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

a-8-08.opn.html
HELD: The current legal standard for assessing eyewitness identification evidence must
be revised because it does not offer an adequate measure for reliability; does not sufficiently
deter inappropriate police conduct; and overstates the jury’s ability to evaluate identification
evidence. Two modifications to the standard are required. First, when defendants can show
some evidence of suggestiveness, all relevant system and estimator variables should be
explored at pretrial hearings. Second, the court system must develop enhanced jury charges on
eyewitness identification for trial judges to use. Defendant is entitled to a new pretrial hearing
consistent with this opinion to determine the admissibility of the eyewitness evidence
introduced at his trial.
1. This Court previously has observed that eyewitness “[m]isidentification is widely
recognized as the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions in this country.” Most
misidentifications stem from the fact that human memory is malleable; they are not the result
of malice. An array of variables can affect and dilute eyewitness memory. The recent
scientific studies that were examined in this record prove that the possibility of mistaken
identification is real, and the consequences severe. (pp. 23-34)
2. The current standards for determining the admissibility of eyewitness identification
evidence derive from the principles the United States Supreme Court set forth in Manson in
1977. New Jersey formally adopted Manson’s framework in Madison. The Manson/Madison
test entails a two step process. First, the court must decide whether the identification
procedure in question was in fact impermissibly suggestive. If the court does find the
procedure impermissibly suggestive, it must then decide whether the objectionable procedure
resulted in a “very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.” In carrying out the
second part of the analysis, the court will focus on the reliability of the identification. (pp. 34-
40)
3. Virtually all of the scientific evidence considered on remand emerged after Manson.
Most research is conducted through controlled lab experiments. Research that has emerged in
the years since Manson was decided reveals that an array of variables can affect and dilute
memory and lead to misidentifications. The variables are divided into two categories: system
variables, which are factors like lineup procedures that are within the control of the criminal
justice system; and estimator variables, which are factors related to the witness, the
perpetrator, or the event itself - like distance, lighting, or stress - over which the legal system
has no control. The Court summarizes its findings for each of the system and estimator
variables consistent with the proper standards for reviewing special-master reports and
scientific evidence. Among the Court’s findings on system variables are the following: where
the identification procedures are administered by someone who knows the identity of the
suspect there is an increased likelihood of misidentification; feedback by administrators
affects the reliability of identification and should be avoided; and the record casts doubt on the
reliability of showups, or single-person lineups conducted more than two hours after the
event. Regarding some of the estimator variables, the Court finds that the reliability of an
identification can be affected by: high levels of stress on the eyewitness; when the interaction
is brief, the presence of a visible weapon; cross-racial recognition; and witness interaction
with non-State actors like co-witnesses and other sources of information. In addition, the
studies reveal generally that people do not intuitively understand all of the relevant scientific
findings. As a result, there is a need to promote greater juror understanding of those issues.
(pp. 40-92)
4. The remand hearing revealed that Manson/Madison does not adequately meet its stated
goals: it does not provide a sufficient measure for reliability, it does not deter, and it
overstates the jury’s innate ability to evaluate eyewitness testimony. 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
http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/courts/supreme/a-8-08.opn.html[4/15/2013 6:04:23 PM]