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 ...
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]