After a series of errors of witnesses in the UK, perhaps here that judges should make similar efforts to unpick the memory can play tricks
New Jersey, the Supreme Court raised questions about one of the most powerful tools are available to prosecutors in the trial -. The witness
testimony played in many criminal trials, and "dock identification" by a witness that the perpetrator was always a moment of great drama. The identification was abolished Dock - of course, the witness said the accused in the dock, flanked by security - video identification parades and are now the preferred method to test the reliability of witnesses, as provided in the Act Police and Criminal Evidence Code D.
However, the court in New Jersey became the latest institution to the question of what type of evidence, noting a "disturbing lack of confidence" in eyewitness identifications. Unanimous decision of the State Court said that evidence of the reliability of witnesses, established by the Supreme Court U. S. 34 years ago, should be revised.
most importantly, the decision is based on the latest scientific studies. The Innocence Project, which presented evidence in court in New Jersey, suggests that up to one third of the 75,000 witnesses identifications that take place in the United States each year may be incorrect.New Jersey court ruling
stems from the conviction that 2004 case of Larry Henderson manslaughter for possession of weapons.
accused a police questions to identify best practices, establishing guidelines on the many factors that could affect the reliability and the judge must describe to the jury. These factors include:
. If the alignment procedure is given "double blind".
. If the witness said that the suspect can not be in alignment.
. If the police prevented the witness provide feedback that would bring the witness to believe that he or she chose the correct suspect.
. If the witness was under high stress.
. How control of the offender, and the lighting conditions were.