kallend 2,183 #1 August 25, 2011 New Jersey leads the way, and about time too. www.nytimes.com/2011/08/25/nyregion/in-new-jersey-rules-changed-on-witness-ids.html?google_editors_picks=true “Study after study revealed a troubling lack of reliability in eyewitness identifications,” Chief Justice Rabner wrote. “From social science research to the review of actual police lineups, from laboratory experiments to DNA exonerations, the record proves that the possibility of mistaken identification is real. “Indeed, it is now widely known that eyewitness misidentification is the leading cause of wrongful convictions across the country.”... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #2 August 25, 2011 How sad that there have been so many convictions based on faulty eyewitness testimony. The trouble is that some eyewitness testimony is dead on. So how do you distinguish true/false. Can we turn the tables and say eyewitness testimony is not reliable and cannot be used on court? Put it in the same realm as lie detector results? Is that reasonable?My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #3 August 25, 2011 The unreliablity of eyewitnesses is nothing new. It's just that, until relatively recently, it was the best evidence we had next to fingerprints and photographs. The human mind is not a computer. When it puts something to memory, that memory not only can change, it almost always does. People think they see something and remember it that way whether or not their memory is factual.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #4 August 25, 2011 QuotePeople think they see something and remember it that way whether or not their memory is factual. Years ago, in a civics class, our teacher had someone run into the class and "assault" him. Everyone had to write about what they saw and describe the assailant. I believe, everyone was wrong, out of about 30 people."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BoogeyMan 0 #5 August 25, 2011 Nuttin' new about that. Boiler plate basics 101 in every law school in the country. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,183 #6 August 25, 2011 QuoteNuttin' new about that. Boiler plate basics 101 in every law school in the country. Really? So the NJSC was not the first to rule this way?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #7 August 25, 2011 Quote Quote Nuttin' new about that. Boiler plate basics 101 in every law school in the country. Really? So the NJSC was not the first to rule this way? Another Kallend misconception! *shaking head icon here* What does one have to do with the other, John?My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BoogeyMan 0 #8 August 25, 2011 Please don't ask for citations. There is a very, very long history of Cts. changing rules of procedure to allow greater latitude in examination. Eye witness testimony is recognized as being subjective, and impeachable. SCOTUS has revisited its past decisions and changed decisions. Nope, NJ ain't the first. Law is dynamic, not static. Changes all the time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #9 August 25, 2011 QuoteQuoteNew Jersey leads the way, and about time too. www.nytimes.com/2011/08/25/nyregion/in-new-jersey-rules-changed-on-witness-ids.html?google_editors_picks=true “Study after study revealed a troubling lack of reliability in eyewitness identifications,” Chief Justice Rabner wrote. “From social science research to the review of actual police lineups, from laboratory experiments to DNA exonerations, the record proves that the possibility of mistaken identification is real. “Indeed, it is now widely known that eyewitness misidentification is the leading cause of wrongful convictions across the country.” Yea yea whatever, eyewitness testimony may be scientifically unreliable, but placing more constraints on eyewitness testimony would do nothing more than lower the conviction and execution rate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #10 August 25, 2011 QuoteYea yea whatever, eyewitness testimony may be scientifically unreliable, but placing more constraints on eyewitness testimony would do nothing more than lower the conviction and execution rate. ?????? Nevermind the innocent as long as we get a conviction? And execution? Is that how it is? Oh...tongue-in-cheek......I hope.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #11 August 25, 2011 QuoteQuoteYea yea whatever, eyewitness testimony may be scientifically unreliable, but placing more constraints on eyewitness testimony would do nothing more than lower the conviction and execution rate. ?????? Nevermind the innocent as long as we get a conviction? And execution? Is that how it is? Oh...tongue-in-cheek......I hope. I think, much of the weight rests on the shoulders of law enforcement investigators to be sure, the evidence given by the eye witness(es) is in fact true. Every cop knows that eye witnesses can be un-reliable. