STF NA MÍDIA

Informed self-government is
essential to a healthy democracy.
The First amendment’s
guarantees of free
speech and press are intended
to ensure that. It is important
that the Supreme Court’s
rules reflect its long-stated
preference for the open administration
of justice.
The court has ruled that access
to proceedings and records
in criminal cases can
be limited only in exceptional
circumstances. Federal
appeals courts have said so
convincingly about civil proceedings,
including records.
But the Supreme Court needs
a clear rule that ensures
transparency whenever possible.
The Reporters Committee
urges the court to adopt a
rule about the presumption of
public access like that of the
United States Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit.
Judge Frank Easterbrook of
that circuit wrote, “The political
branches of government
claim legitimacy by election,
judges by reason. Any step
that withdraws an element of
the judicial process from
public view makes the ensuing
decision look more like
fiat.” His argument is compelling.
JUSTIÇA NO EXTERIOR •
THE NEW YORK TIMES (US) • NATIONAL • 18/9/2011
Changes to Police Lineup Procedures Cut Eyewitness Mistakes, Study
Says
By JOHN SCHWARTZ
The push for procedures to
help overcome the weaknesses
of eyewitness identifications
gains support with a
new study being released on
Monday that sees significant
advantages in techniques
promoted by many experts
and a growing number of
police departments.
The new report, based on
actual cases in the field, suggests
that photographs presented
one by one by a person
not directly connected
with a case significantly reduced
identifications of fillers
(people known not to be
the suspect) from 18 percent
in simultaneous lineups to 12
percent in sequential ones.
And while a 2006 study cited
by opponents of the sequential
technique suggested that
witnesses make fewer selections
over all in sequential
lineups than in simultaneous
ones, the new report showed
that the sequential approach
leads to just as many picks of
suspects as do the simultaneous
techniques if conducted
as they commonly are in the
field, with the witnesses getting
an opportunity to view
the images a second time if
they request it.
A large number of researchers
have found that having
the images presented by someone
with no knowledge of
the case, in a “double-blind”
lineup, can reduce subtle and
even unintentional influences
on witnesses that can lead to
mistaken identifications. Further
research has suggested
that presenting the images
one at a time, instead of all at
once, alleviates what some
call “comparison shopping”
by witnesses and causes them
to rely more on their memory
than the comparison.
A number of states and law
enforcement agencies have
followed suit with changes
that include a requirement of
double-blind, sequential lineups.
Many departments
have declined to change,
however, in part because
much of the previous research
was performed in the laboratory
and not in real-life
investigations. They also
cited the highly publicized
2006 study and others that
cast doubt on the efficacy of
sequential lineups.
The new report was planned
and carried out in the wake
of the 2006 study, which the
authors of the new report
have argued was flawed. And
its findings, based largely on
cases in Austin, Tex., with
S T F N A M Í D I A • 2 2 d e s e t e m b r o d e 2 0 1 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P Á G I N A 1 7 4