Now a County Court judge in the same courthouse, Waite carries with him the stark lesson that eyewitnesses can get it wrong, especially when identifying someone of a different race. No matter how confident, their testimony can "create a terrible result," he said.
Nationally, that criticism has intensified as DNA testing again and again trumps human cognition.
The issue is about to get a rarefied airing before the U.S. Supreme Court, which is to hear oral argument Wednesday in its first significant eyewitness-identification case in 34 years.
But change already is on the docket elsewhere.
In September, a 50-member committee studying wrongful convictions in Pennsylvania recommended that lineup procedures be sharpened to avoid mistaken identification. And in a landmark ruling in August, the New Jersey Supreme Court established a new framework for assessing eyewitness identification.
In the case of Camden defendant Larry R. Henderson, who challenged the eyewitness identification that led to his manslaughter conviction, the New Jersey high court said juries should be better instructed on factors that can affect the reliability of such testimony.
"Eyewitness identifications bear directly on guilt or innocence," Chief Justice Stuart Rabner wrote for the unanimous court. "At stake is the very integrity of the criminal justice system and the courts' ability to conduct fair trials."
Juries have long embraced the testimony of dead-certain witnesses. It helped convict three-quarters of the 275 prisoners nationwide who have been exonerated by DNA over the last two decades. Nine Pennsylvania and three New Jersey prisoners were among those cleared, according to the New York-based Innocence Project.
"This is a really important time for the future of eyewitness identifications," said Brandon Garrett, a University of Virginia law professor who has studied the issue.
