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

a-8-08.opn.html
today). As to future cases, today’s ruling will take effect thirty days from the
date this Court approves new model jury charges on eyewitness identification.
XIII. Conclusion
At the core of our system of criminal justice is the “twofold aim . . . that guilt
shall not escape or innocence suffer.” Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88,
55 S. Ct. 629, 633, 79 L. Ed. 1314, 1321 (1935). In the context of eyewitness
identification evidence, that means that courts must carefully consider
identification evidence before it is admitted to weed out unreliable
identifications, and that juries must receive thorough instructions tailored to
the facts of the case to be able to evaluate the identification evidence they hear.
To be effective, both tasks cannot rely on a dated, analytical framework that
has lost some of its vitality. Rather, they must be informed by sound evidence
on memory and eyewitness identification, which is generally accepted by the
relevant scientific community. Only then can courts fulfill their obligation both
to defendants and the public.
The modified framework to evaluate eyewitness identification evidence in
this opinion attempts to meet that challenge. It relies on the developments of
the last thirty years of science to promote fair trials and ensure the integrity of
the judicial process.
The framework avoids bright-line rules that would lead to suppression of
reliable evidence any time a law enforcement officer makes a mistake. Instead,
it allows for a more complete exploration of system and estimator variables to
preclude sufficiently unreliable identifications from being presented and to aid
juries in weighing identification evidence.
We add that enhanced hearings are not meant to be the norm in every case.
They will only be held when defendants allege some evidence of suggestiveness,
and even then, courts retain the power to end a hearing if the testimony reveals
that defendant’s claim of suggestiveness is entirely baseless.
We also expect that in the vast majority of cases, identification evidence will
likely be presented to the jury. The threshold for suppression remains high.
Juries will therefore continue to determine the reliability of eyewitness
identification evidence in most instances, with the benefit of cross-examination
http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/courts/supreme/a-8-08.opn.html[4/15/2013 6:04:23 PM]