From the land that's known for prolific winter birding sites, great summer tomatoes, and being a trailblazer in criminal law - my home state of New Jersey - comes precedent setting changes from the Supreme Court on handling and accepting eyewitness testimony.
Benjamin Weiser writing for the August 25, 2011 NYTimes, "In New Jersey, Sweeping Shift on Witness Identifications," reports about a significant shift in laws that make it easier for defendants to challenge evidence, mandate judges to inform jurors about eyewitness mis-identification, and come at a critical time when eyewitness identification is under scrutiny for wrongful convictions.
What makes this new set of rules unique? The changes are under-girded by an exhaustive review of the literature that points to eyewitness identification as the leading cause of wrongful convictions across the country. Excerpt.
"The State Supreme Court’s ruling was seen as significant because it was based in part on an exhaustive study of the scientific research on eyewitness identification, led by a special master, a retired judge, who held hearings and led a review of the literature on the issue. The special master, Geoffrey Gaulkin, estimated that more than 2,000 studies related to the subject had been published since the Supreme Court’s original 1977 decision, the court noted.
“Study after study revealed a troubling lack of reliability in eyewitness identifications,” Chief Justice Rabner wrote. “From social science research to the review of actual police lineups, from laboratory experiments to DNA exonerations, the record proves that the possibility of mistaken identification is real."
From a practical standpoint, there are more than a dozen factors that judges should consider when faced with the question of the reliability of eyewitness identification, such as:
- whether a weapon was visible during a crime of short duration,
- the amount of time the witness had to observe the event,
- how close the witness was to the suspect,
- whether the witness was under the influence of alcohol or drugs,
- whether the witness was identifying someone of a different race, and
- the length of time that had elapsed between the crime and the identification.
New laws always cut both ways. I am curious to know who will enforce the new laws in the spirit in which they were intended and according to the letter as they were written. Whether these new laws will discourage eyewitnesses from coming forward. Or, whether feeling intimidated by the judge's hearing will eyewitnesses hesitate to offer what they "believe" they saw?
Meanwhile, "Attaboy, Jersey!"
Recent Comments