NJ court orders changes to witness ID evidence
TRENTON, N.J. New Jersey's highest court ordered changes Wednesday to the way eyewitness identifications are used in court, saying the current system is not reliable enough, fails to deter police misconduct and overstates jurors' ability to evaluate the evidence.
Currently, a defendant has the burden of proving there was undue suggestion during the identification process. That won't change. But the court has ordered that when a defendant can show some evidence of suggestiveness by police, a pretrial hearing must be held to explore it.
The court also requires a system be developed to better explain to juries the potential flaws with eyewitness identifications.
"Courts must carefully consider identification evidence before it is admitted to weed out unreliable identifications, and that juries must receive thorough instructions tailored to the facts of the case to be able to evaluate the identification evidence they hear," wrote Supreme Court Chief Justice Stuart Rabner in a unanimous 142-page ruling.
The ruling is being closely watched because New Jersey has long been at the forefront in identification standards. In 2001, the state became the first to establish guidelines for lineups designed to prevent mistaken suspect identifications. Other states followed suit.
Nationally, eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in more than 75 percent of the 273 convictions overturned through DNA testing, according to the Innocence Project, a New York legal center specializing in overturning wrongful convictions.
The new rules, once they are devised, will apply to future cases and two cases that prompted the ruling.
In one case, an eyewitness lineup that included Larry Henderson of Camden led to his conviction in 2004 on manslaughter charges. Henderson's attorneys argued he was misidentified after police did not follow proper identification guidelines.
Henderson's case prompted the New Jersey Supreme Court to order a review of the procedures used by police when they ask witnesses to identify suspects.
A test used by courts in 48 states and the federal system to assess the reliability of witness identification is flawed and inadequate, the yearlong review found.
Retired state Appellate Division Judge Geoffrey Gaulkin led the review and recommended that police use a sequential blind lineup, a widely praised technique designed to reduce mistakes by witnesses when trying to identify suspects.
In sequential blind lineups, mug shots are shown one at a time. Detectives displaying the photos don't know who the suspect is, which means they can't intentionally or accidentally tip off witnesses.
Dallas, Boston, Minneapolis and Denver, along with North Carolina, use sequential blind lineups or some variation. However, most police departments use a so-called six-pack or other traditional method where a witness views several people or photographs at one time.
Some of the new science presented during the hearings shows that witnesses are likely to stay committed to the first mug shot they pick - even if it's wrong. It also showed how identifying witnesses who identify someone from a different race increases the chance of misidentification and how the presence of a weapon can distract witnesses from remembering details about a perpetrator.
The Supreme Court's ultimate ruling is expected to influence courts in places besides New Jersey because the review was so comprehensive, Scheck has said.
Three of the five exoneration cases in New Jersey involved misidentification, according to the Innocence Project. Barry Scheck, co-founder of the Innocence Project and one of several attorneys for O.J. Simpson during his 1995 murder trial, presented testimony during the review that called for stricter standards.
The Associated Press