Investigations after critical events often depend on accurate and detailed recall accounts from operational witnesses (e.g., law enforcement officers, military personnel, and emergency responders). However, the challenging, and often stressful, nature of such events, together with the cognitive demands imposed on operational witnesses as a function of their active role, may impair subsequent recall. We compared the recall performance of operational active witnesses with that of nonoperational observer witnesses for a challenging simulated scenario involving an armed perpetrator. Seventy-six police officers participated in pairs. In each pair, 1 officer (active witness) was armed and instructed to respond to the scenario as they would in an operational setting, while the other (observer witness) was instructed to simply observe the scenario. All officers then completed free reports and responded to closed questions. Active witnesses showed a pattern of heart rate activity consistent with an increased stress response during the event, and subsequently reported significantly fewer correct details about the critical phase of the scenario. The level of stress experienced during the scenario mediated the effect of officer role on memory performance. Across the sample, almost one-fifth of officers reported that the perpetrator had pointed a weapon at them although the weapon had remained in the waistband of the perpetrator’s trousers throughout the critical phase of the encounter. These findings highlight the need for investigator awareness of both the impact of operational involvement and stress-related effects on memory for ostensibly salient details, and reflect the importance of careful and ethical information elicitation techniques.

Purpose This study examined the effects of note taking on juror recall of trial information and, specifically, investigated whether providing mock jurors with a pre‐structured Trial‐Ordered Notebook (TON) was more beneficial for subsequent recall than freestyle note taking by jurors. Previous research has demonstrated some benefits of freestyle note taking. However, drawing on theories relating to note taking developed in educational contexts, we predicted that providing jurors with a note taking aid designed to follow the trial structure would facilitate enhanced performance on a subsequent recall task. Method Community‐based participants served as mock jurors in a criminal trial and were permitted to take notes during the trial, using either the structured TON or plain paper (‘freestyle’ note taking) although participants in a control condition were not permitted to take notes. After watching the trial video, all participants reached an individual verdict and responded to cued recall questions concerning details of the trial. Results Mock jurors using the TON to take notes correctly recorded significantly more legally relevant details during the trial and reported more correct information in the post‐trial recall task than participants who took unaided notes (or those who made no notes at all). TON participants also reported more relevant legal information correctly in the recall task and evaluated their experience of note taking more positively than those in the free note taking condition. Conclusions The findings are discussed in relation to differences in individual experience of taking notes and the benefits that may accrue from an innovative juror aid such as the Trial‐Ordered Notebook.