State v. Henderson
208 N.J. 208
| N.J. | 2011Background
- Womble identified Henderson in a January 14, 2003 photo array; Wade hearing scrutinized suggestiveness of police conduct during identification.
- Trial court admitted the identification under Manson/Madison two-step test; Appellate Division reversed, finding a Guideline breach presumptively suggestive.
- Supreme Court granted certification, held remand hearing before remaking the framework; Special Master reviewed extensive scientific literature on eyewitness identifications.
- remand evidence concluded memory is malleable; numerous system and estimator variables affect reliability; lines of inquiry extended beyond traditional estimator variables.
- Court replaced Manson/Madison with revised framework: allow pretrial exploration of all relevant system and estimator variables when there is some suggestiveness, plus enhanced jury instructions; prospective application except for Henderson and Chen companion case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Manson/M Madison test remains valid. | Henderson argues the old test is outdated given memory research. | State contends Manson/Madison remains adequate. | Revised framework adopted; Manson/Madison declined as sole standard. |
| Whether pretrial hearings should explore estimator variables. | Defendant advocates broader pretrial exploration of variables. | State favors limited pretrial hearings, reserving estimator variables for trial. | Pretrial hearings now allowed to consider both system and estimator variables when suggestiveness shown. |
| Whether a guideline violation should trigger per se suppression. | Defense seeks per se exclusion for guideline breaches. | State argues guidelines are recommendations, not mandatory exclusions. | Guidelines are not per se; reliability framework governs admissibility, with potential suppression only for very substantial misidentification. |
| How juries should be instructed to evaluate eyewitness identifications. | Enhanced, targeted jury instructions are necessary to convey memory dynamics. | Jury instructions and cross-examination suffice. | Court requires enhanced, case-specific jury instructions on factors affecting reliability. |
| Whether rule change should be retroactive. | New rule should apply to all cases. | Retroactive application would disrupt many cases. | Rule applied prospectively except Henderson/Chen; remand for future cases. |
Key Cases Cited
- Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (U.S. 1977) (two-step test for admissibility of eyewitness identifications: impermissibly suggestive procedures and reliability factors)
- State v. Madison, 109 N.J. 223 (N.J. 1988) (adopts Manson framework and Biggers factors for reliability in New Jersey)
- Cromedy, 158 N.J. 112 (N.J. 1999) (cross-racial identification instructions when identity is critical)
- Romero, 191 N.J. 59 (N.J. 2007) (juror instruction about confidence not equating to reliability; supports informing jurors of reliability limits)
- Delgado, 188 N.J. 48 (N.J. 2006) (recognizes eyewitness misidentification as leading cause of wrongful convictions; memory cautionary guidance)
- Herrera, 187 N.J. 493 (N.J. 2006) (discusses photographic identification guidelines; emphasizes best practices)
- State v. Chen, 207 N.J. 404 (N.J. 2011) (companion case addressing remand framework distinctions)
- Knight, 145 N.J. 233 (N.J. 1996) (retroactivity analysis framework for new rules of law)