A wide range of criminal cases hinge on what victims (or witnesses) remember. Does the victim remember the face of the assailant? Can we rely on what a child remembers about episodes of abuse or neglect? Can police interrogations lead to false confessions – in which the suspect reports a “memory” for crimes that actually he did not commit? For these (and other) cases, defense counsel will often seek testimony by a researcher familiar with the science of memory. Prosecutors, in turn, routinely seek to exclude this testimony. In this article, we describe memory experts’ view of motions to exclude memory experts. Specifically, we consider (and rebut) three common concerns: that the testimony will invade the province of the jury; that the testimony offers little that is beyond the jurors’ stock of common knowledge; and that expert testimony will be more prejudicial than probative. Our response to these concerns will help defenders formulate responses to motions to exclude, and can also guide the unfolding of an offer of proof if one is required.

Washington was the first state to enact RCW 71.09, allowing for the indefinite civil commitment of individuals labeled "Sexually Violent Predators" (SVPs) after serving criminal sentences. This controversial process blurs civil and criminal lines, using psychological evaluations and low evidentiary standards to justify long-term confinement.

This blog post breaks down who may be targeted, what qualifies as a "Sexually Violent Offense," how commitment proceedings unfold, and what defense attorneys can do to protect clients—starting at plea negotiations and continuing through release planning. With high stakes and complex legal terrain, defenders play a critical role in preventing unjust commitment and supporting successful community reentry.