02.05.2015 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

a-8-08.opn.html<br />

XII. Retroactivity Analysis ............................... 129<br />

XIII. Conclusion ........................................... 132<br />

XIV. Judgment ............................................. 134<br />

Appendix A Rem<strong>and</strong> Order ................................. 135<br />

I. Introduction<br />

In <strong>the</strong> thirty-four years since <strong>the</strong> United <strong>State</strong>s Supreme Court announced a<br />

test for <strong>the</strong> admission of eyewitness identification evidence, which <strong>New</strong> <strong>Jersey</strong><br />

adopted soon after, a vast body of scientific research about human memory has<br />

emerged. That body of work casts doubt on some commonly held views relating<br />

to memory. It also calls into question <strong>the</strong> vitality of <strong>the</strong> current legal framework<br />

for analyzing <strong>the</strong> reliability of eyewitness identifications. See Manson v.<br />

Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 97 S. Ct. 2243, 53 L. Ed.2d 140 (1977); <strong>State</strong> v.<br />

Madison, 109 N.J. 223 (1988).<br />

In this case, defendant claims that an eyewitness mistakenly identified him as<br />

an accomplice to a murder. Defendant argues that <strong>the</strong> identification was not<br />

reliable because <strong>the</strong> officers investigating <strong>the</strong> case intervened during <strong>the</strong><br />

identification process <strong>and</strong> unduly influenced <strong>the</strong> eyewitness. After a pretrial<br />

hearing, <strong>the</strong> trial court found that <strong>the</strong> officers’ behavior was not impermissibly<br />

suggestive <strong>and</strong> admitted <strong>the</strong> evidence. The Appellate Division reversed. It held<br />

that <strong>the</strong> officers’ actions were presumptively suggestive because <strong>the</strong>y violated<br />

guidelines issued by <strong>the</strong> Attorney General in 2001 for conducting identification<br />

procedures.<br />

After granting certification <strong>and</strong> hearing oral argument, we rem<strong>and</strong>ed <strong>the</strong> case<br />

<strong>and</strong> appointed a Special Master to evaluate scientific <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r evidence about<br />

eyewitness identifications. The Special Master presided over a hearing that<br />

probed testimony by seven experts <strong>and</strong> produced more than 2,000 pages of<br />

transcripts along with hundreds of scientific studies. He later issued an<br />

extensive <strong>and</strong> very fine report, much of which we adopt.<br />

http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/courts/supreme/a-8-08.opn.html[4/15/2013 6:04:23 PM]

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!