The supreme judicial court appeals court today ordered an evidentiary hearing to determine why a trial lawyer “inextricably failed to epxloit what was perhaps the most significant basis available for the defense theory: the dramatic difference between the defendant’s appearance on the date of the shooting and his appearance in the photograph [that the victim] selected from the array assembled by the police.”

In doing so, the court wrote,

Eyewitness identification of a person whom the witness had never seen before the crime or other incident persents a substantial risk of misidentification and increases the chance of a conviction of an innocent defendant… the vagaries of eyewitness identification are well-known; the annals of criminal law are rife with instances of mistaken identification.  Indeed, studies conducted by psychologists and legal researchers have confirmed that eyewitness testimony is often hopelessly unreliable.  (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)

The Supreme Judicial Court has said all of these things before, but the Appeals Court put them together quite powerfully today.  I want to get that exact blockquote as a jury instruction in any case I have with an issue of identification… especially the words “hopelessly unreliable.”

Correction 3:41 PM: I originally wrote that this was an SJC opinion; it was in fact an appeals court opinion quoting various SJC cases.

---

Posted by AndyCowan on January 13th, 2009 :: Filed under Judicial Pearls of Wisdom
Tags :: id, jury instructions, law and psychology, law and science

---

You know, it’s refreshing to hear that every once in a while a judge will disbelieve police testimony at a motion to suppress.  Far too often an officer will lie at one of these hearings and screw you and your client’s rights six ways to Sunday.

Saying he didn’t believe a city police officer’s testimony, a judge in Hampden Superior Court last week threw out evidence in a 2007 cocaine trafficking case which he said had been collected in an unlawful search of the defendant’s car.

Of course, Bill Bennet’s office is appealing the decision and hoping to stay the dismissal of the charges.  If only we had such ready appeal resources.

“I reject Templeman’s testimony as not credible and find the police approached the Cadillac under the pretext of a motor vehicle stop,” the judge concluded.

Carhart concluded that police never asked Vazquez for his license and registration, but immediately removed him and his passenger and then searched the car.

“I find that Templeman did not observe crack cocaine in Vazquez’ hand and that there was no valid legal basis for justifying a search of Vazquez’s vehicle,” the judge wrote.

Bravo, Judge Carhart, and a good win for Mr. Vazquez and his attorney.

---

Posted by Alex Ramos on January 6th, 2009 :: Filed under In the News, Judicial Pearls of Wisdom

---