Editing Repressed memory (section)

=== Legal status ===
Serious issues arise when recovered but false memories result in public allegations; false complaints carry serious consequences for the accused. A special type of false allegation, [[false memory syndrome]], arises typically within therapy, when people report the "recovery" of childhood memories of previously unknown abuse. The influence of practitioners' beliefs and practices in the eliciting of false "memories" and of false complaints has come under particular criticism.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Boakes J | title = False complaints of sexual assault: recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse | journal = Medicine, Science, and the Law | volume = 39 | issue = 2 | pages = 112–20 | date = April 1999 | pmid = 10332158 | doi = 10.1177/002580249903900205 | s2cid = 156854 }}</ref>

Some criminal cases have been based on a witness's testimony of recovered repressed memories, often of alleged childhood sexual abuse. In some jurisdictions, the [[statute of limitations]] for child abuse cases has been extended to accommodate the phenomena of repressed memories as well as other factors. The repressed memory concept came into wider public awareness in the 1980s and 1990s followed by a reduction of public attention after a series of scandals, lawsuits, and license revocations.<ref name=Robbins>{{cite journal| last = Robbins | first = Susan P. | name-list-style = vanc |title= The Social and Cultural Context of Satanic Ritual Abuse Allegations|journal=Issues in Child Abuse Accusations|volume=10|year= 1998|url=http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume10/j10_8.htm}}</ref>

A U.S. District Court accepted repressed memories as admissible evidence in a specific case.<ref>"The Validity of Recovered Memory: Decision of a US District Court" Judge Edward F. Harrington, Presentation by Jim Hopper Ph.D. The legal documentation citation is: 923 Federal Supplement 286 (D. Mass. 1996), United States District Court – District of Massachusetts Ann Shahzade, plaintiff Civil Action No.: V. 92-12139-EFH George Gregory, Defendant. {{cite web |url=http://www.jimhopper.com/memory-decision/ |title=The Validity of Recovered Memory: Decision of a US District Court |access-date=2012-06-21 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120319013757/http://www.jimhopper.com/memory-decision/ |archive-date=March 19, 2012 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> Dalenberg argues that the evidence shows that recovered memory cases should be allowed to be prosecuted in court.<ref name=Dalenberg/>

The apparent willingness of courts to credit the recovered memories of complainants but not the absence of memories by defendants has been commented on: "It seems apparent that the courts need better guidelines around the issue of dissociative amnesia in both populations."<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Porter S, Birt AR, Yuille JC, Hervé HF | title = Memory for murder. A psychological perspective on dissociative amnesia in legal contexts | journal = International Journal of Law and Psychiatry | volume = 24 | issue = 1 | pages = 23–42 | year = 2001 | pmid = 11346990 | doi = 10.1016/S0160-2527(00)00066-2 }}</ref>

In 1995, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, in ''Franklin v. Duncan'' and ''Franklin v. Fox, Murray'' ''et al''. (312 F3d. 423, see also 884 FSupp 1435, N.D. Calif.),<ref>Franklin v. Duncan Court Order https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3066228776991890480</ref> that repressed memory is not admissible as evidence in a legal action because of its unreliability, inconsistency, unscientific nature, tendency to be therapeutically induced evidence, and subject to influence by hearsay and suggestibility. The court overturned the conviction of a man accused of murdering a nine-year-old girl purely based upon the evidence of a 21-year-old repressed memory by a lone witness, who also held a complex personal grudge against the defendant.<ref name="articles.sfgate.com">{{cite news| url=https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Repressed-Memory-Case-Ruling-Appeals-court-3019095.php | archive-url=https://archive.today/20130202103042/http://articles.sfgate.com/1995-11-21/news/17820388_1_appeals-court-george-franklin-repressed-memory-testimony | url-status=live | archive-date=February 2, 2013 | work=[[The San Francisco Chronicle]] | first=Reynolds | last=Holding | name-list-style = vanc | title=Repressed Memory Case Ruling / Appeals court refuses to restore murder conviction | date=June 23, 2011}}</ref><ref>[http://www.victimsofthestate.org/CA/Franklin.htm "Victims of the State: George Franklin"]. Victimsofthestate.org.</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Articles about George Thomas Sr Franklin |url=http://articles.latimes.com/keyword/george-thomas-sr-franklin |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120625061031/http://articles.latimes.com/keyword/george-thomas-sr-franklin |url-status=dead |archive-date=June 25, 2012 | work=Los Angeles Times}}</ref>

In a 1996 ruling, a U.S. District Court allowed repressed memories entered into evidence in court cases.<ref name=USCourt1996>923 Federal Supplement 286 (D. Mass. 1996); Civil Action No. 92-12139-EFH Memorandum and Order; May 8, 1996</ref> Jennifer Freyd writes that [[Ross E. Cheit]]'s case of suddenly remembered sexual abuse is one of the most well-documented cases available for the public to see. Cheit prevailed in two lawsuits, located five additional victims and tape-recorded a confession.<ref name=Freyd/>

On December 16, 2005, the Irish Court of Criminal Appeal issued a certificate confirming a Miscarriage of Justice to a former nun, [[Nora Wall]] whose 1999 conviction for child rape was partly based on repressed-memory evidence. The judgement stated that:<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IECCA/2005/C140.html |title=D.P.P.-v- Nora Wall [2005&#93; IECCA 140 (16 December 2005) |publisher=Bailii.org |access-date=November 10, 2012}}</ref>

{{blockquote|There was no scientific evidence of any sort adduced to explain the phenomenon of "flashbacks" and/or "retrieved memory", nor was the applicant in any position to meet such a case in the absence of prior notification thereof.}}

On August 16, 2010, the United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals in a case reversed the conviction that relied on claimed victim memories of childhood abuse stating that "The record here suggests a "reasonable likelihood" that Jesse Friedman was wrongfully convicted. The "new and material evidence" in this case is the post-conviction consensus within the social science community that suggestive memory recovery tactics can create false memories" (p. 27, Friedman v. Rehal Docket No. 08-0297). The ruling goes on to order all previous convictions and plea bargains relying in repressed memories using common memory recovered techniques be reviewed.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1535102.html| title=Friedman v. Rehal [Docket No. 08-0297 (16 August 2010)]}}</ref>