The legal application of theories of human memory and the results of basic memory research are fundamental to improving the accuracy of all steps in the legal process, from initial investigations of crimes to court rulings and jury verdicts. Failure to identify false eyewitness reports, for example, may result in the conviction of innocent defendants and the acquittal of the guilty. Reliance on empirically validated theoretical principles and basic research fi ndings is critical because our intuitions about how memory works are often wrong (Benton, Ross, Bradshaw, Thomas, & Bradshaw, 2006; Kassin & Barndollar, 1992). For instance, most people assume that reports that are consistent over time are more likely to be true than reports that are inconsistent, but that notion has been challenged by experiments on the long-term stability of true and false memories (Brainerd, Reyna, & Brandse, 1995; Toglia, Neuschatz, & Goodwin, 1999) and by experiments on how mere memory tests affect true and false memories (Brainerd & Reyna, 1996; McDermott, 2006). Actual research fi ndings and validated theoretical principles are antidotes for such mistaken intuitions, providing a scientifi cally substantiated basis for forensic analysis.