Thursday, November 3, 2011

Justices Weigh Judges’ Duties to Assess Reliability of Eyewitness Testimony

In oral arguments yesterday in Perry v. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court seemed unpersuaded that the Court should view problems with eyewitness testimony any differently than other types of evidence.  Below is Adam Liptak's article with a link to the oral arguments.

By — Though studies and lower court decisions have found that eyewitness testimony can be both unusually problematic and unusually persuasive, the Supreme Court on Wednesday did not seem inclined to rule that the Constitution requires judges to view such evidence with special skepticism. Ordinary trial procedures, several justices suggested, should be adequate to address the potential unreliability of eyewitness identifications.

No comments:

Post a Comment