Source: https://bostonbarjournal.com/2016/01/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 21:58:58+00:00

Document:
Over the past year, the Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) has fundamentally changed the law on the admissibility of eyewitness identifications in criminal cases. Specifically, the SJC restricted the use of in-court identifications by eyewitnesses and adopted new jury instructions for assessing eyewitness testimony. This article summarizes these changes to Massachusetts law.
The Supreme Judicial Court has acknowledged that “research regarding eyewitness identification procedures is complex and evolving” and “eyewitness identification is the greatest source of wrongful convictions but also an invaluable law enforcement tool in obtaining accurate convictions.” Commonwealth v. Walker, 460 Mass. 590, 604 n.16 (2011). Following the Walker decision, the SJC convened a Study Group on Eyewitness Identifications (“Study Group”). The Study Group was tasked with determining how the Commonwealth could best deter unnecessarily suggestive identification procedures in criminal cases. In addition, the Study Group assessed whether existing model jury instructions provided adequate guidance to juries in evaluating eyewitness testimony. Three subcommittees of the Study Group focused on police protocols, pretrial evidentiary hearings on identification procedures, and improving jury instructions to better assist juries. See Executive Summary, Supreme Judicial Court Study Group on Eyewitness Evidence, Report and Recommendations to the Justices (July 25, 2013) (“Study Group Report”). The Study Group presented its Report in July 2013. By late 2014, the SJC began citing to the Study Group Report when issuing a trilogy of decisions that implemented many of the Study Group’s recommendations.
Massachusetts law permits the admission of an out-of-court eyewitness identification unless a defendant proves, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the identification procedures employed by the police were unnecessarily suggestive. Commonwealth v. Johnson, 420 Mass. 458, 463-64 (1995); Commonwealth v. Thornley, 406 Mass. 96, 98 (1989). The relevant inquiry is not whether the witness was mistaken. Rather, the question is whether the identification was the product of impermissibly suggestive police procedures. If the identification is admissible, a jury is free to weigh the reliability of the identification evidence. See Walker, 460 Mass. at 599; Johnson, 420 Mass. at 463-64.
While the SJC previously adopted a per se rule of exclusion for unnecessarily suggestive out-of-court identifications, the Court had never adopted such a rule for in-court identifications. Until recently, in-court identifications were excluded only if tainted by an out-of-court confrontation arranged by the Commonwealth that was ‘ “so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.’ ” Commonwealth v. Carr, 464 Mass. 855, 877 (2013) (quoting Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 384 (1968)); see also Commonwealth v. Choeurn, 446 Mass. 510, 520 (2006).
In Commonwealth v. Crayton, 470 Mass. 228 (2014), the Court addressed whether an in-court identification is admissible when there has been no prior out-of-court identification. Historically, a defendant’s only protection against admission was to seek alternative, less-suggestive, out-of-court identification procedures in advance of trial, or to challenge the reliability of the in-court identification through a cross-examination focusing on the witness’s demeanor and statements during the in-court identification. Using the Study Group Report as support, Crayton held that an in-court identification is admissible only when there is “good reason” for its admission. Id. at 241. Crayton reasoned that in-court identifications may be more suggestive than one-on-one show-up identifications conducted out of court. Id. at 237. Also, Crayton noted that a defendant’s presence in a courtroom acts “as confirmation that the prosecutor…believes the defendant is the [perpetrator].” Id. Therefore, the eyewitness is likely to conform to the behavior of others and identify the defendant. Id. (quoting Evan J. Mandery, Due Process Considerations of In-Court Identifications, 60 Alb. L. Rev. 389, 417-18 (1996)).
Crayton further reasoned that even though the jury can observe the witness during the in-court identification, jurors will not be “better able to evaluate the accuracy of the in-court identification” because statements attributed to “a witness’s level of confidence in an identification are not a reliable predictor of the accuracy of the identification.” Id. at 239. Moreover, it is very difficult to convince a jury through cross-examination that such statements are attributable to surrounding suggestive circumstances. Id. at 240.
Following Crayton, in-court identifications are admissible only where there is “good reason” for their admission. “Good reason” exists where the witness’s identification is not based solely on his memory of witnessing the incident; for example, if a witness was familiar with the defendant before the crime or if the witness was both an eyewitness and an arresting officer. Id. at 242. In practice, Crayton places the initial burden on prosecutors to move in limine for the admission of an in-court identification. Only then must the defendant demonstrate there is no “good reason” to permit such an in-court identification. Id. at 243. This new rule aims to avoid the “unfair evidentiary weight of a needlessly suggestive show-up identification that might be given more weight by a jury than it deserves.” Id. at 244.
In Commonwealth v. Collins, 470 Mass. 255 (2014), the Court addressed whether an in-court identification is admissible when a prior out-of-court identification resulted in “something less than an unequivocal positive identification of the defendant.” Id. at 262. Citing the Study Group Report, Collins noted that an eyewitness who is unable to make a positive identification before trial, or lacks confidence in his identification, is likely to regard the defendant’s prosecution as “confirmatory feedback” that the defendant is the “right” person. As a result, the witness may develop an “artificially inflated level of confidence” in any subsequent in-court identification. Id. at 262-63. This “enhancement of memory” makes assessing the accuracy of the in-court identification more difficult for juries. Id. at 263-64. Cross-examination will not always reveal prior, inaccurate in-court identifications because most jurors are unaware both of the weak correlation between confidence and accuracy and of a witness’s susceptibility to manipulation by suggestive procedures or confirming feedback. Id.