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,183 #12 August 25, 2011 Quote Please don't ask for citations. There is a very, very long history of Cts. changing rules of procedure to allow greater latitude in examination. Eye witness testimony is recognized as being subjective, and impeachable. SCOTUS has revisited its past decisions and changed decisions. Nope, NJ ain't the first. Law is dynamic, not static. Changes all the time. Which was the first then? Quote The ruling was praised by lawyers and legal groups that have pressed for reforms. “It’s a landmark decision,” said Barry C. Scheck, a director of the Innocence Project at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case. Mr. Scheck, citing the New Jersey court’s national prominence and the large scientific record developed in the case, added, “It’s going to affect the way every state and federal court in the United States assesses eyewitness identification evidence, and what those courts tell juries about the factors that can increase the risk of misidentification.” In its ruling, the court cited findings by Brandon L. Garrett, a law professor at the University of Virginia, who documented in a recent book, “Convicting the Innocent,” eyewitness misidentifications in 190 of the first 250 cases of DNA exoneration in the country. Professor Garrett said the decision would provide a model for legislatures and courts around the country that “have been at a loss for what to do” and needed “a structure for how judges should handle identifications in the courtroom.” Looks to me like it's not old stuff.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,183 #13 August 25, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteYea yea whatever, eyewitness testimony may be scientifically unreliable, but placing more constraints on eyewitness testimony would do nothing more than lower the conviction and execution rate. ?????? Nevermind the innocent as long as we get a conviction? And execution? Is that how it is? Oh...tongue-in-cheek......I hope. I think, much of the weight rests on the shoulders of law enforcement investigators to be sure, the evidence given by the eye witness(es) is in fact true. Every cop knows that eye witnesses can be un-reliable. Chuck What every cop knows and what every cop (and the court) does are not necessarily the same thing.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #14 August 25, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYea yea whatever, eyewitness testimony may be scientifically unreliable, but placing more constraints on eyewitness testimony would do nothing more than lower the conviction and execution rate. ?????? Nevermind the innocent as long as we get a conviction? And execution? Is that how it is? Oh...tongue-in-cheek......I hope. I think, much of the weight rests on the shoulders of law enforcement investigators to be sure, the evidence given by the eye witness(es) is in fact true. Every cop knows that eye witnesses can be un-reliable. Chuck What every cop knows and what every cop (and the court) does are not necessarily the same thing. True story. So many good cases are screwed-up by bad police work. One big case I can think of was the Casey Anthony case. Before that it was the Jon Benet Ramsey case. I'm mostly referring to the handling of crime scenes and evidence. If and when it gets to court you never know what the judge will do. I do feel, if, investigators have their ducks in a row, their chances are usually better. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BobMoore 0 #15 August 25, 2011 QuoteTrue story. So many good cases are screwed-up by bad police work. One big case I can think of was the Casey Anthony case. Before that it was the Jon Benet Ramsey case. I'm mostly referring to the handling of crime scenes and evidence. If and when it gets to court you never know what the judge will do. I do feel, if, investigators have their ducks in a row, their chances are usually better. Chuck Yeah, I watched both cases on the TV and I know EXACTLY what happened. Boy, the prosecutors screwed up big time on that one. ... if only they had called me for my opinion."For you see, an airplane is an airplane. A landing area is a landing area. But a dropzone... a dropzone is the people." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #16 August 26, 2011 Quote Quote True story. So many good cases are screwed-up by bad police work. One big case I can think of was the Casey Anthony case. Before that it was the Jon Benet Ramsey case. I'm mostly referring to the handling of crime scenes and evidence. If and when it gets to court you never know what the judge will do. I do feel, if, investigators have their ducks in a row, their chances are usually better. Chuck Yeah, I watched both cases on the TV and I know EXACTLY what happened. Boy, the prosecutors screwed up big time on that one. ... if only they had called me for my opinion. Why didn't you speak-up? You could've changed history! Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BoogeyMan 0 #17 August 26, 2011 "In its ruling, the court cited findings by Brandon L. Garrett, a law professor at the University of Virginia, who documented in a recent book, “Convicting the Innocent,” eyewitness misidentifications in 190 of the first 250 cases of DNA exoneration in the country." Your quote. DNA evidence has been around for sometime, too. A past change that was allowed by a Ct ruling. Remember Barry C. Scheck and his defense of OJ? Not new. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
