State v. Faust, 161 Conn.App. 149

Defendant Nathaniel Faust was convicted of robbery; two eyewitnesses (Rose Schroeder and Samantha Edwards) identified him—one from photos months later and both in court—with expressed high confidence.
Schroeder saw a man outside the jewelry store the night before the robbery for ~10 seconds; she identified Faust from photos 8–9 months later and in court.
Edwards saw a stolen Mercedes being driven by an African‑American man on June 30, 2008; she identified Faust from photos ~26 months later and in court nearly four years later.
At trial the court instructed the jury on eyewitness identification generally but declined the defendant’s requested, more specific instructions about (1) the weak correlation between confidence and accuracy and (2) memory degradation over time.
Justice Borden concurred in the judgment but disagreed with the majority that the court’s general instructions were adequate; he would have required the requested specific Guilbert‑style instructions but concluded any error was harmless because of strong DNA evidence tying Faust to the crime.

Issue	State's Argument	Faust's Argument	Held
Whether the court erred by refusing to tell jurors that confidence has little correlation with accuracy	The court’s general admonition that "certainty does not mean accuracy" was sufficient	Requested specific instruction: scientific consensus shows little or weak correlation between witness confidence and identification accuracy; jurors need explicit guidance	Concurrence: Court should have given the specific instruction but omission was harmless given other evidence; majority nevertheless affirmed conviction
Whether the court erred by refusing to tell jurors that identifications become less reliable as time elapses	General instruction to consider elapsed time sufficed	Requested specific instruction: memory fades rapidly (hours), so longer delays materially weaken identification reliability	Concurrence: Court should have given the specific instruction reflecting Guilbert science but error was harmless in light of DNA evidence; conviction affirmed

State v. Guilbert, 306 Conn. 218, 49 A.3d 705 (Conn. 2012) (reviews scientific literature on eyewitness reliability; permits expert testimony and recommends focused jury instructions)
State v. Kemp, 199 Conn. 473, 507 A.2d 1387 (Conn. 1986) (prior regime treating eyewitness reliability factors as within common juror knowledge)
State v. McClendon, 248 Conn. 572, 730 A.2d 1107 (Conn. 1999) (similar to Kemp; overruled by Guilbert)
State v. Henderson, 208 N.J. 208, 27 A.3d 872 (N.J. 2011) (influential decision endorsing focused eyewitness jury instructions and reliability analysis)
State v. Tatum, 219 Conn. 721, 595 A.2d 322 (Conn. 1991) (example of earlier broad eyewitness instruction criticized in Guilbert)
State v. Ledbetter, 275 Conn. 534, 881 A.2d 290 (Conn. 2005) (recognizes weak correlation between witness confidence and accuracy)