review

The flashbulb-like nature of memory for the first COVID-19 case and the impact of the emergency. A cross-national survey

Flashbulb memories (FBMs) refer to vivid and long-lasting autobiographical memories for the circumstances in which people learned of a shocking and consequential public event. A cross-national study across eleven countries aimed to investigate FBM formation following the first COVID-19 case news in each country and test the effect of pandemic-related variables on FBM. Participants had detailed memories of the date and others present when they heard the news, and had partially detailed memories of the place, activity, and news source. China had the highest FBM specificity. All countries considered the COVID-19 emergency as highly significant at both the individual and global level. The Classification and Regression Tree Analysis revealed that FBM specificity might be influenced by participants' age, subjective severity (assessment of COVID-19 impact in each country and relative to others), residing in an area with stringent COVID-19 protection measures, and expecting the pandemic effects. Hierarchical regression models demonstrated that age and subjective severity negatively predicted FBM specificity, whereas sex, pandemic impact expectedness, and rehearsal showed positive associations in the total sample. Subjective severity negatively affected FBM specificity in Turkey, whereas pandemic impact expectedness positively influenced FBM specificity in China and negatively in Denmark.

External and internal influences yield similar memory effects: the role of deception and suggestion

In legal cases, testimonies can become contaminated because of an amalgam of external and internal influences on memory. It is well-established that external influences (e.g., suggestive interviews) can hurt memory. However, less focus has been placed on the impact of internal influences (e.g., lying) on memory. In the current review, we show that the available evidence suggests that both external and internal influences exert similar effects on memory. That is, we review studies showing that suggesting non-occurrences and suggesting non-experiences can lead to omission errors and false memories, respectively. Likewise, these memory effects are also observed when focusing on internal influences. That is, false denials, feigning amnesia and fabrication have been shown to affect memory in terms of forgetting (i.e., omissions) and false memories (i.e., commissions). Also, we show that both external and internal influences can lead to changes in the belief that an event occurred. We argue that in legal cases, triers of fact should concentrate on whether both types of influences might have affected testimonial accuracy in witnesses, victims, and suspects.

Grey Matter Heterotopia and Criminal Responsibility in a Case of Personal Injury Defense

The abnormal allocation of nodules of grey matter in areas of the brain or spinal cord that should physiologically be occupied by white matter characterizes a neural defect called Grey Matter Heterotopia (GMH). The improvement of MRI techniques has enabled a deeper understanding of the neuropathological bases and epidemiology of such a condition. Among its major manifestations, there is the onset of epileptic seizures, mild intellectual disability, impairments in executive functioning, neurodevelopmental disorders; less frequently GMH has been found associated with depression, anxiety, and schizophrenia. Despite the clinical interest in GMH, no studies have considered the possible forensic and criminological implications of this condition. In the current study, we present a case of GMH in a young male defendant accused of having seriously injured a schoolmate as a reaction to bullying behavior. Neuropsychological and instrumental evidence converge in showing prevalence for the defendant's adoption of repressive responses to stressors, and difficulties to inhibit undesirable behavior at the long run. In the case at hand, the massive stress induced by the exposition to bullying behavior undermined inhibitory control, hence an impulsive and disproportionate reaction took place. Without appropriate therapeutic control, this reactive behavior might take place again. As a consequence, the forensic assessment recommended that the defendant was held partially liable only but that there was likelihood of recidivism. We discuss this single-case evidence for a possible role of GMH in the adoption of dyscontrolled responses to stressors, and the relevance of GMH diagnosis in forensic proceedings.