[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-200286-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":81,"doc-detail-200286-en":126},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","criminal-defendants-have-a-due-process-right-to-an-expert-on-eyewitness-reliability-why-the-court-was-wrong-in-perry-v-new-hampshire-2012","CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS HAVE A DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO AN EXPERT ON EYEWITNESS RELIABILITY - WHY THE COURT WAS WRONG IN PERRY V. NEW HAMPSHIRE (2012)","","The article argues that the U.S. Supreme Court incorrectly assessed judges’ ability to evaluate eyewitness identification reliability under its due process framework in Perry v. New Hampshire (2012). It analyzes the Court’s 5-factor reliability approach, showing how prior decisions relied on flawed reasoning and how cross-examination and jury instructions cannot adequately correct the science of misperception and memory errors. It contends due process requires qualified psychological experts for defendants in eyewitness cases.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/","Template",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/","Letters",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/criminal-defendants-have-a-due-process-right-to-an-expert-on-eyewitness-reliability-why-the-court-was-wrong-in-perry-v-new-hampshire-2012/200286/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/criminal-defendants-have-a-due-process-right-to-an-expert-on-eyewitness-reliability-why-the-court-was-wrong-in-perry-v-new-hampshire-2012/200286.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Emma Wilson","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-07","2026-09-04",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",5,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What is the Supreme Court’s 5-factor reliability algorithm used for in eyewitness identification cases?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"It provides a totality-of-the-circumstances framework for judges to evaluate whether an eyewitness identification is sufficiently reliable for admissibility.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"Why does the article say the Supreme Court was wrong in Perry v. New Hampshire (2012)?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"It argues the Court overestimated judges’ ability to accurately assess reliability and relied on cross-examination and jury instructions that the article says cannot adequately address eyewitness error.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What remedy does the article claim due process requires for criminal defendants in eyewitness cases?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"Qualified psychological experts should be provided to defendants so triers of fact can properly evaluate factors affecting perception, memory, and identification.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},200286,1788508478,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,89,94,99,104,109,114,118,122],{"id":85,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":86,"show_sort_weight":87,"slug":88},11,"Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":90,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":91,"show_sort_weight":92,"slug":93},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":95,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":96,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":98},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":100,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":101,"show_sort_weight":102,"slug":103},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":105,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":106,"show_sort_weight":107,"slug":108},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":110,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":111,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":115,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":116,"slug":117},18,30,"letters",{"id":119,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":55,"slug":121},21,"Paper Templates","papers-templates",{"id":123,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":125},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":127},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":128,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":129,"doc_module":22,"category_id":115,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":130,"file_id":131,"file_url":132,"file_type":133,"file_size":134,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":87,"language":135,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":136,"faqs":137,"seo_title":138,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":80,"read_time":139},3848291630094,"https://eur-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_085a072bc5b1113ac321206ff7593b45","8-Hagen and Yang Book Proof.docx (Do Not Delete) 1/31/2017 11:08 AM  \nCRIMINAL DEFENDANTS HAVE A DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO AN EXPERT ON EYEWITNESS RELIABILITY: WHY THE COURT WAS WRONG IN PERRY V. NEW HAMPSHIRE (2012)  \nMARGARET A. HAGEN* & SOU HEE (SOPHIE) YANG**  \nI. INTRODUCTION: SUPREME COURT’S 5-FACTOR RELIABILITY ALGORITHM IN EYEWITNESSES IDENTIFICATION CASES: CREATED, APPLIED, LIMITED  \nIn United States v. Wade,1 Gilbert v. California,2 and Stovall v. Denno,3 the Supreme Court cited psychological science reported in books, law review articles, and court cases to support its creation of a totality of circumstances algorithm for judges to use to evaluate the reliability of eyewitness identifications.  \nIn Wade, an early case addressing the need for counsel at pretrial lineups, the Court determined that although Wade’s lineup, absent counsel, could not be used in court, the subsequent in-court identifications may be admitted if they could be shown through an analysis of the circumstances of the original witnessing of the crime that the witness’ conditions for observation were good, the description given fitting, the time lapse between crime and identification short, and that there were no prior false identifications of others or failures to identify the defendant.4 Thus, the incourt identifications could be shown to have had an independent basis apart from the inadmissible pretrial lineup.5 In Gilbert, where a similar counselabsent pretrial lineup was held and possibly tainted in-court identifications were admitted, the Court remanded the case to California’s highest court to determine whether the in-court identifications had an independent source sufficiently reliable that admission of the evidence was warranted. 6 In  \n* Professor, Psychological and Brain Sciences, Boston University. B.S., University of Washington; Ph.D. University of Minnesota; J.D. Suffolk University.  \n** Masters, Columbia University, New York City, New York; Student, Columbia University School of Law.  \n1 United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967) .  \n2 Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 (1967) .  \n3 Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (1967).  \n4 United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967) .  \n5 Id.  \n6 Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 (1967) .  \n47  \n8-Hagen and Yang Book Proof.docx (Do Not Delete) 1/31/2017 11:08 AM  \n48 Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal [Vol. 26:47  \nStovall, the Court moved to the more general issue of the overall fairness of pretrial identifications, noting that “it remains open to all persons to allege and prove . . . that the confrontation resulted in such unfairness that it infringed his right to due process of law.”7 Stovall also injected exigency into its determination of admissibility, stating that the suggestive conditions of Stovall’s identification were imperative given the likely imminence of the witness’ death.8  \nIn a subsequent series of eyewitness cases—Simmons v. United States,9 Foster v. California, 10 Coleman v. Alabama, 11 Neil v. Biggers, 12 and Manson v. Brathwaite 13—the Court further spelled out and illustrated the reliability algorithm to assess the admissibility of eyewitness identifications. In all of these cases, it was up to a judge to evaluate the independence or reliability of the in-court identifications through a totality of the circumstances analysis applying the algorithm.  \nSuch judicial inquiry came to an abrupt halt in Perry v. New Hampshire14 where the Court held that such a hearing was necessary only when the police had deliberately arranged the circumstances of the identification. Otherwise, the due process rights of the defendant can be protected by vigorous cross-examination and careful jury instructions. Perry claimed eyewitness evidence is no different from any other evidence presented to a jury.15  \nThis paper will argue that the Supreme Court was wrong in its estimation of the ability of judges to accurately assess the reliability of eyewitness identifications, and the Perry ","cbCaifdAo7UV1lrE","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaifdAo7UV1lrE","pdf",652370,"English","# Introduction: Supreme Court’s 5-Factor Reliability Algorithm in Eyewitness Identification Cases\n## Wade, Gilbert, and Stovall\n## Subsequent Eyewitness Reliability Cases and the Perry Shift\n## Expert Scientific Knowledge and Due Process","[{\"question\":\"What is the Supreme Court’s 5-factor reliability algorithm used for in eyewitness identification cases?\",\"answer\":\"It provides a totality-of-the-circumstances framework for judges to evaluate whether an eyewitness identification is sufficiently reliable for admissibility.\"},{\"question\":\"Why does the article say the Supreme Court was wrong in Perry v. New Hampshire (2012)?\",\"answer\":\"It argues the Court overestimated judges’ ability to accurately assess reliability and relied on cross-examination and jury instructions that the article says cannot adequately address eyewitness error.\"},{\"question\":\"What remedy does the article claim due process requires for criminal defendants in eyewitness cases?\",\"answer\":\"Qualified psychological experts should be provided to defendants so triers of fact can properly evaluate factors affecting perception, memory, and identification.\"}]","CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS HAVE A DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO AN EXPERT ON EYEWITNESS RELIABILITY - WHY THE COURT WAS WRONG IN PERRY V. NEW HAMPSHIRE (2012) | PDF",31]