New Jersey's Supreme Court recently ruled that witnesses who have questionable stories must be extensively questioned, and a judge may give jurors additional instructions during trial, The New York Times reports.
Los Angeles criminal defense attorneys hope California officials are listening. We have seen many defendants hauled into court, had the media spotlight thrust upon them and had charges ultimately dismissed -- often without a notice in the newspaper or on TV years later -- because of poor witness identification.
Whether it's a charge of murder in Los Angeles or a drug case with less than credible witnesses, defendants historically have had their lives turned upside down because sometimes the state relies on weak witnesses to get them convictions.
This goes for co-defendants as well. Prosecutors will often make a "deal with the devil" by giving co-defendants who face similar charges short prison sentences or lenient probation terms in order to convince them to testify against their co-defendant.
These "witnesses" are put on public display and must say what the state wants to hear. If they vary, even a little, and if the co-defendant doesn't get convicted, they can end up having their plea agreements shredded and go on trial just like the rest of them. You better believe they are willing to say what the state wants them to hear.
The changes in New Jersey courts likely apply more in situations where witnesses in a shooting, for instance, tell police they saw the person who committed the crime. But then after being shown police lineups or giving statements, their story waivers. Once they take a deposition -- where defense attorneys and prosecutors ask pointed questions after reviewing the evidence -- that's when the cracks start to show and the testimony crumbles.
Yet, the aggressive prosecutor uses them anyway. But now in New Jersey, defendants can ask for a pretrial hearing if there is evidence that the witness's credibility is at stake. Additionally, during the hearing a judge can examine whether the person is telling the truth or has enough knowledge to be useful.
There are many factors to consider and questions to ask during the hearing to determine whether the witness is credible. Were police an influence in what the person said during the investigation? What time of day did the incident occur, and how far away from the suspect was the "witness?" There can also be discussion about whether the witness was under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Even if a witness is cleared to testify before a jury, the judge can talk to jurors at any time to tell them how witnesses could misidentify a suspect and explain the factors that can lead to wrong identification.
This is a victory in New Jersey for defendants. We hope it becomes a reality in California as well. The New York Times speculates that while it applies only to New Jersey cases, the court there has previously been a trend-setter and influential to other states' laws.
We agree with New Jersey justices that there is a "troubling lack of reliability in eyewitness identifications" that have led to many overturned convictions, perhaps the leading reason. This is an easily fixable situation. Judges must be empowered, and defendants as well, to hold the state accountable for their actions in using weak witnesses.
If you need to speak with a Los Angeles criminal defense attorney, contact the Law Offices of Stephen G. Rodriguez and Associates at 213-223-2173 for a free consultation.
More Blog Entries:
Ruling on Orange county Murder Applies to Los Angeles Criminal Appeals: September 5, 2011
Additional Resources:
In New Jersey, Rules Are Changed on Witness IDs, by Benjamin Weiser, The New York Times
