Document Type
Article
Citation Information
Please cite to the original publication
Abstract
T HE common legal assumptions in regard to memory come
most clearly to the surface in the rules governing present
recollection revived, past recollection recorded, and cross-examination
to impeach. Between the first two, sharp distinctions are
drawn which result partly from the fact that a memorandum used
to refresh recollection generally does not go to the jury as evidence
- whereas a memorandum of past recollection does - and
partly from the psychological theories of the courts.
Date of Authorship for this Version
1928
Keywords
law, memory, evidence