Does jury deliberation really improve jurors memories?

The courts assume that jury deliberation corrects errors in jurors' memories, so that the verdict is based on accurate memory for the trial. We evaluated the validity of this assumption by examining jurors' memories and verdicts both before and after deliberation. Unlike previous studies, we tracked how event memories changed as a function of how they were discussed in deliberation. Overall, deliberation resulted in only a slight memory improvement. Deliberation corrected errors and did not introduce distortions. Reasons for such slight memory improvement are that jurors did not think they had memory gaps and thus did not use the deliberation process to improve their memory, and jurors who controlled deliberation were not always the most accurate in their memories. Finally, those most likely to change their verdict as a result of deliberation were not those who had the least accurate memories, but rather those who had the least confidence in their memories.