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

a-8-08.opn.html
are derived mostly from the remand hearing as well as prior case law.
In 2006, this Court observed that eyewitness “[m]isidentification is widely
recognized as the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions in this country.”
State v. Delgado, 188 N.J. 48, 60 (2006) (citations omitted); see also Romero,
supra, 191 N.J. at 73-74 (“Some have pronounced that mistaken identifications
‘present what is conceivably the greatest single threat to the achievement of our
ideal that no innocent man shall be punished.’” (citation omitted)). That same
year, the International Association of Chiefs of Police published training
guidelines in which it concluded that “[o]f all investigative procedures
employed by police in criminal cases, probably none is less reliable than the
eyewitness identification. Erroneous identifications create more injustice and
cause more suffering to innocent persons than perhaps any other aspect of
police work.” Int’l Ass’n of Chiefs of Police, Training Key No. 600, Eyewitness
Identification 5 (2006).
Substantial evidence in the record supports those statements. Nationwide,
“more than seventy-five percent of convictions overturned due to DNA
evidence involved eyewitness misidentification.” Romero, supra, 191 N.J. at 74
(citing Innocence Project report); Brandon L. Garrett, Convicting the Innocent:
Where Criminal Prosecutions Go Wrong 8-9, 279 (2011) 5 (finding same in 190
of first 250 DNA exoneration cases). In half of the cases, eyewitness testimony
was not corroborated by confessions, forensic science, or informants. See The
Innocence Project, Understand the Causes: Eyewitness Misidentification,
http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/Eyewitness-
Misidentification.php (last visited August 16, 2011). Thirty-six percent of the
defendants convicted were misidentified by more than one eyewitness. Garrett,
supra, at 50. As we recognized four years ago, “[i]t has been estimated that
approximately 7,500 of every 1.5 million annual convictions for serious offenses
may be based on misidentifications.” Romero, supra, 191 N.J. at 74 (citing Brian
L. Cutler & Steven D. Penrod, Mistaken Identification: The Eyewitness,
Psychology, and the Law 7 (1995)).
New Jersey is not immune. The parties noted that misidentifications factored
into three of the five reported DNA exonerations in our State. In one of those
cases, this Court had reversed convictions for rape and robbery because the trial
http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/courts/supreme/a-8-08.opn.html[4/15/2013 6:04:23 PM]