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

a-8-08.opn.html
convincing than a witness’s categorical
identification of a perpetrator, you must
critically analyze such testimony. Such
identifications, even if made in good faith, may
be mistaken. Therefore, when analyzing such
testimony, be advised that a witness’s level of
confidence, standing alone, may not be an
indication of the reliability of the identification.
[Id. at 75-76.]
In Delgado, supra, the Court directed that “law enforcement officers make a
written record detailing [all] out-of-court identification procedure[s], including
the place where the procedure was conducted, the dialogue between the witness
and the interlocutor, and the results.” 188 N.J. at 63. See also Herrera, supra,
187 N.J. at 504 (finding showup identification procedures inherently
suggestive).
Despite those important, incremental changes, we have repeatedly used the
Manson/Madison test to determine the admissibility of eyewitness
identification evidence. As we noted in Herrera, “[u]ntil we are convinced that a
different approach is required after a proper record has been made in the trial
court, we continue to follow the [Manson/Madison] approach.” Ibid.; see also
State v. Adams, 194 N.J. 186, 201 (2008).
That record is now before us. It enables us to consider whether the
Manson/Madison framework remains valid and appropriate or if a different
approach is required. To make that determination, we first look to the scope of
the scientific evidence since 1977. We then examine its content.
V. Scope of Scientific Research
Virtually all of the scientific evidence considered on remand emerged
after Manson. In fact, the earliest study the State submitted is from 1981, and
only a handful of the more than 200 scientific articles in the record pre-date
1970.
During the 1970s, when the Supreme Court decided Manson,
researchers conducted some experiments on the malleability of human
memory. But according to expert testimony, that decade produced only four
http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/courts/supreme/a-8-08.opn.html[4/15/2013 6:04:23 PM]