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

a-8-08.opn.html
evaluating eyewitness identification evidence.
C. Revised Framework
Remedying the problems with the current Manson/Madison test requires an
approach that addresses its shortcomings: one that allows judges to consider all
relevant factors that affect reliability in deciding whether an identification is
admissible; that is not heavily weighted by factors that can be corrupted by
suggestiveness; that promotes deterrence in a meaningful way; and that focuses
on helping jurors both understand and evaluate the effects that various factors
have on memory -- because we recognize that most identifications will be
admitted in evidence.
Two principal changes to the current system are needed to accomplish that:
first, the revised framework should allow all relevant system and estimator
variables to be explored and weighed at pretrial hearings when there is some
actual evidence of suggestiveness; and second, courts should develop and use
enhanced jury charges to help jurors evaluate eyewitness identification
evidence.
The new framework also needs to be flexible enough to serve twin aims: to
guarantee fair trials to defendants, who must have the tools necessary to defend
themselves, and to protect the State’s interest in presenting critical evidence at
trial. With that in mind, we first outline the revised approach for evaluating
identification evidence and then explain its details and the reasoning behind it.
First, to obtain a pretrial hearing, a defendant has the initial burden of
showing some evidence of suggestiveness that could lead to a mistaken
identification. See State v. Rodriquez, supra, 264 N.J. Super. at 269; State v.
Ortiz, supra, 203 N.J. Super. at 522; cf. State v. Michaels, 136 N.J. 299, 320
(1994) (using same standard to trigger pretrial hearing to determine if childvictim’s
statements resulted from suggestive or coercive interview techniques).
That evidence, in general, must be tied to a system -- and not an estimator --
variable. But see Chen, supra (extending right to hearing for suggestive conduct
by private actors).
Second, the State must then offer proof to show that the proffered eyewitness
http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/courts/supreme/a-8-08.opn.html[4/15/2013 6:04:23 PM]