Wrongful Convictions: You Can't Believe Your Eyes

American Prospect blogger Adam Serwer discusses a recent court ruling that calls for a modification of standards for eyewitness evidence.

Posted:
 
dna_82611
Getty

Adam Serwer, in a blog post for the American Prospect, discusses the recent landmark ruling by a New Jersey judge that calls for a modification in the admissability of eyewitness evidence. 

Eyewitness misidentification is a leading factor in wrongful convictions -- according to the Innocence Project, more than 75 percent of DNA exonerations involved cases of eyewitness misidentification. In what the Innocence Project called a landmark ruling earlier this week, New Jersey Supreme Court Chief Justice Stuart J. Rabner wrote a long opinion holding that the legal standards for admissibility of eyewitness evidence should be modified. 

The ruling itself is an incredibly compelling recap of the relevant science on memory and the problems with eyewitness testimony over the past 30 years. Until now, admissibility has generally hinged on a two-prong test: If the court decides that the identification took place under "suggestive" circumstances, it must then decide, based on five factors, whether the evidence is reliable.

Read Adam Serwer's entire blog entry at the American Prospect. 

Like The Root on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter.   

Comments
The Root encourages respectful debate and dialogue in our commenting community. To improve the commenting experience for all our readers we will be experimenting with some new formats over the next few weeks. During this transition period the comments section will be unavailable to users.

We apologize for any inconvenience and appreciate your continued support of The Root.

While we are experimenting, please feel free to leave feedback below about your past experiences commenting at The Root.