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 ...
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 />
summarily to <strong>the</strong> trial court for a plenary<br />
hearing to consider <strong>and</strong> decide whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong><br />
assumptions <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r factors reflected in <strong>the</strong><br />
two-part Manson/Madison test, as well as <strong>the</strong><br />
five factors outlined in those cases to determine<br />
reliability, remain valid <strong>and</strong> appropriate in light<br />
of recent scientific <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r evidence.<br />
[Ibid.]<br />
We appointed <strong>the</strong> Honorable Geoffrey Gaulkin, P.J.A.D. (retired <strong>and</strong><br />
temporarily assigned on recall) to preside at <strong>the</strong> rem<strong>and</strong> hearing as a Special<br />
Master.<br />
Pursuant to <strong>the</strong> Order, <strong>the</strong> following parties participated in <strong>the</strong> rem<strong>and</strong><br />
hearing: <strong>the</strong> Attorney General, <strong>the</strong> Public Defender (representing defendant 4 ),<br />
<strong>and</strong> amici.<br />
The parties <strong>and</strong> amici collectively produced more than 360 exhibits, which<br />
included more than 200 published scientific studies on human memory <strong>and</strong><br />
eyewitness identification. During <strong>the</strong> ten-day rem<strong>and</strong> hearing, <strong>the</strong> Special<br />
Master heard testimony from seven expert witnesses. Three of <strong>the</strong>m –- Drs.<br />
Gary Wells, Steven Penrod, <strong>and</strong> Roy Malpass - testified about <strong>the</strong> state of<br />
scientific research in <strong>the</strong> field of eyewitness identification.<br />
Dr. Wells, who was called as a witness by <strong>the</strong> Innocence Project, holds a<br />
Ph.D. in Experimental Social Psychology <strong>and</strong> serves as a Professor of<br />
Psychology at Iowa <strong>State</strong> University. Since 1977, Dr. Wells has published more<br />
than 100 articles on eyewitness identification research. He assisted <strong>the</strong> Attorney<br />
General’s Office in connection with <strong>the</strong> formulation of <strong>the</strong> Attorney General<br />
Guidelines.<br />
Dr. Penrod, who was called as a witness by defendant, is a<br />
Distinguished Professor of Psychology at John Jay College of Criminal Justice<br />
in <strong>New</strong> York. He holds a degree in law <strong>and</strong> a Ph.D. in Pyschology. Dr. Penrod<br />
has also published extensively in <strong>the</strong> area of eyewitness identification <strong>and</strong> has<br />
served on <strong>the</strong> editorial board of numerous psychology journals.<br />
Dr. Malpass, who was called by <strong>the</strong> <strong>State</strong>, is also widely published. He<br />
http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/courts/supreme/a-8-08.opn.html[4/15/2013 6:04:23 PM]