Commonwealth v. Gomes and Commonwealth v. Johnson

Brief Filed: 8/14/2014
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Year of Decision: 2015

Read full-text amicus brief (PDF, 149KB)

Gomes

Whether the judge erred in refusing to instruct the jury, as requested by the defendant, in essence that (a) a witness's prior viewing of a suspect in an identification procedure, without making a positive identification, reduces the reliability of the witness's later identification of the same suspect; (b) human memory is not like a video recording; and (c) witnesses who are highly confident of their identifications are not therefore necessarily reliable.

Johnson

Where a victim of a crime has failed to identify the defendant in an identification procedure such as a police line-up, is the defendant entitled to a modified identification instruction that informs the jury that they may consider the fact that the victim failed to identify the defendant as the perpetrator.

Eyewitness Identification Research

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court sponsored an expert report on eyewitness testimony and issued a call for amicus briefs in three separate eyewitness identification cases. APA filed one consolidated brief in two of those cases in August.

APA has filed three briefs in the eyewitness testimony area (Commonwealth v. Walker, Perry v. New Hampshire and State of Connecticut v. Troy Artis) and we built on those briefs in filing in similar.

The court decided the cases on Jan. 12, 2015. Although the court affirmed both defendants' convictions, it changed the law on a going-forward basis, embracing APA's core argument that five scientific principles regarding eyewitness identification are so well established that juries should be instructed about them in appropriate cases (including that human memory is not like a videotape, that confidence does not necessarily indicate accuracy and that stress can lower eyewitness accuracy). The court relied heavily on the Massachusetts Study Group's report as well as other state high-court cases that have adopted some or all of the same principles. The court's opinion in Gomes includes a 17-page appendix laying out a model instruction for trial judges to use until the Supreme Judicial Court formally revises model instruction, following notice and comment.