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

a-8-08.opn.html
7.2. Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence.
D. Appellate Division
The Appellate Division presumed that the identification procedure in
this case was impermissibly suggestive under the first prong of the
Manson/Madison test. State v. Henderson, 397 N.J. Super. 398, 414 (App. Div.
2008). The court reversed and remanded for a new Wade hearing to determine
whether the identification was nonetheless reliable under the test’s second
prong. Id. at 400, 414-15.
The panel anchored its finding to what it considered to be a material
breach of the Attorney General Guidelines. Id. at 412. 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.’” Id. at 411 (citing State v. Herrera,
187 N.J. 493, 516 (2006)). The panel specifically found that the investigating
officers, MacNair and Ruiz, “consciously and deliberately intruded into the
process for the purpose of assisting or influencing Womble’s identification of
defendant.” Id. at 414. The officers’ behavior, the court explained, “certainly
violate[d] the spirit of the Guidelines.” Id. at 412. In such circumstances, the
panel “conclude[d] that a presumption of impermissible suggestiveness must be
imposed, and a new Wade hearing conducted.” Id. at 400.
E. Certification and Remand Order
We 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 (ACDL) and the Innocence Project (collectively
“amici”). In their briefs and at oral argument, the parties and amici raised
questions about possible shortcomings in the Manson/Madison test in light of
recent scientific research.
In an unpublished Order dated February 26, 2009, attached as
Appendix A, we “concluded that an inadequate factual record exist[ed] on
which [to] test the current validity of our state law standards on the
admissibility of eyewitness identification.” App. A at *3. We therefore
remanded the matter
http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/courts/supreme/a-8-08.opn.html[4/15/2013 6:04:23 PM]