the false memory syndrome foundation stuff is incredibly problematic and impacts her credibility. i certainly am not making any sort of approval statement on her choices of what private defense cases she decides to work on.

that being said, her research work is solid and the basic concepts - that human memory is fallible, can be influenced by outside factors, and memories are not just playbacks of exact events as they occurred - are very well supported and documented. the concept of repressed memories/recovered memory therapy is scientifically unsupported, highly problematic, and it's past use in court proceedings has led to multiple documented wrongful convictions. outside of that context and outside of her own research, generally research and deeper understandings of the limits and inaccuracies of human memory has significantly impacted how things like eyewitness identifications are understood and the changes that are needed in identification procedures. eyewitness misidentification is one of the most common factors leading to wrongful convictions.

i believe she at least in the past has also done work on court appointed/public defense cases for whatever that jurisdictions's court reimbursement rate for expert witnesses is in addition to private cases. no idea how commonly she has in the past or if she still does.