Comments on: Shh…don’t look now… http://apublicdefender.com/2009/03/24/shhdont-look-now/ Tue, 24 Jan 2012 02:29:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: LJS http://apublicdefender.com/2009/03/24/shhdont-look-now/comment-page-1/#comment-46656 LJS Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:34:25 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/?p=2249#comment-46656 I'm not sure the drafters of the eyewitness bill understand the research on fillers -- the idea is to make the fillers match the descriptions of the culprit (the guy/gal the witnesses saw) without making the suspect stand out. The witness description tells you want was important to them -- so if the description says 5'2 and heavy set -- the fillers should be of a similar size/build -- unless the suspect (however he or she was picked) doesn't fit that description. Also would be important that the suspect and fillers all be in neutral clothing. If the witness describes the culprit as, to take your recent poll, wearing a black hoodie -- the suspect shouldn't be the only one wearing a black hoodie. I'd also love to see language requesting recording of the ID procedure whenever feasible so there is a record of how long it took to make the pick, how certain the witness was, any feedback from the administrator, etc. Alternately, the adminstrator (who presumably doesn't know who the suspect is under this bill) should write his/her report BEFORE being told whether the witness picked the suspect. I like the custodial interrogation bill, but don't see why it can't cover out-of-state interrogations conducted by CT personnel if feasible to do so -- what, the CT state police can't borrow or bring a tape recorder? I’m not sure the drafters of the eyewitness bill understand the research on fillers — the idea is to make the fillers match the descriptions of the culprit (the guy/gal the witnesses saw) without making the suspect stand out. The witness description tells you want was important to them — so if the description says 5’2 and heavy set — the fillers should be of a similar size/build — unless the suspect (however he or she was picked) doesn’t fit that description.

Also would be important that the suspect and fillers all be in neutral clothing. If the witness describes the culprit as, to take your recent poll, wearing a black hoodie — the suspect shouldn’t be the only one wearing a black hoodie.

I’d also love to see language requesting recording of the ID procedure whenever feasible so there is a record of how long it took to make the pick, how certain the witness was, any feedback from the administrator, etc. Alternately, the adminstrator (who presumably doesn’t know who the suspect is under this bill) should write his/her report BEFORE being told whether the witness picked the suspect.

I like the custodial interrogation bill, but don’t see why it can’t cover out-of-state interrogations conducted by CT personnel if feasible to do so — what, the CT state police can’t borrow or bring a tape recorder?

]]> By: twoladiesinwaiting http://apublicdefender.com/2009/03/24/shhdont-look-now/comment-page-1/#comment-46636 twoladiesinwaiting Wed, 25 Mar 2009 18:48:09 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/?p=2249#comment-46636 And, as it is Spring, heeeeere comes the Mary Jane bill! And, as it is Spring, heeeeere comes the Mary Jane bill!

]]>