Title: Where Science Conflicts with Common Sense: Eyewitness Identification Reform in Massachusetts
Abstract: I. INTRODUCTION Consider an eyewitness who testifies: could never forget man who pointed gun at me. It was him, sitting right in front of me. I am one hundred percent certain. Common sense would strongly credit testimony--the victim observed assailant during a traumatic, seemingly unforgettable event and expressed no doubt about that person's identity. However, decades of scientific research on memory and perception recommend greater caution because factors affecting accuracy of an eyewitness identification are often unfamiliar to jurors and are counterintuitive. (1) For instance, high stress and visible presence of a weapon during commission of crime may decrease likelihood of an accurate identification. (2) If witness is of a different race than person identified, risk of error increases. (3) A witness's confidence in an eyewitness identification also is less correlated with accuracy than most would expect. (4) And had identification first taken place in courtroom during trial, highly suggestive courtroom environment would further impair reliability of identification. (5) The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has long recognized fallibility of eyewitness identification evidence as the primary cause of erroneous convictions, and has relied upon research demonstrating its infirmities. (6) Yet, until recently, Massachusetts judges generally did not instruct jury to a variety of factors recognized in scientific research that affects accuracy of eyewitness identifications. (7) In addition, first-time incourt eyewitness identifications were not subjected to same level of scrutiny as their out-of-court counterparts: single-person showups. In 2011, acknowledging eyewitness identification evidence as the greatest source of wrongful convictions but also an invaluable law enforcement tool in obtaining accurate convictions, court convened Supreme Judicial Court Study Group on Eyewitness Identification (Study Group). (8) The purpose of Study Group was to consider how [Massachusetts] can best deter unnecessarily suggestive procedures and whether existing model jury instructions provide adequate guidance to juries in evaluating eyewitness testimony. (9) The Study Group was comprised of law school professors and attorneys, as well as representatives from four Massachusetts trial court departments with criminal or juvenile jurisdiction, Attorney General's office, a District Attorney's office, public defender's office (also known as Committee for Public Counsel Services), Office of Inspector General, and Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association (Chiefs of Police). (10) In 2013, Study Group published a 162-page comprehensive review of state of scientific research on eyewitness identification evidence and its recommendations on best practices for police departments, enhanced jury instructions, pretrial hearings, and continued education for judges and practitioners (Study Group Report). (11) The Study Group Report provided foundation for Supreme Judicial Court to reexamine admissibility and evaluation of eyewitness identification evidence in Massachusetts. During my first year as Chief Justice, court overhauled its treatment of first-time in-court positive eyewitness identifications in a pair of cases, Commonwealth v. Crayton (12) and Commonwealth v. Collins, (13) and crafted a provisional model eyewitness identification jury instruction in Commonwealth v. Gomes (14) which was subsequently revised after a public comment period. (15) Meanwhile, individual police departments in Massachusetts have adopted new police protocols for eyewitness identification procedures, and legislation is pending that would establish uniform protocols. (16) Eyewitness identification reform has progressed both inside and outside of courts through a shared commitment to learning from reliable scientific research. …
Publication Year: 2016
Publication Date: 2016-06-22
Language: en
Type: article
Access and Citation
Cited By Count: 1
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot