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

a-8-08.opn.html
the lineup member that best matches their memory. See id. at 469. Those
researchers note that “[t]o the extent any difference . . . is due to correct
guessing, there is no reason to recommend simultaneous lineups.” Ibid.
Other experts, including Dr. Malpass, are unconvinced. They believe that
researchers have not yet clearly shown that sequential presentation is the
“active ingredient” in reducing misidentifications. Roy S. Malpass et al., Public
Policy and Sequential Lineups, 14 Legal & Criminological Psychol. 1, 5-6
(2009); Dawn McQuiston-Surrett et al., Sequential vs. Simultaneous Lineups: A
Review of Methods, Data, and Theory, 12 Psychol. Pub. Pol’y & L. 137, 163
(2006) (“[W]e believe that current explanations for why sequential presentation
should reduce both mistaken identifications and correct identifications are
underdeveloped.”); see also Scott D. Gronlund et al., Robustness of the
Sequential Lineup Advantage, 15 J. Experimental Psychol.: Applied 140, 149
(2009) (“Based on our study [of more than 2,000 participants], the sequential
advantage does not appear to be a robust finding.”). 8
As research in this field continues to develop, a clearer answer
may emerge. For now, there is insufficient, authoritative evidence
accepted by scientific experts for a court to make a finding in
favor of either procedure. See Rubanick, supra, 125 N.J. at 432,
449. As a result, we do not limit either one at this time.
7. Composites
When a suspect is unknown, eyewitnesses sometimes work with artists
who draw composite sketches. Composites can also be prepared with the aid of
computer software or non-computerized “tool kits” that contain picture
libraries of facial features. Gary L. Wells & Lisa E. Hasel, Facial Composite
Production by Eyewitnesses, 16 Current Directions Psychol. Sci. 6, 6-7 (2007).
As the Special Master observed, based on the record, “composites
produce poor results.” In one study, college freshman used computer software
to generate composites of students and teachers from their high schools.
Margaret Bull Kovera et al., Identification of Computer-Generated Facial
Composites, 82 J. Applied Psychol. 235, 239 (1997). Different students who
had attended the same schools were only able to name 3 of the 500 people
http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/courts/supreme/a-8-08.opn.html[4/15/2013 6:04:23 PM]