Identifying the Culprit Assessing Eyewitness Identification (2014) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
3 The Legal Framework for Assessment of Eyewitness Identification Evidence
3 The Legal Framework for Assessment of Eyewitness Identification Evidence
Pages 31-44
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 31... ...
Recently, state courts and lower federal courts have taken the lead in developing standards relating to the admissibility of expert evidence, jury instructions, and judicial notice of scientific evidence. Some states have adopted more stringent standards for regulating eyewitness identification evidence than the U.S.
|
From page 32... ...
Supreme Court set out a standard under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment for reviewing eyewitness identification evidence.3 In Manson v. Brathwaite, the Court emphasized that "reliability is the linchpin in determining the admissibility of identification testimony."4 First, the Court instructed judges to examine whether the identification procedures were unnecessarily suggestive.
|
From page 33... ...
at 729. The Court indicated that the reliability of the evidence could be addressed by federal and state evidentiary standards, and added: "In appropriate cases, some States also permit defendants to present expert testimony on the hazards of eyewitness identification evidence." Id.
|
From page 34... ...
Larry R Henderson that revised the legal framework for admitting eyewitness identification evidence and directed that revised jury instructions be prepared to help jurors evaluate such evidence.13 The new framework was based on the record of hearings before a Special Master that considered an extensive review of scientific research regarding eyewitness identifications.14 The legal framework established by the Henderson opinion relies on pretrial hearings to review eyewitness evidence and more comprehensive jury instructions at trial.15 To obtain a pretrial hearing, a defendant must show some evidence of suggestiveness related to either estimator or system 11 See State v.
|
From page 35... ...
Lawson, the Oregon Supreme Court established a new procedure for evaluating the admissibility of eyewitness identifications. In a unanimous decision, the Court found "serious questions" about the reliability of eyewitness identification, citing research conducted over the past 30 years.22 The Court determined that the Manson v.
|
From page 36... ...
The report also recommended that the state adopt a set of recommended practices for conducting identification procedures, create new model jury instructions on eyewitness identifications, and set limitations on the admissibility of certainty statements and in-court identifications.28 State Statutes Regulating Identification Procedures Judicial rulings regulating admissibility of eyewitness evidence in the courtroom do not specify the identification procedures to be used by law enforcement officials. However, 14 states have adopted legislation regarding eyewitness identification procedures.
|
From page 37... ...
.32 AIDING JURORS IN ASSESSMENT OF EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY Expert Witness Testimony Regarding Eyewitness Identification The standards for assessing the admissibility of testimony by expert witnesses have undergone great changes in the past two decades. Before 1993, the Frye test allowed scientific expert testimony in federal courts if it met the standard of "general acceptance" in the relevant scientific community.33 In 1993, the Supreme Court, in Daubert v.
|
From page 38... ...
Appellate rulings emphasize that a trial judge should use discretion when deciding whether proffered expert evidence satisfies the Daubert or Frye standards. An increasing number of rulings emphasize the value of presenting expert testimony regarding eyewitness identification.
|
From page 39... ...
Expert evidence can help jurors evaluate whether their beliefs about the reliability of eyewitness testimony are correct.43 Courts also have allowed expert witnesses to testify about particular issues concerning eyewitness identifications, such as cross-race effects, stress, weapons focus, suggestive lineup procedures, and the like.44 Rarely have experts conducted eyewitness identification research related to the specific case before the court. However, in one such case, in which an experiment 41 tate v.
|
From page 40... ...
Nonetheless, trial judges have discretion to determine whether the potential benefits of expert testimony outweigh the cost. Jury Instructions Regarding Eyewitness Identification Some courts restricting expert testimony have found jury instructions regarding the fallible nature of eyewitness identifications to be an acceptable substitute for expert testimony.49 At the conclusion of a criminal trial, 45 ewsome N v.
|
From page 41... ...
Judges tend to rely on model or pattern instructions, because any departure from these standard instructions may be a ground for appellate reversal. The New Jersey Supreme Court viewed jury instructions as preferable to expert testimony.50 The New Jersey instructions adopted, following the Henderson decision, are by far the most detailed set of jury instructions regarding eyewitness identification evidence.
|
From page 42... ...
Brathwaite factors must no longer be permitted: "we can no longer endorse an instruction authorizing jurors to consider the witness' certainty in his/ her identification as a factor to be used in deciding the reliability of that identification."58 Other courts have done the same.59 In 1999, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in State v. Cromedy that instructions on crossracial identifications are required in certain cases.60 Expert testimony on eyewitness memory and identifications appears to have many advantages when used as a method to explain relevant scientific framework evidence to the jury.
|
From page 43... ...
Indeed, research findings on the effectiveness of jury instructions on assessment of eyewitness identification evidence have been mixed. In general, such studies find that jury instructions cause jurors to become more suspicious of all eyewitness identification evidence.61 A recent study of the effect of the New Jersey jury instructions used in Henderson found that the instructions reduced juror reliance on both strong and weak eyewitness identification evidence.62 Among the few studies finding that jury instructions succeed in increasing jurors' sensitivity to the strength of such evidence are those that study the effect of jury instructions presented before the eyewitness testimony rather than at the end of the case before deliberation.63 Such studies also have examined instructions that use visual aids rather than rely on a judge's recitation of written instructions.64 In addition, research studies might explore the use of videotape as an alternative way to present such information65 and the effects of moving jury instructions to precede the introduction of the testimony by the eyewitness.
|
From page 44... ...
Constitution set out the modern test that regulates the fairness and the reliability of eyewitness identification evidence. The test evaluates the "reliability" of eyewitness identifications using factors derived from prior rulings and not from empirically validated sources.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.