Early reports indicate that the SCOTUS thinks juries can best figure out what to do with eyewitness testimony.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/11/argument-recap-eyewitnesses-discredited-hardly/#more-130914

Can't wait to see the transcript of argument.

Boy, that's fair coverage. Fair-ly one-sided.

The transcript confirms the one-sidedeness of the arguments! It is also really worth reading Niocole Saharsky's (Assistant to the Solicitor General) arguments. She bundles everything together in a very fluid style.

This is not the case to erect further barriers to admission of eyewitness identification testimony.

Now the CCA's recent opinion in Tillman almost seems prescient.

[This message was edited by John A. Stride on 11-02-11 at .]

Cases like Henderson, 202 N.J. 208, 27 A.2d 872 (2011) may not start much of a new trend if the justices say something in their opinion in Perry like what was voiced during the oral arguments. But, in the meantime, be prepared for renewed attacks on eyewitnesses.

The state's draft model policy on eyewitness identification procedures is now available for comment online; click
HERE for details.