People v. Wright

Brief Filed: 4/25
Court: Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Year of Decision: 2025

Read full-text amicus brief (PDF, 417KB)opens in new window

Whether an “independent source” for an eyewitness identification can be established when the witness was previously exposed to a suggestive procedure and did not identify the defendant in a lineup.

Eyewitness Identification Research

This case involves the reliability of eyewitness identification following exposure to suggestive procedures. The trial court found that the eyewitness, Fanny Fabre, was exposed to an unduly suggestive identification procedure when she saw the defendant, Jason Wright, “brought out in custody, surrounded by two detectives, one in front, one in back, in cuffs.” Despite this suggestive viewing, Ms. Fabre did not identify Mr. Wright in a subsequent lineup, stating “No, he's not here.” Nevertheless, she later identified him in court. The issue before the Court is whether the prosecution can meet its burden of establishing an “independent source” for an eyewitness's identification when the eyewitness both was previously exposed to an unduly suggestive identification procedure and did not identify the defendant in a separate pre-trial lineup.

Psychological research on human memory and eyewitness identification supports the defendant-appellant's contention that, after an eyewitness does not identify the defendant as the perpetrator during a lineup procedure, the prosecution cannot meet its burden of establishing an independent source by clear and convincing evidence. Two lines of research support this position: First, studies show that “memory-source errors” can occur when an eyewitness's familiarity with a person, rather than a specific memory of seeing the person commit a crime, leads the witness to identify that person as the perpetrator. Second, research establishes that when an eyewitness does not identify any of the people in a lineup, that is probative of innocence—suggesting that the individuals who appeared in the lineup did not commit the crime. The scientific consensus that human memory is subject to contamination challenges the core premise of the independent source doctrine—that a witness's memory of a crime remains unchanged when the witness is subsequently exposed to a suggestive viewing.

The Court of Appeals assumed without deciding that the trial court erred in finding an independent source for the eyewitness's in-court identification but held that any such error was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt. The Court did not reach the merits of the independent source question that was the subject of APA's amicus brief. The Court separately held that the trial court violated the defendant's statutory right under CPL 400.15 to personally controvert predicate felony allegations and remitted the case for further proceedings on that issue. The conviction was otherwise affirmed.