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

Share

COinS