ARGUMENT

Eyewitness testimony is often a critical part of the truth-seeking process. Accurate eyewitness identifications can provide powerful evidence of guilt or innocence. As this Court has "long recognized," however, "'eyewitness identification[s] ... present[] a substantial risk of misidentification'" and thus "`increase[] the chance of a conviction of an innocent defendant."' Commonwealth v. Silva-Santiago, 453 Mass. 782, 796 (2009) (quoting Commonwealth v. Jones, 423 Mass. 99, 109 (1996)); see also, e.g., United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 228 (1967) ("The '' vagaries of eyewitness identification are well-known[.]").

To mitigate the threat of erroneous convictions caused by mistaken identifications, this~Court has "recognized that, where the reliability of a positive eyewitness identification is an important issue at trial, a judge should instruct the jury regarding the evaluation of eyewitness identification -testimony." Commonwealth v. Franklin, 465 Mass. 895, 910 (2013), (citing Commonwealth v. Pressley, 390 Mass. 617, 619 (1983)). Over the last thirty years the Court has periodically revised those instructions to ensure their fairness and continued scientific accuracy. For example, in Commonwealth v. Pressley, 390 Mass. 617 (1983),-the Court held that the addition of an instruction that identifications can be "honest but mistaken" was compelled by "[f]airness to [the) defendant," id. at 620. And in Commonwealth v. Santoli, 424 Mass. 837 (1997), the Court eliminated from the approved instruction the suggestion of a correlation between witness confidence and accuracy, in light of "significant doubt" about such a correlation, id. at 845-846; see also Commonwealth v. i Rodriguez, 378 Mass. 296, 310-311 (1979) (adopting identification instruction from United States v. Telfaire, 469 F.2d 552 (D.C. Cir. 1972) (per curiam)).

The cases now before the Court concern whether trial courts should instruct juries on four principles relating to eyewitness identifications: (1) that human memory is nit like a video recording; (2) that witnesses who are highly confident of their identifications are not therefore necessarily reliable; (3) that a witness's prior viewing of a suspect in an identification procedure, without making a positive identification, reduces the reliability of the witness's later identification of the same suspect; and (4) that the jury may consider the fact that an eyewitness to the crime has failed to identify a suspect in a police lineup.

In considering these issues, amici submit that this Court should take into account the extensive body of psychological research dedicated to eyewitness identifications--research that, as will be discussed at the outset, is highly reliable. That research supports a number of conclusions relevant here: First, each of the four scientific principles raised by the defendants in these cases has ample support in the psychological research. Second, despite the advent of DNA testing and a number of high-profile exonerations, jurors still lack an adequate understanding of human memory and of the factors that make identifications more or less susceptible to error. Third, while jury instructions alone will not solve the problem of false identifications, neither can other traditional safeguards of the adversary system-- cross-examination and expert testimony--by themselves counter in most cases the prejudicial effect of false identifications. Instructions, including those if the type requested here, are also needed.

Argument

Eyewitness accounts often play a crucial role in legal proceedings. Accurate identifications by eyewitnesses can provide strong evidence for determining guilt or innocence. However, as courts have frequently acknowledged, eyewitness identifications carry a significant risk of error. This risk can increase the likelihood of an innocent person being convicted.

To lessen the chance of incorrect convictions due to mistaken identifications, courts have recognized that juries should receive instructions on how to evaluate eyewitness testimony when its reliability is a key point in a trial. Over the past three decades, these instructions have been updated periodically to ensure fairness and scientific accuracy. For example, previous rulings have established that juries should be told that an identification can be "honest but mistaken." Additionally, courts have removed suggestions that a witness's confidence directly correlates with the accuracy of their identification, due to doubts about this relationship.

The current cases before the Court address whether trial courts should instruct juries on four specific points regarding eyewitness identifications:

1. Human memory does not function like a video recording.

2. High confidence from a witness in their identification does not automatically mean the identification is reliable.

3. If a witness previously viewed a suspect in an identification process without making a positive identification, their later identification of the same suspect is less reliable.

4. Juries may consider when an eyewitness to a crime failed to identify a suspect in a police lineup.

In considering these matters, it is suggested that the Court review the extensive psychological research on eyewitness identifications, which is considered highly dependable. This research supports several conclusions relevant to the discussion: Each of the four scientific principles raised by the defendants is well-supported by psychological studies. Despite the availability of DNA testing and several notable exonerations, jurors often do not fully understand human memory and the factors that influence the accuracy of identifications. While jury instructions alone cannot eliminate the problem of false identifications, other common legal safeguards, such as cross-examination and expert testimony, are often not enough to counter the negative impact of false identifications. Therefore, instructions, including those requested in these cases, are also necessary.

