Psychologists have long been concerned about the use of eyewitness testimony in the courtroom. Recently, it has been suggested that psychologists should testify as expert witnesses to inform the jury about problems with eyewitness testimony. This article examines the arguments in favor of expert testimony about eyewitnesses, but concludes that evidence does not support such testimony. It is suggested that experimental psychologists should carefully consider the issues raised when deciding whether to offer expert testimony. Footnotes, 6 notes, and 34 references. (Author abstract modified)