02.05.2015 Views

State v. Henderson and the New Model Jury Charges - New Jersey ...

State v. Henderson and the New Model Jury Charges - New Jersey ...

State v. Henderson and the New Model Jury Charges - New Jersey ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

a-8-08.opn.html<br />

The consequences are clear: a non-blind lineup procedure can affect <strong>the</strong><br />

reliability of a lineup because even <strong>the</strong> best-intentioned, non-blind<br />

administrator can act in a way that inadvertently sways an eyewitness trying to<br />

identify a suspect. An ideal lineup administrator, <strong>the</strong>refore, is someone who is<br />

not investigating <strong>the</strong> particular case <strong>and</strong> does not know who <strong>the</strong> suspect is.<br />

The <strong>State</strong> underst<strong>and</strong>ably notes that police departments, no matter <strong>the</strong>ir size,<br />

have limited resources, <strong>and</strong> those limits can make it impractical to administer<br />

lineups double-blind in all cases. An alternative technique, which Dr. Wells<br />

referred to as <strong>the</strong> “envelope method,” helps address that challenge. It relies on<br />

single-blind administration: an officer who knows <strong>the</strong> suspect’s identity places<br />

single lineup photographs into different envelopes, shuffles <strong>the</strong>m, <strong>and</strong> presents<br />

<strong>the</strong>m to <strong>the</strong> witness. The officer/administrator <strong>the</strong>n refrains from looking at <strong>the</strong><br />

envelopes or pictures while <strong>the</strong> witness makes an identification. This “blinding”<br />

technique is cost-effective <strong>and</strong> can be used when resource constraints make it<br />

impractical to perform double-blind administration.<br />

We find that <strong>the</strong> failure to perform blind lineup procedures can increase <strong>the</strong><br />

likelihood of misidentification.<br />

2<br />

. Pre-identification Instructions<br />

Identification procedures should begin with instructions to <strong>the</strong> witness<br />

that <strong>the</strong> suspect may or may not be in <strong>the</strong> lineup or array <strong>and</strong> that <strong>the</strong> witness<br />

should not feel compelled to make an identification. There is a broad consensus<br />

for that conclusion. The Attorney General Guidelines currently include <strong>the</strong><br />

instruction; <strong>the</strong> Special Master considers it “uncontroversial”; <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>State</strong><br />

agrees that “[w]itness instructions are regarded as one of <strong>the</strong> most useful<br />

techniques for enhancing <strong>the</strong> reliability of identifications” (quoting <strong>the</strong> Special<br />

Master).<br />

Pre-lineup instructions help reduce <strong>the</strong> relative judgment phenomenon<br />

described in section III. Without an appropriate warning, witnesses may<br />

misidentify innocent suspects who look more like <strong>the</strong> perpetrator than o<strong>the</strong>r<br />

lineup members.<br />

http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/courts/supreme/a-8-08.opn.html[4/15/2013 6:04:23 PM]

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!