{"id":3982,"date":"2011-11-07T11:45:09","date_gmt":"2011-11-07T16:45:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/?p=3982"},"modified":"2016-11-16T20:20:16","modified_gmt":"2016-11-17T01:20:16","slug":"update-scotus-justices-fail-to-see-need-for-new-eyewitness-rule","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/update-scotus-justices-fail-to-see-need-for-new-eyewitness-rule\/","title":{"rendered":"Update: SCOTUS justices fail to see need for new eyewitness rule"},"content":{"rendered":"

Members of the Supreme Court seemed skeptical last Wednesday when asked to establish a new constitutional rule prohibiting the use of unreliable eyewitness testimony at criminal trials.\u00a0 Under existing law, unreliable eyewitness testimony is excludable only when the source of unreliability stems from police misconduct. \u00a0In Perry v. New Hampshire<\/em>,\u00a0Public Defender Richard Guerriero argued that the Court should establish a new constitutional standard whereby judges must exclude eyewitness testimony whenever the circumstances surrounding a defendant\u2019s identification imply that she is guilty.\u00a0 Guerriero\u2019s rule would apply whether or not police are responsible for the suggestive circumstances.<\/p>\n

Justices\u2019 skepticism was two-pronged.\u00a0 First, several justices questioned Guerriero\u2019s assertion that existing rules of evidence were insufficient to screen for unreliable evidence.\u00a0 \u201cWhat is the difference between what you are asking for and what already exists in the law?\u201d Justice Breyer asked.\u00a0 Under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, Breyer noted, a judge may exclude evidence that she thinks is unduly prejudicial or misleading.\u00a0 Justice Ginsburg pointed to other safeguards: \u201cYou can ask the judge to tell the jury: \u2018Be careful; eyewitness testimony is often unreliable.\u2019\u00a0 You can point that out in cross-examination.\u201d\u00a0 The necessity for a new rule, these justices posited, was dubious.<\/p>\n

Other justices criticized Guerriero\u2019s proposed rule as excessively narrow.\u00a0 \u201cWhat is magic about suggestiveness as opposed to all of the other matters that could cause eyewitness identification to be wrong?\u201d Justice Scalia pondered.\u00a0 Guerriero\u2019s rule would exclude a witness\u2019s identification only when given under circumstances suggestive of a defendant\u2019 guilt.\u00a0 If the witness\u2019s identification was unreliable for some other reason \u2013 because the witness was standing far away from the crime scene such that she could not see the culprit clearly \u2013 the evidence would be admissible.<\/p>\n

Justice Scalia also questioned why Guerriero\u2019s rule would apply only to eyewitness<\/em> testimony given under suggestive circumstances.\u00a0 \u201cLet\u2019s say . . . that the killer had left a message on the . . . phone and the police in some manner create suggestiveness that causes a witness to identify that as the voice of the killer.\u00a0 You really think that we would say, well, this is not eyewitness testimony; eyewitness testimony creates a special risk?\u201d\u00a0 Guerriero suggested that his rule followed from Court precedent, in which the justices have said that eyewitness testimony is special.\u00a0 \u201c[W]e don\u2019t mean it,\u201d Scalia quipped.<\/p>\n

In many ways, Guerriero\u2019s argument proved too much.\u00a0 If the Constitution requires the exclusion of unreliable evidence, the criminal justice system would be turned on its head.\u00a0 A host of unreliable evidence is admitted at every trial, yet we as a society are comfortable with it, because we trust jurors\u2019 ability to gauge the dependability of what is presented to them.\u00a0 Once we begin questioning our faith in juries \u2013 even if that skepticism is merited \u2013 the foundation of the justice system begins to crumble.\u00a0 The justices seem to be willing to preserve the myth of juror competence \u2013 at least in the near term \u2013 lest the system fall apart.<\/p>\n

To read a transcript of the oral arguments, click here<\/a>. \u00a0To read the parties’ briefs, click here<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Members of the Supreme Court seemed skeptical last Wednesday when asked to establish a new constitutional rule prohibiting the use […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":35,"featured_media":3984,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":true,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[3,44,45],"tags":[126,127,153,862,193],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-3982","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-amicus","category-courts","category-criminal-justice","tag-civil-liberties","tag-civil-rights","tag-courts","tag-criminal-justice","tag-due-process"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/peZrWS-12e","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3982","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/35"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3982"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3982\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3982"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3982"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3982"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=3982"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}