On Nov. 2, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments in Perry v. New Hampshire. Today I had the privilege of sitting in one of the Attorney General of New Hampshire’s practice oral argument sessions. This is a really big case for the reliability of eyewitness identification.
In fact, I’ve been meaning to preview this case even before I was invited to sit in on the moot. Unfortunately, I’ve just been way too busy lately to do any in-depth analysis. That’s regrettable because it’s a great case at the intersection of criminal law and psychology. So do yourself a favor — check it out here. Pro-tip: If there’s one brief you should read, it’s neither the petitioner’s nor the respondent’s – it’s the American Psychology Association’s amicus brief. It carefully lays out all of the empirical studies casting eyewitness identification reliability into doubt.
Like I said, I really wish I could do a more substantive discussion of the case but because of workload and inside information on the respondent’s case strategy, I can’t. But after oral arguments, expect my reactions!