Loading…

It's not you, it's the law: Eyewitness memory scholars' disappointment with Perry v. New Hampshire

In January 2012, the United States Supreme Court ruled that suggestive identification procedures violate a defendant's rights to due process only if law enforcement officials orchestrated the suggestive procedures. The Court's decision in Perry v. New Hampshire ( Perry v. New Hampshire, No...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Psychology, public policy, and law public policy, and law, 2013-08, Vol.19 (3), p.369-379
Main Authors: Berkowitz, Shari R., Javaid, Naser L.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:In January 2012, the United States Supreme Court ruled that suggestive identification procedures violate a defendant's rights to due process only if law enforcement officials orchestrated the suggestive procedures. The Court's decision in Perry v. New Hampshire ( Perry v. New Hampshire, No. 10–8974, 565 U.S. ___, 2012) dealt a serious blow to scholars who had contributed to the impressive advances of eyewitness memory research in the 34 years since the Court's last major statement on eyewitness testimony. In particular, it seemed as though the Court ignored the intervening years and the myriad scientific studies that had been conducted in that time. How could the Court be so blind? In what follows, we review both the scientific research on eyewitness memory and the Court's constitutional jurisprudence as it relates to eyewitness testimony and evidentiary due-process concerns. Together, we show that, although the Court may have seemingly ignored decades of scientific research, the question presented by Perry required the Court to remain true to existing due-process jurisprudence. We conclude by reviewing the limits of the Perry decision as well as a discussion of what the future may hold for the intersection of eyewitness memory research and constitutional interpretation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)
ISSN:1076-8971
1939-1528
DOI:10.1037/a0032840