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

a-8-08.opn.html
holds a Ph.D., and his academic career spans more than four decades. Dr.
Malpass is currently a Professor of Psychology and Criminal Justice at the
University of Texas, El Paso, where he runs the university’s Eyewitness
Identification Research Lab.
The parties and amici also presented the testimony of three law
professors: James Doyle, Jules Epstein, and Dr. John Monahan. The professors
discussed the intersection of eyewitness identification research and the legal
system.
Dr. Monahan and Professor Doyle were called as witnesses by the Innocence
Project. Dr. Monahan has a Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology, is a Distinguished
Professor of Law at the University of Virginia, and holds dual appointments in
the Departments of Psychology and Psychiatric and Neurobehavioral Sciences.
He coauthored the casebook Social Science in Law (7th ed. 2010), and has
published extensively on that topic. Professor Doyle is Director of the Center for
Modern Forensic Practice at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. In 1987, he
co-authored a treatise titled Eyewitness Testimony: Civil and Criminal, which
he regularly updates.
Defendant presented Professor Epstein as a witness. He is an Associate
Professor of Law at Widener University School of Law, who has spent more
than a decade representing criminal defendants in Philadelphia. He, too, has
written extensively on eyewitness identification.
The State also called James Gannon to testify. From 1986 to 2007, he worked
with the Morris County Prosecutor’s Office, ultimately serving as Deputy Chief
of Investigations. During his career, he investigated approximately 120
homicides. He continues to train law enforcement personnel locally and
internationally. Gannon testified about practical constraints police officers
sometimes face in conducting investigations.
III. Proof of Misidentifications
In this case, the parties heavily dispute the admissibility and reliability of
Womble’s eyewitness identification of defendant. We therefore begin with some
important, general observations about eyewitness identification evidence, which
http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/courts/supreme/a-8-08.opn.html[4/15/2013 6:04:23 PM]