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

a-8-08.opn.html
Laboratory studies offer mixed results. Compare Steven M. Smith et al.,
Postdictors of Eyewitness Errors: Can False Identifications Be Diagnosed?, 85
J. Applied Psychol. 542, 542 (2000) (noting “[d]ecision time and lineup
fairness were the best postdictors of accuracy”), and David Dunning & Scott
Perretta, Automaticity and Eyewitness Accuracy: A 10- to 12-Second Rule for
Distinguishing Accurate from Inaccurate Positive Identifications, 87 J. Applied
Psychol. 951, 959 (2002) (finding across four studies that identifications were
nearly 90% accurate when witnesses identified targets within ten to twelve
seconds of seeing a lineup), with Ross et al., supra, at 688 (noting that rapid
identifications were only 59%, not 90%, accurate and finding twenty-five
seconds to be “time boundary” between accurate and inaccurate
identifications).
Because of the lack of consensus in the scientific community, we make no
finding on this issue. See Rubanick, supra, 125 N.J. at 432, 449. To the
extent speed is relevant in any event, researchers also caution that it may only
be considered if the lineup is fair and unbiased. See Ross et al., supra, at 688-
89.
C. Juror Understanding
Some of the findings described above are intuitive. Everyone knows, for
instance, that bad lighting conditions make it more difficult to perceive the
details of a person’s face. Some findings are less obvious. Although many may
believe that witnesses to a highly stressful, threatening event will “never forget
a face” because of their intense focus at the time, the research suggests that is
not necessarily so. See supra at section VI.B.1.
Using survey questionnaires and mock-jury studies, experts have attempted
to discern what lay people understand, and what information about perception
and memory are beyond the ken of the average juror. Based on those studies,
the Special Master found “that laypersons are largely unfamiliar” with scientific
findings and “often hold beliefs to the contrary.” Defendant and amici agree.
The State does not. The State argues that the sources the Special Master cited
are unreliable, and that jurors generally understand how memory functions and
how it can be distorted.
http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/courts/supreme/a-8-08.opn.html[4/15/2013 6:04:23 PM]