![\"\"](\"https:\/\/law-dev.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2018\/01\/LINEUP-300x172.jpg\")
<\/p>\nIdentifying individuals from one\u2019s own \u2018group\u2019 is easier than identifying someone from outside the \u2018group.\u2019\u00a0 If you were to stop me and say \u201cbut that\u2019s obvious, it\u2019s always easier to identify people you already know than identifying a stranger\u201d I\u2019d have to respond that \u201cyou mis-read what I wrote.\u00a0 \u2018Group\u2019 does not mean \u2018friends\u2019 or \u2018acquaintances;\u2019 it means a social category such as those of the same race or ethnicity.\u201d<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Don\u2019t take my word for it \u2013 this is well-established social science.\u00a0 In BLINDSPOT, researchers Mahzarin Banaji and Anthony Greenwald write of how<\/p>\n
[t]his ability to perceptually discriminate between two or more members of a familiar category extends to the social category of race:\u00a0 By nine months of age infants are better able to tell two one-race faces apart compared to two other-race faces.<\/p>\n
The authors explain that this is known as the \u201cout-group homogeneity effect.\u201d<\/p>\n
And you need not restrict yourself to social scientists\u2019 findings; this has now been set as a principle of law in New York State.\u00a0 In late December, 2017, the New York State Court of Appeals wrote the following:<\/p>\n
In light of the near consensus among cognitive and social psychologists that people have significantly greater difficulty in accurately identifying members of a different race than in accurately identifying members of their own race, the risk of wrongful convictions involving cross-racial identifications demands a new approach. We hold that when identification is an issue in a criminal case and the identifying witness and defendant appear to be of different races, upon request, a party is entitled to a charge on cross-racial identification.\n<\/p>\n
People v. Boone<\/u>, 2017 NY Slip Op 08713, \u00b6\u00b6 1-2.<\/p>\n
Of concern to the New York Court, beyond the risk of error in such cases, was the absence of knowledge of this problem among jurors.\u00a0 \u201c[W]hile the cross-race effect is a matter of common sense and experience for some jurors, it is by no means a universal belief shared by all. The need for a charge on the cross-race effect is evident.\u201d<\/p>\n
The bottom line for the New York Court was that increasing reliability in jury determinations and avoiding wrongful convictions warranted judicial intervention.\u00a0 The Court concluded that regardless of whether an expert testified or whether the defense aggressively cross-examined the \u2018certain\u2019 eyewitness, the cautionary jury instruction was required, explaining that<\/p>\n
the jury should consider whether there is a difference in race between the defendant and the witness who identified the defendant, and (2) that, if so, the jury should consider (a) that some people have greater difficulty in accurately identifying members of\u00a0a different race than in accurately identifying members of their own race and (b) whether the difference in race affected the accuracy of the witness’s identification.<\/p>\n
People v Boone, 2017 N.Y. LEXIS 3722, *17-18, 2017 NY Slip Op 08713, 7-8.<\/p>\n
The bottom line?\u00a0 This is a Court that takes seriously the notion of fair play, and that when jurors don\u2019t know basic science their weighing of evidence is impaired and the resulting verdict is less valid.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Identifying individuals from one\u2019s own \u2018group\u2019 is easier than identifying someone from outside the \u2018group.\u2019\u00a0 If you were to stop me and say \u201cbut that\u2019s obvious, it\u2019s always easier to identify people you already know than identifying a stranger\u201d I\u2019d have to respond that \u201cyou mis-read what I wrote.\u00a0 \u2018Group\u2019 does not mean \u2018friends\u2019 or<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":31,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"generate_page_header":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,6,7,11],"tags":[],"coauthors":[238],"class_list":["post-2115","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-advocacy-and-evidence-blog","category-criminal-law","category-evidence","category-trial-advocacy"],"yoast_head":"\n