More News on Eyewitness Identifications
From OCDLA Library of Defense
< Blog:Main(Difference between revisions)
This wikilog article is a draft, it was not published yet.
by: Ryan • August 24, 2011 • no comments
(Importing text file) |
(Importing text file) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
| − | The [[ | + | The [[http://libraryofdefense.org/sites/default/files/nj-eyewitness-id-case.pdf New Jersey decision is here]]. |
| − | As you know, this blog has noted [/Eyewitness_Identifications:_Expect_Big_Cases_Next_Year | + | As you know, this blog has noted [[Blog:Main/Eyewitness_Identifications:_Expect_Big_Cases_Next_Year|here]] on eyewitness identifications before both the Oregon Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court. |
{{wl-publish: 2011-08-24 21:00:00 -0700 | Ryan }} | {{wl-publish: 2011-08-24 21:00:00 -0700 | Ryan }} | ||
Revision as of 19:05, December 21, 2012
The New York Times reported today on the new eyewitness identification opinion out of the New Jersey Supreme Court. The story begins:
The New Jersey Supreme Court, acknowledging a "troubling lack of reliability in eyewitness identifications," issued sweeping new rules on Wednesday making it easier for defendants to challenge such evidence in criminal cases.
The [New Jersey decision is here].
As you know, this blog has noted here on eyewitness identifications before both the Oregon Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court.
