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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

a-8-08.opn.html 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. Two principal changes to the current system are needed. 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. Second, courts should develop and use enhanced jury charges to assist jurors in evaluating eyewitness identification evidence. Under our revised approach, to obtain a pretrial hearing, a defendant has the initial burden of showing some evidence of suggestiveness that could lead to a mistaken identification. The State must then offer proof to show that the proffered eyewitness identification is reliable, accounting for system and estimator variables. However, the court can end the hearing at any time if it finds from the testimony that defendant’s threshold allegation of suggestiveness is groundless. The ultimate burden remains on the defendant to prove a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. If, after weighing the evidence presented, a court finds from the totality of the circumstances that defendant has demonstrated a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification, the court should suppress the identification evidence. If the evidence is admitted, the court should provide appropriate, tailored jury instructions. (pp. 103-122) 5. The Court directs that enhanced instructions be given to guide juries about the various factors that may affect the reliability of an identification in a particular case. Those instructions are to be included in the court’s comprehensive jury charge at the close of evidence. In addition, instructions may be given during trial if warranted. Expert testimony may also be introduced at trial, but only if otherwise appropriate. The Court anticipates, however, that with enhanced jury instructions, there will be less need for expert testimony. To help implement this decision, the Court asks the Criminal Practice Committee and the Committee on Model Criminal Jury Charges to draft proposed revisions to the current charge on eyewitness identification and submit them to this Court for review before they are implemented. (pp. 122-128) 6. Returning to the facts of this case, the investigating officers intervened after Womble, the eyewitness, informed the lineup administrator that he could not make an identification from the final two photos. The officers conveyed a message that there was an identification to be made and they encouraged Womble to make one. The suggestive nature of the officers’ comments entitled defendant to a pretrial hearing, and he received one in which the trial court applied the Manson/Madison test. The Court now remands to the trial court for an expanded hearing consistent with the principles outlined in this decision. If the trial court finds that the identification should not have been admitted, then the parties should present argument as to whether a new trial is needed. If Womble’s identification was properly admitted, then defendant’s conviction should be affirmed. (pp. 128-129) 7. The Court must determine whether the new rule should be applied retroactively. Applying the relevant factors, the Court determines that today’s ruling will apply to future cases only, except for defendant Henderson and defendant Cecilia Chen, the subject of a companion case filed 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. (pp. 129- 132) The judgment of the Appellate Division is MODIFIED and AFFIRMED, and the matter is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s opinion. JUSTICES LONG, LaVECCHIA, ALBIN, RIVERA-SOTO and HOENS join http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/courts/supreme/a-8-08.opn.html[4/15/2013 6:04:23 PM]
a-8-08.opn.html in CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER’s opinion. 062218 SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY A- 8 September Term 2008 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LARRY R. HENDERSON, Defendant- Respondent. Argued January 20, 2009 -- Remanded February 26, 2009 Special Master’s Report Filed June 21, 2010 -- Reargued March 28, 2011 – Decided August 24, 2011 On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division, whose opinion is reported at 397 N.J. Super. 398 (2008). Deborah C. Bartolomey, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for appellant (Paula T. Dow, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney). Joshua D. Sanders and Joseph E. Krakora, Assistant Deputy Public Defenders, argued the cause for respondent (Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney). Alison S. Perrone argued the cause for amicus curiae Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey. http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/courts/supreme/a-8-08.opn.html[4/15/2013 6:04:23 PM]
Page 1 and 2:
Criminal Litigation Track State v H
Page 3 and 4:
What was Henderson All About? • H
Page 6 and 7:
“Human memory is not foolproof. R
Page 8 and 9:
Non-exhaustive list of system varia
Page 10 and 11:
Blind Lineup Procedures prevent: Ve
Page 12 and 13:
Witness Instructions • Who scored
Page 14:
Lineup Construction. Did the array
Page 19 and 20: The Perpetrator was Described as a
Page 21 and 22: Feedback to Witnesses • Wells and
Page 23 and 24: Other studies by Wells and his stud
Page 25 and 26: A Problem: Confidence malleability.
