Editorial: More than eyes can see

July 05, 2010

New Jersey is already a national leader when it comes to guarding against the misidentification of suspects in crimes. But a report ordered by the state Supreme Court is calling for even more steps to help prevent innocent suspects from being wrongly convicted.

The recommendations are good ones that should be implemented. They will further signal that New Jersey is a state that really cares about getting criminal verdicts right, and not sending innocent people to prison.

Pennsylvania's court and law enforcement officials should take a look at what New Jersey is doing and try to replicate these best practices.

Story continues below.

Scores of scientific studies have shown that eyewitness identification is not as reliable as many have long believed. The clear and convincing evidence of DNA has backed up the emerging science.

In fact, three-quarters of the 254 defendants who have been exonerated by DNA testing were convicted largely on the basis of eyewitness testimony. The number of wrongly convicted people in jails is likely even higher, since DNA evidence isn't available for the majority of crimes.

Eyewitness testimony is often very convincing for jurors. What more do they need to hear after a person takes the stand and fingers a wrongdoer? But the fact is that witnesses often get it wrong. The mind is not as reliable as many believe, especially in the heat of a crime. At the same time, police and prosecutors often steer witnesses to a suspect, either intentionally or unintentionally.

New Jersey's high court ordered a review of its procedures after a Camden man contended his manslaughter case violated the eyewitness guidelines. The report called for mandatory pretrial hearings to evaluate the testimony of eyewitnesses in all criminal cases.

Eyewitnesses' recollections can be undermined by a number of variables, such as comments and body language by police at a lineup. Often, an eyewitness will feel that he or she has to pick a person from the lineup, when in fact no one in the lineup may have been involved in the crime.

New Jersey already has some of the best practices for dealing with police lineup procedures. The guidelines require an administrator not involved in the case to conduct the police lineup.

Photo and live lineups are to be conducted sequentially, rather than in a group. This helps prevent witnesses from picking a suspect who looks closest to the person he saw. Witnesses are also required to be told that the perpetrator may not be among the suspects.

Pennsylvania, on the other hand, has no statewide guidelines on lineups. It is one of only two states that prohibit expert testimony on the science of memory and identification. In the interest of justice, Pennsylvania should follow New Jersey's lead.

|
|
|
|
|