OLR Report 2011-R-0334 summarizes the New Jersey Supreme Court’s ruling on eyewitness identification in State v. Henderson (2011 N.J. Lexis 927, 8/24/11).
The existing legal standard, based on U.S. and New Jersey Supreme Court rulings, requires courts to (1) determine if an identification procedure was impermissibly suggestive and (2) if so, weigh five reliability factors to decide whether to admit the evidence.
The Court looked at scientific research on eyewitness identification and the findings of a court-appointed special master. The Court reviewed research on two types of variables that affect the reliability of eyewitness identifications: system variables, which are factors like lineup procedures that are within the state's control, and estimator variables, which are factors related to the witness, perpetrator, and event such as distance, lighting, and stress.
The Court found that research widely accepted by the scientific community allowed it to reach conclusions on a number of these factors. It found the existing legal standard did not adequately meet its goals because it (1) does not offer an adequate measure of reliability, (2) does not sufficiently deter inappropriate police conduct, and (3) relies too heavily on the jury's ability to evaluate identification evidence. The Court revised the legal standard to require that all relevant system and estimator variables be explored at pretrial hearings if the defendant shows some evidence of suggestiveness. The Court also ordered new jury charges on eyewitness identification.
In this case, the Court found that suggestive comments by the investigating officers during the identification procedure entitled the defendant to a pretrial hearing, which he received. But the Court remanded the case for a new hearing based on its ruling. Except for the defendant and a companion case, the Court applied its ruling only to future cases beginning 30 days after the Court approves the new jury charges.
For further information on how the court findings on the procedural history, the existing test, research on eyewitness identification, revised legal standards, and jury charges, read the full report.