Page 27 and 28: Showups. •Did the police perform
Page 29 and 30: Private Actors. •Private Actors =
Page 31 and 32: Non-exhaustive list of estimator va
Page 33 and 34: Stress • Identification accuracy
Page 35 and 36: Weapon Focus ID accuracy is reduced
Page 37 and 38: Duration • Witnesses frequently o
Page 39 and 40: Distance • IMPORTANT STUDY: Loftu
Page 41 and 42: Distance 100 Feet
Page 47 and 48: Characteristics of Perpetrator. Was
Page 49 and 50: Disguise and Identification accurac
Page 51: Common belief: Memory Decay
Page 54 and 55: First, Let’s Identify What Race R
Page 56 and 57: OWN-RACE BIAS Meissner & Brigham (2
Page 58 and 59: Must Add: The Court specifically ad
Page 60 and 61: State v. Henderson, 208 N.J. 208 (2
Page 62 and 63: 4. Distance and Lighting. How close
Page 64 and 65: Trial “Expert testimony may also
Page 66 and 67: “Disguises and changes in facial
Page 68 and 69: a-8-08.opn.html eyewitness identifi
Page 72 and 73: a-8-08.opn.html Barry C. Scheck, a
Page 74 and 75: a-8-08.opn.html XII. Retroactivity
Page 76 and 77: a-8-08.opn.html broader approach, w
Page 78 and 79: a-8-08.opn.html Harper slumped over
Page 80 and 81: a-8-08.opn.html your selection. It
Page 82 and 83: a-8-08.opn.html said that he “rea
Page 84 and 85: a-8-08.opn.html 7.2. Defendant appe
Page 86 and 87: a-8-08.opn.html holds a Ph.D., and
Page 88 and 89: a-8-08.opn.html court failed to ins
Page 90 and 91: a-8-08.opn.html experiments, Dr. Pe
Page 92 and 93: a-8-08.opn.html Applied Cognitive P
Page 94 and 95: a-8-08.opn.html o.b., 135 N.J. 3 (1
Page 96 and 97: a-8-08.opn.html convincing than a w
Page 98 and 99: a-8-08.opn.html reviewed journals.
Page 100 and 101: a-8-08.opn.html are tied to an incr
Page 102 and 103: a-8-08.opn.html We review each of t
Page 104 and 105: a-8-08.opn.html The consequences ar
Page 106 and 107: a-8-08.opn.html Second, lineups sho
Page 108 and 109: a-8-08.opn.html Delay, 9 J. Experim
Page 110 and 111: a-8-08.opn.html included in a later
Page 112 and 113: a-8-08.opn.html depicted in the com
Page 114 and 115: a-8-08.opn.html research reveals th
Page 116 and 117: a-8-08.opn.html Although the study
Page 118 and 119: a-8-08.opn.html e.g., R.C.L. Lindsa
Page 120 and 121:
a-8-08.opn.html 7. Memory Decay Mem
Page 122 and 123:
a-8-08.opn.html either through conv
Page 124 and 125:
a-8-08.opn.html Laboratory studies
Page 126 and 127:
a-8-08.opn.html possible to replica
Page 128 and 129:
a-8-08.opn.html of the eyewitness c
Page 130 and 131:
a-8-08.opn.html The Attorney Genera
Page 132 and 133:
a-8-08.opn.html Along with Manson/M
Page 134 and 135:
a-8-08.opn.html of an identificatio
Page 136 and 137:
a-8-08.opn.html produce “an impre
Page 138 and 139:
a-8-08.opn.html evaluating eyewitne
Page 140 and 141:
a-8-08.opn.html 5. Recording Confid
Page 142 and 143:
a-8-08.opn.html “memory decay”
Page 144 and 145:
a-8-08.opn.html focus on system var
Page 146 and 147:
a-8-08.opn.html (2006). A simple re
Page 148 and 149:
a-8-08.opn.html have found scientif
Page 150 and 151:
a-8-08.opn.html The remaining two f
Page 152 and 153:
a-8-08.opn.html and appropriate jur
Page 154 and 155:
a-8-08.opn.html possible shortcomin
Page 156 and 157:
a-8-08.opn.html DECIDED August 24,
Page 158 and 159:
a-8-08.opn.html of Illinois: The Il
Page 163 and 164:
Overview State v Henderson, decide
Page 165 and 166:
Issues and Authorities Involved U.
Page 167 and 168:
CHANGES WROUGHT New vocabulary: Sy
Page 169 and 170:
Henderson Holding Henderson has ma
Page 171 and 172:
RECORDING & DOCUMENTATION REQUIREME
Page 173 and 174:
RECORDING & DOCUMENTATION Document
Page 175 and 176:
AG GUIDELINES STEP 1: Determine wh
Page 177 and 178:
AG GUIDELINES STEP 3: Showing the
Page 179 and 180:
Sequential vs. Simultaneous • SEQ
Page 181 and 182:
TRIAL PROCEDURES & EVIDENTIARY ISSU
Page 183 and 184:
Text of New Court Rules
Page 185 and 186:
Estimator Variables 1. Stress. Did
Page 187 and 188:
Estimator Variables 7. Memory deca
Page 189 and 190:
Important points for litigation 1)
Page 191 and 192:
Identification: In-Court and Out-of
Page 193 and 194:
ESTIMATOR VARIABLES 1. Stress. Did
Page 195 and 196:
Hon. Lisa Rose, J.S.C. Judge Rose t
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?