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

a-8-08.opn.html
eyewitness identification. See Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 97 S. Ct. 2243, 53 L.
Ed.2d 140 (1977); State v. Madison, 109 N.J. 223 (1988). The test requires courts to
determine first if police identification procedures were impermissibly suggestive; if so, courts
then weigh five reliability factors to decide if the identification evidence is nonetheless
admissible. The court found that there was “nothing in this case that was improper, and
certainly nothing that was so suggestive as to result in a substantial likelihood of
misidentification at all.” The court also noted that Womble displayed no doubts about his
identification, that he had the opportunity to view defendant at the crime scene, and that
Womble fixed his attention on defendant “because he had a gun on him.”
At trial, additional evidence relevant to Womble’s identification was adduced. This
included Womble’s testimony about his ingestion of crack cocaine and alcohol on the night of
the shooting; that the lighting was dark in the hallway where Womble and defendant
interacted; and that Womble remembered looking at the gun pointed at his chest. Womble also
admitted that he smoked about two bags of crack cocaine each day from the time of the
shooting until speaking with police ten days later. Womble also testified that when he first
looked at the photo array, he did not see anyone he recognized. To make a final identification,
Womble said that he “really had to search deep.” He was nonetheless “sure” of his
identification. Womble identified defendant from the witness stand.
Neither Clark nor defendant testified at trial. The primary evidence against defendant
was Womble’s identification and the detective’s testimony about defendant’s post-arrest
statement. At the close of trial, the court relied on the existing model jury charge on
eyewitness identification. Defendant did not object to the charge. The jury acquitted defendant
of murder and aggravated manslaughter charges, and convicted him of reckless manslaughter,
aggravated assault, and weapons charges. He was sentenced to an aggregate eleven-year term
subject to a parole ineligibility period of almost six years.
The Appellate Division reversed, presuming that the identification procedure in this
case was impermissibly suggestive under the first prong of the Manson/Madison test. The
court remanded for a new Wade hearing to determine whether the identification was
nonetheless reliable under the test’s second prong. The panel anchored its finding to what it
considered to be a material breach of the Attorney General Guidelines for Preparing and
Conducting Photo and Live Lineup Identification Procedures. Among other things, the
Guidelines require that “whenever practical, the person conducting the photographic
identification procedure should be someone other than the primary investigator assigned to the
case.” The panel found that the investigating officers “consciously and deliberately intruded
into the process for the purpose of assisting or influencing Womble’s identification of
defendant.” In such circumstances, the panel “conclude[d] that a presumption of impermissible
suggestiveness must be imposed, and a new Wade hearing conducted.”
The Supreme Court granted the State’s petition for certification, 195 N.J. 521 (2008),
and also granted leave to appear as amicus curiae to the Association of Criminal Defense
Lawyers of New Jersey and the Innocence Project. In their briefs and oral argument, the
parties and amici raised questions about possible shortcomings in the Manson/Madison test in
light of recent scientific research. The Supreme Court remanded the case and appointed the
Honorable Geoffrey Gaulkin, P.J.A.D. (retired and temporarily assigned on recall) to preside
at the remand hearing as a Special Master to evaluate the scientific and other evidence about
eyewitness identifications. The Special Master presided over a hearing that probed testimony
by seven experts and produced more than 2,000 pages of transcripts along with hundreds of
scientific studies. The Special Master later issued an extensive and very fine report, much of
which the Court adopts.
http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/courts/supreme/a-8-08.opn.html[4/15/2013 6:04:23 PM]