Following Collins, the prosecution must move in limine to admit an in-court identification where an eyewitness to a crime has not made an unequivocal positive identification of the defendant before trial but the prosecutor nonetheless intends to ask the eyewitness to make an in-court identification of the defendant. Once the prosecution makes this motion, the defendant then bears the burden of demonstrating that there is no “good reason” for the admission of the in-court identification. “Good reason” in this context “usually would require a showing that the in-court identification is more reliable than the witness’s earlier failure to make a positive identification and that it poses little risk of misidentification despite its suggestiveness.” Id. at 265 (emphasis added).
The Study Group was also charged with determining whether existing model jury instructions provide adequate guidance to juries in evaluating witness testimony. The prior Massachusetts model jury instruction on eyewitness identifications, adopted in 1979, delineated factors for the jury to consider when evaluating an eyewitness identification; however, it did “not instruct the jury as to how those factors may affect the accuracy of the identification.” Commonwealth v. Gomes, 470 Mass. 352, 363 (2015) (emphasis added). Gomes held that there are five principles pertaining to eyewitness identifications that are “so generally accepted” that they must be included in a model jury instruction. Id. at 376. Those principles are: 1) human memory does not function like a video recording, but is a complex process that consists of the stages of acquisition, retention, and retrieval; 2) an eyewitness’s expressed level of certainty, by itself, may not indicate the accuracy of his or her identification; 3) high stress can reduce an eyewitness’s ability to make an accurate identification; 4) a witness’s recollection of the memory and the identification can be influenced by unrelated information that is received both before or after making that identification; and 5) a prior viewing of a suspect at an identification procedure may reduce the reliability of a subsequent identification procedure with the same suspect. Id. at 369-76. Gomes adopted a provisional jury instruction, and the SJC issued a new model jury instruction in November 2015. This new instruction incorporates many of the principles discussed in the Study Group Report and in Gomes and is designed to educate jurors, in plain language, on the science of memory so that jurors are better equipped to assess the credibility and reliability of eyewitness testimony. This new instruction will increase jurors’ understanding of the complexities surrounding eyewitness identifications. Id. at 376-77. However, as Gomes noted, the new jury instruction is not intended to preclude additional expert testimony at trial; rather, such expert testimony remains crucial to elaborate on the principles addressed within the jury instruction and to further explain how other relevant variables in each individual case may affect the accuracy of an identification. Id. at 378. With an eye to the future, Gomes acknowledged the potential need to revise eyewitness jury instructions “as science evolves.” Id. at 368.
Just as the science associated with eyewitness identifications will continue to evolve, so will the case law. The Crayton, Collins, and Gomes holdings are positive steps toward reforming case law to conform to science. In addition to issuing these three decisions, the SJC announced a new Standing Committee on Eyewitness Identification in 2015. This Committee is tasked with offering ongoing guidance to the courts regarding eyewitness identification procedures. The Massachusetts criminal justice system is now poised to more fairly address the issues raised when an individual is accused of committing a crime based on eyewitness testimony.
Massachusetts law also permits the exclusion of eyewitness identification under common-law principles of fairness when an eyewitness is exposed to such highly suggestive circumstances independent of police involvement that the eyewitness’s identification is deemed unreliable. Commonwealth v. Jones, 423 Mass. 99, 110 (1996).
 A show-up is an identification procedure wherein a witness to a crime is shown only one person. Usually, the person is someone the police believe is a suspect. The witness is usually shown the person at the scene of the crime or the witness is brought to where the suspect is detained.
 Criminal Model Jury Instructions for use in the District Courts, Instructions 1.340 & 9.160 (November 2015).
Scott P. Lopez is a partner at Lawson & Weitzen, LLP and trial lawyer with more than 25 years of federal and state court experience representing clients in criminal and civil matters. He is a former co-chair and member of the Boston Bar Association’s Criminal Law Steering Committee.
Lauren J. Weitzen is an associate at Lawson & Weitzen, LLP who previously was a Supervising Attorney with the Committee for Public Counsel Services Public Defender Division. She represents clients in criminal and civil matters and is a member of the Boston Bar Association.
“Empower the Sentencing Commission to revisit the state’s approach to sentencing and sanctions”, this was one of several key criminal justice policy recommendations proposed by the Massachusetts Criminal Justice Coalition in 2013. At the urging of criminal justice leaders, the Massachusetts Sentencing Commission, originally codified in Massachusetts G.L. c.211E, was re-established in 2014 and met for the first time that October to consider the performance of our sentencing system. Nearly nineteen years after the publication of the first “Report to the General Court” in 1996, once again the members and staff of the Massachusetts Sentencing Commission eagerly embrace the opportunity to reposition the Commonwealth at the forefront of criminal justice policy development.