Argument

Eyewitness accounts are often crucial in legal proceedings. When accurate, these identifications can strongly indicate guilt or innocence. However, courts have long acknowledged that eyewitness identifications carry a significant risk of error, which can lead to the conviction of innocent individuals.

To reduce the chance of wrongful convictions due to mistaken identifications, courts have determined that judges should provide specific instructions to juries. These instructions are given when the reliability of an eyewitness identification is a key point in a trial. Over the past three decades, these instructions have been updated to ensure fairness and to reflect current scientific understanding. For example, previous revisions have included telling juries that an identification can be "honest but mistaken" and removing any suggestion that a witness's confidence directly correlates with the accuracy of their identification.

The current cases before the Court address whether juries should receive instructions on four specific principles about eyewitness identifications. These principles include: that human memory is not like a video recording; that a confident witness is not necessarily a reliable one; that failing to identify a suspect initially can reduce the reliability of a later identification of the same suspect; and that juries may consider when a witness failed to identify a suspect in a police lineup.

When evaluating these issues, it is important to consider the extensive psychological research on eyewitness identifications, which is considered highly reliable. This research supports several key points. It shows strong scientific backing for each of the four principles raised by the defendants. Additionally, despite advances like DNA testing, jurors often do not fully understand human memory and the factors that can lead to errors in identification. Finally, while jury instructions alone cannot eliminate the problem of false identifications, other common legal safeguards, such as cross-examination and expert testimony, are often insufficient to counteract the harmful effects of incorrect identifications. Therefore, specific jury instructions, like those requested, are also necessary.

Argument

Eyewitness accounts are often a key part of finding the truth in legal cases. When witnesses correctly identify someone, it can be strong proof of guilt or innocence. However, courts have long known that eyewitness identifications carry a high risk of being wrong. This increases the chance that an innocent person might be found guilty.

To lower the risk of wrong convictions caused by mistaken identifications, courts have said that judges should tell juries how to evaluate eyewitness testimony. This is especially important when the reliability of an identification is a major part of the trial. Over the past 30 years, these instructions have been updated to make sure they are fair and based on current scientific understanding. For example, a court once ruled that juries should be told that a witness can be "honest but mistaken." Another time, the court removed the idea that a confident witness is always accurate, because there was significant doubt about this connection.

The current cases before the court involve whether juries should receive instructions on four main points about eyewitness identifications: (1) that human memory is not like a video camera; (2) that a witness who is very sure of an identification might not necessarily be correct; (3) that if a witness saw a suspect before but did not identify them, a later identification of that same suspect is less reliable; and (4) that juries can consider it if an eyewitness failed to identify a suspect in a police lineup.

In addressing these matters, it is suggested that the court consider the vast amount of psychological research on eyewitness identifications, which is very reliable. This research supports several conclusions. First, the four scientific principles brought up by the defendants in these cases are strongly supported by psychological studies. Second, even with DNA testing and many public cases where innocent people were cleared, juries still do not fully understand human memory and what makes identifications more or less likely to be wrong. Third, while jury instructions alone will not fix the problem of false identifications, other common legal protections like cross-examination and expert testimony usually cannot overcome the harm caused by false identifications. Therefore, instructions, including the types requested in these cases, are also necessary.

Summary

Eyewitness accounts are often very important in finding out the truth. When someone correctly identifies a person, it can be strong proof of who is guilty or not guilty. But the court has said many times that eyewitness identifications can easily be wrong. This can lead to innocent people being found guilty.

To help prevent wrong convictions from mistaken identifications, the court has said that judges should tell juries how to think about what an eyewitness says. Over the last 30 years, these instructions have been updated to be fair and correct based on science. For example, the court once added that a witness can be honest but still make a mistake. Later, the court removed the idea that a confident witness is always correct, because there was doubt about that idea.

The current cases before the court are about four main points for jury instructions:

1. That human memory is not like a video camera.

2. That witnesses who are very sure of their identification are not always right.

3. That if a witness saw a suspect before but did not identify them, a later identification of that same person is less trustworthy.

4. That the jury can think about it if an eyewitness to a crime did not identify a suspect in a police lineup.

When looking at these points, it is suggested that the court should consider a lot of research about eyewitness identifications. This research is very reliable. The research shows several important things: First, the four ideas the defendants are bringing up have strong support from this research. Second, even with new DNA tests and cases where innocent people were set free, juries still do not fully understand human memory and what makes identifications more or less likely to be wrong. Third, while jury instructions alone won't fix all problems with wrong identifications, other methods like questioning witnesses or expert opinions often cannot fix the harm caused by wrong identifications. Instructions, like the ones asked for here, are also needed.