At the turn of the century, psychologists started to discover that eyewitness testimony was not as reliable as once thought. The findings have largely remained unincorporated into the legal process, resulting in miscarriages of justice. Drawing on the psychological research, and a reliabilist framework of doxastic justification, the author derives a sample set of epistemic norms to replace our unscientific colloquial norms; arguing that empirically backed norms, in addition to addressing legal injustices, would also go a long way towards addressing epistemic injustices.