Supreme Court declines to make it harder to introduce eyewitness testimony at trials

[alp227]

The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to make it harder to introduce eyewitness testimony at criminal trials, despite a recent proliferation of studies that show mistaken identity is the leading cause of wrongful convictions.

In an 8 to 1 decision, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote that there is no reason for the court to change its view that judges on their own cannot throw out eyewitness testimony unless police have manipulated circumstances to produce a desired outcome.

The point is to deter police from creating “suggestive circumstances” that point to a specific suspect, Ginsburg said. “When there is no improper police conduct,” Ginsburg said in announcing the decision, “there is nothing to deter.”

If the police have not created the suggestive climate, she said, then it is up to the jury to decide whether to evaluate the eyewitness testimony, and for the defendant’s lawyer to try to discredit it.

full: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-declines-to-make-it-harder-to-introduce-eyewitness-testimony-at-trials/2012/01/11/gIQAbd8ZrP_story.html

This case is Perry v. New Hampshire. (Nothing to do with the primary.)

[JDPriestly]

1. That's the jury's job as I understand it -- weigh the evidence.

Unfortunately, some jurors don't understand that they don't have to take all the testimony at face value.