The current sentencing guidelines are used by many judges on a voluntary basis. The guidelines are in the form of a grid where the seriousness of the offense and the criminal history of the defendant are systematically considered in making a sentencing recommendation.
• Steven W. Tompkins: Sheriff, Suffolk County.
• Serve as a clearinghouse for information on sentencing.
• Michael Coelho: Deputy Commissioner of Programs at the Massachusetts Probation Service, Coelho addressed the Commission on the Pew Results First Initiative, a cost- benefit approach to guiding policy and budgetary decisions throughout the Massachusetts criminal justice system.
• Professor Mark Kleiman: Then a Professor of Public Policy at the Luskin School of Public Affairs, UCLA at Berkeley, Professor Kleiman engaged Commission members in discussion of the HOPE model of probation supervision and best practices in the sentencing of drug offenders.
• Professor Kevin Reitz: Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota Law School, Professor Reitz provided a national perspective on the work of other sentencing commissions and how Massachusetts can incorporate nationally recognized best practices into our sentencing guidelines model.
• Professor Richard Frase: Co-Director of the Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, Professor Frase provided valuable insight on developing a safety-valve provision offering qualified offenders relief from mandatory minimum sentences.
• Commissioner Edward Davis (ret.): Former Boston Police Commissioner Davis presented Commission members with a law enforcement perspective on sentencing and best practices for promoting successful post-incarceration reintegration for offenders.
• District Attorney Daniel Conley: Suffolk County District Attorney Conley provided Commission members with a prosecutorial perspective on sentencing and crime control.
• Judge Nancy Gertner (ret.): A former Federal Judge, Gertner presented Commission members with her experience and perspectives in working with the federal sentencing guidelines.
• Community-Based Sanctions Sub-Committee: Focusing on innovative solutions to incentivize compliance with community-based sanctions, restructuring of supervision fees, community relations through outreach initiatives, and considering the implications of “zero-based” conditions of probation where every condition must be justified.
• Guidelines and Legislation Sub-Committee: Focusing on the development of a comprehensive sentencing guidelines model, one supported by data and grounded in research. Sub-committee members are actively debating and considering improvements designed to strengthen statutory criminal justice provisions.
• Outreach and Training Sub-Committee: Responsible for the coordination of public hearings as well as making recommendations to improve the web presence of the Commission. Further, sub-committee members are also responsible for the development of training resources and for providing technical support to guidelines users at the local court level.
• Research and Data Sub-Committee: Responsible for the review and approval of all research related requests, including the development of information sharing protocols. Sub-committee members also serve as a review board to monitor any mutually agreeable external research projects the Commission engages in. Further, sub-committee members may analyze sentencing data to monitor developing trends and rates of compliance and departure from recommended sentencing ranges.
The Massachusetts criminal justice system is engaged in many initiatives that share the mission of, and parallel the work of the Commission. The Council of State Government’s Justice Reinvestment Initiative and the best practices in sentencing committees within the Trial Court are two such initiatives.
The Council of State Government’s Justice Reinvestment Initiative in Massachusetts is a significant cost-savings. Experts from the Justice Reinvestment Initiative will present these findings to a bipartisan task force that will debate and present these recommendations to the legislature. The cost-savings generated through these recommendations can then be reinvested in front-end programs designed to reduce recidivism. Currently, 24 states and 17 local jurisdictions throughout the United States participate in the Justice Reinvestment Initiative.
Led by Chief Justice Ralph Gants, working groups on best practices in sentencing are active in each court department with significant criminal jurisdiction. Committee members, which include judges, probation officers, prosecutors, defense attorneys and police chiefs, are tasked with the development and implementation of sentencing best practices specific to each of these court departments. It is the intent of these committees to develop a set of sentencing best practices to serve as a judicial decision making support tool, guiding judges in crafting individualized sentences that are consistent with best practices whenever possible.
Moving forward, the Sentencing Commission is developing data-driven policy recommendations and remains committed to collaborating with nationally recognized experts from the academic and legal communities. Given the diverse backgrounds of Commission members, significant differences of opinion on how to best improve sentencing in Massachusetts are unavoidable, and despite this, many Commission members are encouraged by a shared vision. This common vision is one that does not compromise public safety and scarce correctional resources, and seeks to reduce prison populations when consistent with public safety, to reduce recidivism, to enhance the utilization of intermediate sanctions, and to support an economically sustainable correctional model. The Commission extends its sincere gratitude to the many local champions and nationally recognized leaders who have whole-heartedly endorsed and supported our mission as we work to bring evidence-based practices to sentencing policy in Massachusetts.
John Lu is a Superior Court justice and chair of the Massachusetts Sentencing Commission as well as an Adjunct Professor of Law at Boston University. He is the lead Superior Court judge for a Bureau of Justice Assistance-funded Demonstration Field Experiment of HOPE probation principles, a randomized control trial of supervision of high-risk probationers. Lu’s professional interests include criminal justice and sentencing innovation, leadership and management, and teaching.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.