Document Category: Jury Instructions

This draft motion relies on social science about the effectiveness of mental imagery techniques at combatting implicit biases to argue for a proposed criminal jury instruction that employs a “cloaking” or “perspective-switching” exercise in which jurors are asked to consider if their impressions of the defendant (or a witness) would change if they were a different race. The draft motion collects research showing how pervasive implicit racial bias is, how voir dire alone is ineffective at ensuring defendants get fair trials, and how effective mental imagery exercises can be.  It also explains how other jurisdictions already have mental imagery instructions.

This sample motion asks the trial court to amend the pattern jury instruction on a defendant’s right not to testify to include possible innocent reasons why a person might choose not to testify.  Most pattern instructions improperly “blindfold” jurors by withholding important information about possible innocent reasons why a criminal defendant might not testify, leaving jurors to rely on improper background assumptions that innocent people will testify in their defense and that those who choose not to testify are more likely to be guilty.  The proposed amendment (found at p. 7)  builds on the explanation-based jury instructions on flight that some jurisdictions have crafted (which include innocent reasons why a suspect might flee) and argues that jury instructions on the right not to testify should similarly include reasons why an innocent person might not testify in their defense.

This is a draft motion defenders can use to seek exclusion under Rule 403 of a co-defendant’s redacted confession that directly or indirectly incriminates your client. This motion can be used even when exclusion under the Confrontation Clause fails post-Samia (the Supreme Court’s 2023 Confrontation Clause). This motion distinguishes between the Confrontation Clause and the Federal Rules of Evidence and explains why a separate Rule 403 analysis is necessary even if the court finds no Confrontation problem (pages 8-11). It describes social science research demonstrating that (a) juries are unlikely to follow the limiting instruction to consider the co-defendant’s statement only against the co-defendant (pages 4-7) and (b) secondary confessions by a co-defendant will be weighed heavily by juries even when the co-defendant has a motive to lie or downplay their role (pages 7-8). Taken together, this research shows that the likelihood of unfair prejudice is extremely high and outweighs any interest the system may have in a joint trial, requiring either severance of the trials or exclusion of the co-defendant’s redacted confession under Rule 403.

This motion relies on social science demonstrating the unreliability of witness attempts to identify people from surveillance videos/photographs and argues that due process and the evidence rules (Rules 602, 701, and 403) require exclusion of a police officer’s attempt to identify the defendant from a surveillance video.

Pages 2-4:  Discuss studies showing that humans are bad at matching people to images in photos/videos

Pages 4 –9:  Discuss studies showing that image quality (resolution, distance from subject, and moving versus still images), camera angle and viewpoint, lighting conditions at the time of the video or image capture, the presence or absence of obstructions to the camera’s view, and the size of the image captured all affect reliability

Pages 9 – 13: Discuss how situational factors including a lack of prior familiarity, cross-racial identification problems, and time delays between a prior exposure and the viewing of a surveillance photo/video all contribute to mistaken non-eyewitness identifications

Pages 15-16 – Discuss how these studies could also be used to (a) limit or prevent the prosecution from asking the judge/jury to compare a surveillance video/photo to the defendant, (b) obtain favorable expert testimony about the problems of non-eyewitness identification; (c) get the court to take judicial notice of these problems; (d) obtain favorable jury instructions about the problems with non-eyewitness identification testimony; (e) cross-examine non-eyewitnesses more effectively.

p. 51-56 cite research on general inefficacy of jury instructions

p. 22-38 discuss the use of 404(b) “other acts” evidence and why evidence of drug possession is not relevant to intent to distribute drugs. The brief goes on to outline research demonstrating that such “other acts” evidence is highly likely to improperly prejudice the jury in a way that cannot be cured by a limiting instruction.

p. 14 – 22 outline research on how jurors respond to limiting instructions, demonstrating that “providing a limiting instruction likely has little effect because it is almost impossible for jurors to forget evidence for one purpose, while remembering it for another.”

p. 9-18 overview studies on unreliability of cross-racial identifications and juror tendency to overestimate eyewitness accuracy. Brief also details why expert testimony and cross-examination do not eliminate the need for a jury instruction.

Brief outlines the factors that have been demonstrated to impact the reliability of eyewitness identification and argues for jury instructions that explain each individual factor.

p. 9-13 cite research on jury bias, impact of prior conviction evidence, and inefficacy of limiting instructions about prior convictions

p. 8 – 12 outline existing research on how jurors respond to and use evidence of prior convictions. Incorporates research demonstrating that limiting instructions do not cure the prejudice, as jurors still use prior convictions as propensity evidence even when instructed not to.

Filed by the American Psychological Association, this brief supports specific jury instructions on eyewitness memory:

“Human memory is not foolproof. Research has revealed that human memory is not like a video recording that a witness need only replay to remember what happened. Memory is far more complex. The process of remembering consists of three stages: acquisition — the perception of the original event; retention — the period of time that passes between the event and the eventual recollection of a piece of information; and retrieval — the stage during which a person recalls stored information. At each of these stages, memory can be affected by a variety of factors.”

“Although nothing may appear more convincing than a witness’s categorical identification of a perpetrator, you must critically analyze such testimony. Such identifications, even if made in good faith, may be mistaken. Therefore, when analyzing such testimony, be advised that a witness’s level of confidence, standing alone, may not be an indication of the reliability of the identification.”