I’ve posted already about the Oregon case – Oregon v. Lawson.
Here is a piece from the excellent Concurring Opinions blog about eyewitness testimony.
I would like to underscore Brandon’s point about reform efforts that are currently underway. While for the most part, the criminal justice process is stuck in a bad place (thanks to a large degree to the US Supreme Court), it is refreshing to note that a few local and state jurisdictions are moving ahead with thoughtful reforms.
. . .
It should be noted that the Oregon decision comes on the heels of New Jersey’s landmark decision regulating lineup procedures (Steve v. Henderson, which was followed up by a reform of the pertinent jury instructions (http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/pressrel/2012/jury_instruction.pdf).
Also notable in this regard is legislative effort in Texas that has sprouted a thoughtful Model Policy for conducting eyewitness identification procedures (the Model Policy was drafted by the Bill Blackwood Law Enforcement Management Institute of Texas at the Sam Houston State University:http://www.lemitonline.org/publications/ewid.html).