Judicial assessment of testimonial reliability after EMDR therapy: a case-series analysis.

Introduction: Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) is a first-line psychotherapy for post-traumatic stress disorder. Despite its established clinical efficacy, concerns have been raised regarding its potential effects on autobiographical memory and testimonial reliability in judicial contexts. Given the reconstructive nature of memory, this study aimed to examine how Italian courts address EMDR when evaluating witness credibility. Methods: A targeted jurisprudential analysis was conducted using the DeJure legal database. Final decisions of the Italian Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione) issued up to January 2026 were retrieved and screened to identify rulings in which EMDR therapy was explicitly mentioned and played a forensically relevant role in the assessment of testimonial credibility, memory reliability, or evidentiary reasoning. Eligible cases were required to constitute final, non-appealable rulings and to include substantive judicial or expert discussion of EMDR. Two researchers independently screened, selected, and analyzed the decisions according to predefined inclusion criteria, applying a qualitative case-series approach. Results: Five Supreme Court decisions met the inclusion criteria, all involving criminal proceedings with minor victims and credibility assessment. EMDR was primarily raised by the defense as a potential source of memory alteration. The Court consistently rejected categorical assumptions of reduced testimonial reliability. Instead, it required concrete, case-specific evidence of memory distortion. Where credibility was questioned, judicial criticism focused on procedural and methodological deficiencies, particularly inadequate documentation, and insufficient separation between therapeutic and investigative roles. Discussion: Italian Supreme Court jurisprudence reflects a cautious and context-sensitive approach to testimony following EMDR. The therapy is recognized as clinically legitimate and is not considered intrinsically suggestive. Judicial concerns are directed toward procedural safeguards and transparency rather than the therapeutic technique itself. These findings support a case-by-case evaluation model and highlight the importance of rigorous clinical documentation and role differentiation in forensic settings.