From a psychological perspective, eyewitness research is found to be lacking. The primary fault lies in the limited theoretical integration of the research findings. While the data that have been acquired provide a number of fascinating insights into how human beings perform in real-life situations, understanding of the processes mediating this performance remains minimal. A second psychological shortcoming is the lack of integration of the memory performance of eyewitnesses with an understanding of the processes of perception and attention. However, research has demonstrated that eyewitness performance is substantially different qualitatively and quantitatively from what the average person would predict. The view of human memory that emerges from this research stands in contrast to the lay model of memory. Considering that eyewitness testimony can frequently play a central role in court proceedings, the relevant psychological knowledge should be made available to the criminal justice system. The best vehicle to accomplish this is difficult to determine. Psychologists may have to serve as expert witnesses in this field to communicate their knowledge to judges and jurors, taking care to present the full picture of current knowledge. The shortcomings of the research must not be avoided. A note and 30 references are included. (Author abstract modified)