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

a-8-08.opn.html
The Attorney General Guidelines are thorough and exacting. We once again
commend the Attorney General’s Office for responding to important social
scientific evidence and promoting the reliability of eyewitness identifications.
See Delgado, supra, 188 N.J. at 62; see also Romero, supra, 191 N.J. at 74. Since
2001, when the recommended Guidelines went into effect, they may well have
prevented wrongful convictions.
However, the Guidelines are a series of recommended best practices. The
Attorney General expressly noted that identifications that do not follow the
recommended Guidelines should not be deemed “inadmissible or otherwise in
error.” AG Farmer Letter, supra, at 3. Although the State argues that the Court
should defer to other branches of government to deal with the evolving social
scientific landscape, it remains the Court’s obligation to guarantee that
constitutional requirements are met, and to ensure the integrity of criminal
trials. See Romero, supra, 191 N.J. at 74-75 (citing court’s supervisory authority
under N.J. Const. art. VI, § 2, 3); Delgado, supra, 188 N.J. at 62 (same); see
also State v. Daniels, 182 N.J. 80, 95-96 (2004).
Other state and local authorities have instituted similar changes to their
eyewitness identification procedures. In 2005, for example, the Attorney
General of Wisconsin issued a set of identification guidelines recommending,
among other things, “double-blind, sequential photo arrays and lineups with
non-suspect fillers chosen to minimize suggestiveness, non-biased instructions
to eyewitnesses, and assessments of confidence immediately after
identifications.” Office of the Attorney Gen., Wis. Dep’t of Justice, Model Policy
and Procedure for Eyewitness Identification 1 (2005); see also Dallas Police
Dep’t, Dallas Police Department General Order § 304.01 (2009);
Denver Police Dep’t, Operations Manual § 104.44 (2006); Police Chiefs’ Ass’n
of Santa Clara County, Line-up Protocol for Law Enforcement (2002).
North Carolina was among the first states to pass legislation mandating,
among other things, pre-lineup instructions and blind and sequential lineup
administration. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-284.50 to .53. Illinois, Maryland,
Ohio, West Virginia, and Wisconsin have passed similar laws regarding lineup
practices. See 725 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/107A-5; Md. Code Ann., Pub. Safety § 3-
506; Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2933.83; W. Va. Code Ann. § 62-1E-1 to -3; Wis.
http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/courts/supreme/a-8-08.opn.html[4/15/2013 6:04:23 PM]