1 / 17

Eyewitness ID Reform Legislation: Past, Present and Future

Eyewitness ID Reform Legislation: Past, Present and Future. Scott Ehlers, NACDL State Legislative Affairs Director. Eyewitness ID Reform Legislation Enacted (2003-5). Illinois: SB 472 (2003) . 2002 : Governor’s Commission on Capital Punishment

aliza
Download Presentation

Eyewitness ID Reform Legislation: Past, Present and Future

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Eyewitness ID Reform Legislation: Past, Present and Future Scott Ehlers, NACDL State Legislative Affairs Director

  2. Eyewitness ID Reform Legislation Enacted (2003-5)

  3. Illinois: SB 472 (2003) 2002: Governor’s Commission on Capital Punishment 2003: Death Penalty Reform Bill (SB 472; Public Act 093-0605) enacted. Includes following eyewitness ID reforms: • Lineups must by “photographed or otherwise recorded” and all photographs and photo spreads must be disclosed to defense counsel. (725 ILCS 5/107A-5)

  4. Illinois: SB 472 (cont.) • Eyewitnesses viewing a lineup must sign a standardized form, informing them that: 1) suspect may not be in lineup and they are not obligated to make an ID; and 2) they can’t assume lineup administrator knows which person is the suspect. • Pilot study on sequential lineups (725 ILCS 5/107A-10).

  5. Virginia: HB 2632 (2005) 2004: HJR 79 passes General Assembly; directs VA State Crime Commission to study mistaken eyewitness ID, lineup procedures, and sequential method. Jan. 2005: Crime Commission study makes 6 recommendations, incl.: • law requiring police depts. to have written policy for conducting lineups; • law designating VA State Police as repository for all mug shots and queries for lineups; • workgroup to develop a model lineup policy; and • new police trainings, accreditation should incl. sequential method.

  6. Virginia: HB 2632 (cont’d) 2005: HB 2632 enacted. • Photos of arrestees to be submitted to the Central Criminal Records Exchange; • Police depts. must have written policies and procedures for in-person and photo lineups; and, • Dept. of Criminal Justice Services and VA State Crime Commission in charge of developing model lineup procedures and training requirements.

  7. Wisconsin: AB 648 (2005) 2003: Steven Avery exonerated after serving 18 years in prison. Bad ID was involved. 2004: Avery Task Force created by conservative Rep. Mark Gundrum to find out what went wrong in Avery case. 2005: Avery Task Force makes its recommendations, incl. reforming eyewitness ID procedures.

  8. Wisconsin: AB 648 (cont’d) 2005: AB 648 enacts reforms to reduce wrongful convictions, incl. eyewitness ID reforms: • Police must have written procedures “designed to reduce the potential for erroneous identifications”; • Biennial review of policies; • Police must consider model policies adopted by other jurisdictions; • “To the extent feasible,” use blind administrators and the sequential procedure; and, • Document lineup procedure.

  9. Eyewitness ID Reform Legislation Introduced (2005-6) 32 Bills in 17 States

  10. Eyewitness ID Reform – Legislative Models • Prescriptive – Establishes specific eyewitness ID procedures the police must follow. • Best Practices – Requires police, AG, or training body to develop lineup procedures based on best practices or the DOJ guidelines. • Task Force – Establishes a task force or commission to study the issue and make eyewitness ID reform recommendations.

  11. Eyewitness ID Reform – Legislative Models (cont’d) • Pilot Project – Establishes a pilot project to study how eyewitness ID procedures perform in the field. • Expert Testimony – Revises the Evidence Code to allow expert testimony on the reliability of eyewitness ID. • Combination

  12. Prescriptive Eyewitness ID Legislation (2005-6) 11 States: Connecticut; Georgia; Hawaii; Massachusetts; Michigan; New Hampshire; New York; Pennsylvania (SB 948); Rhode Island; Vermont; West Virginia Typical Elements: • Blind Administrator or Equivalent • Eyewitness Instructions, i.e. perpetrator not necessarily in the lineup; administrator doesn’t know the suspect; don’t feel compelled to ID someone • Sequential Lineup

  13. Prescriptive Eyewitness ID Legislation (cont’d) • Composition Requirements for Lineups and Photo Arrays • Recordkeeping of the Lineup Procedure; i.e. date, time, place; recording/photo of lineup; description of the lineup or photo array; confidence statements of eyewitness • Remedy for Failure to Comply with Prescribed Procedures • PoliceTraining

  14. “Best Practices” Eyewitness ID Legislation (2005-6) 2 States: Maryland (SB 863 amended); Wisconsin (AB 648) Maryland: Passed Senate, House Judiciary, 1st reading on House floor; ran out of time Task Force Legislation (2005-6) 2 States: Maine; Pennsylvania (SB 946)

  15. Pilot Project Eyewitness ID Legislation (2005-6) 1 State: Pennsylvania (SB 947) Combination Legislation (2005-6) 2 States: California (SB 1544) - Still Alive! Missouri (HB 1330)

  16. The Future: Recommendations • Task Force or Innocence Commission Support • Buy-In from Law Enforcement • Use Exonerations to Your Advantage • Less (Specific) is More (Better) • Sequential is Trouble

  17. Contact: Scott Ehlers NACDL State Legislative Affairs Director Ph: 202/872-8600 x 242 scott@nacdl.org

More Related