All posts tagged: Due Process

witness pointing at defendant while judge looks on

In-Court Eyewitness Identifications – What Process is “Due” Process?

Published by

In any case where identification is at issue, the proverbial drumroll sounds at the crescendo of the witness examination when the prosecution asks “and do you see the person, here in this courtroom, who committed this crime?” And invariably the finger points at the accused. Who else would it be pointed at? The lawyers are known and obvious, the defendant is often a person of color and/or not in the garb of the courtroom professionals, and the courtroom security people are seated nearby. Although there have been rare instances of witnesses pointing to the court reporter or, in one case, the judge, the easy and recurring choice is the obvious one – as if there were an arrow with neon lights shouting “pick him” pointing at the accused. The science is clear – an identification in a courtroom, months or years after an encounter, is much less reliable and probative than one in the immediate aftermath of a crime, a point brought home by the 2014 report IDENTIFYING THE CULPRIT: ASSESSING EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION, a survey …

Moot Court Room Judges Bench

When Judges May Not Judge

Published by

Perhaps it is not a startling position, but “when a judge earlier had significant, personal involvement as a prosecutor in a critical decision regarding the defendant’s case[,]” that judge must recuse himself or herself from judicial or appellate review. That principal is now enshrined not merely as one of professional conduct, but as a guarantee of Due Process. And this came about in a case with some Temple Law connections. The decision came on June 9 in a 5-3 ruling from the United States Supreme Court in a case from Pennsylvania. In Williams v. Pennsylvania, Terry Williams, a death row inmate, had won a last minute reprieve and the right to a new penalty trial when a Philadelphia Judge determined that “the trial prosecutor had suppressed material, exculpatory evidence…and engaged in ‘prosecutorial gamesmanship.’” When the prosecution appealed that ruling the case went to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, presided over by then-Chief Justice Ronald Castille. There was only one problem – the Chief Justice had been the District Attorney at the time of Williams’ original trial …