<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19120"></HEAD>
<BODY style="PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-TOP: 15px"
id=MailContainerBody leftMargin=0 topMargin=0 CanvasTabStop="true"
name="Compose message area">
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana>
<DIV id=fb-root></DIV>
<DIV class=header>
<DIV class=left><A href="http://www.nytimes.com/"><IMG border=0 hspace=0
alt="The New York Times" align=left
src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/nytlogo153x23.gif"></A>
<NYT_REPRINTS_FORM>
<LI class=reprints>
<FORM name=cccform
action=https://s100.copyright.com/CommonApp/LoadingApplication.jsp
target=_Icon></FORM></LI></DIV>
<DIV class=right> </DIV></DIV><BR clear=all>
<HR align=left SIZE=1>
<DIV class=timestamp>August 26, 2011</DIV>
<DIV class=kicker></DIV>
<H1><NYT_HEADLINE version="1.0" type=" ">What Did They Really
See?</NYT_HEADLINE></H1><NYT_BYLINE></NYT_BYLINE><NYT_TEXT>
<DIV id=articleBody><NYT_CORRECTION_TOP></NYT_CORRECTION_TOP>
<P>In a landmark decision this week, the New Jersey Supreme Court set new
guidelines for how courts and juries must assess eyewitness identification of
criminal suspects. The laudable <A
title="August 24, 2011 decision in State v. Larry R. Henderson of the New Jersey Supreme Court"
href="http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/supreme/A808StatevLarryHenderson.pdf">decision</A>
applies only in New Jersey but could have a national impact. It provides a
thorough, science-based explanation of how eyewitness evidence can become
tainted and offers a judicious template for the United States Supreme Court and
other states to follow. </P>
<P>Eyewitness identification has been a subject of hundreds of studies over the
last three decades, showing that memory and perception can be highly unreliable.
Of the 273 people freed from prison with DNA evidence by <A
title="A link to the Innocence Project’s website"
href="http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/">The Innocence Project</A> in cases
reshaping this area of law, three out of four were convicted with false
identifications. </P>
<P>In a unanimous opinion, Chief Justice Stuart Rabner noted that
misidentification is the leading cause of wrongful convictions across the
country. He wrote: “The changes outlined in this decision are significant
because eyewitness identifications bear directly on guilt or innocence. At stake
is the very integrity of the criminal justice system and the courts’ ability to
conduct fair trials.” </P>
<P>Under the new guidelines, a trial judge must hold a hearing to consider a
wide range of factors if the defendant presents evidence that the identification
was unfairly suggestive. Some factors relate to the witness, some to the
culprit, others to the event — like the amount of time the witness observed what
occurred, whether the witness and suspect were of different races, how light or
dim the scene was. Other critical factors deal with the identification process,
like how the police lineup was set up. </P>
<P>As before, eyewitness evidence would not be admissible at trial if the court
found that, given “the totality of the circumstances,” there was “a substantial
likelihood of misidentification.” However, if the judge decides to admit
disputed eyewitness evidence, he or she must now instruct jurors on the factors
that might affect its reliability. </P>
<P>The New Jersey decision puts aside an approach to eyewitness evidence <A
title="A link to the 1977 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Manson v. Brathwaite"
href="http://supreme.justia.com/us/432/98/case.html">established in 1977</A> by
the United States Supreme Court and still followed by all other states. That
approach, Chief Justice Rabner said, overstates “the jury’s innate ability to
evaluate eyewitness testimony.” </P>
<P>The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear <A
title="A link to the Scotusblog page on Perry v. NewHampshire scheduled for argument on November 2, 2011"
href="http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/perry-v-new-hampshire/">a major
case</A> about eyewitness identification in November, the first on this issue
since that 1977 decision. The Roberts court should pay close attention to the
well-grounded decision reached by the Rabner court in New Jersey.
</P><NYT_CORRECTION_BOTTOM>
<DIV
class=articleCorrection></DIV></NYT_CORRECTION_BOTTOM><NYT_UPDATE_BOTTOM></NYT_UPDATE_BOTTOM></DIV></NYT_TEXT><BR>
<CENTER></CENTER><NOSCRIPT class=noscript-show></NOSCRIPT>
<DIV id=upNextWrapper>
<DIV style="RIGHT: -410px" id=upNext></FONT><FONT size=2
face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana>_________________________</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana>Wayne A. Fox<BR><A
title="mailto:wayne.a.fox@gmail.com CTRL + Click to follow link"
href="mailto:wayne.a.fox@gmail.com">wayne.a.fox@gmail.com</A><BR></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>