Speaker for September 1 - Justice Steve Perren

     Today’s talk was by Justice Steve Perren, of the California 4^th Circuit Court of Appeal.  After graduating from UCLA Law School, he began his career with two years in the Ventura County DA’s office.  He then worked in private practice for 11 years before being nominated as a Ventura County Judge.  He served in that capacity for 17 years and then was appointed to the California Court of Appeal, where has served for 11 years.  In his spare time, he has performed in musicals and sung in operas and other musical events.  

Today’s talk was titled “It’s Only Circumstantial Evidence,”   and he wove that together with issues involving eye witness identification.

There is a continuing evolvement in this area.  Just this last week, a murder case out of Camden New Jersey is setting precedent.  We were referred to articles in the New York Times and material written by Dr. Elizabeth Loftus of UC Irvine, a specialist in eyewitness testimony.  Steve went on to explain by way of a story.

Some years ago, a young man went into the Bombay Bar on California Street and stole a purse lying on a bar stool.  He was chased and brought down by the bartender a couple blocks away.  Police took him to Juvenile Hall, his wallet was searched and he was held.   His mother had come to pick him up.  In trial, the bartender identified this person as well as his mother in court.  The police officer did the same, pointing specifically to each.  But during the noon break, Judge Perren noticed this kid outside the courtroom walking with a gait.  This was not what he expected from someone that had run almost three blocks to get away.  That afternoon, the prosecutor asked for a one-day continuance.  The next day, the DA’s office asked to dismiss the case.  Reason?  The wrong person was being charged.  In the back of the courtroom was the real criminal.  That person had previously stolen the wallet belonging to the young man who had been specifically identified by two eye witnesses the day before.  So both the arresting officer and bartender were wrong on both the person who stole the purse as well as the mother!  In Steve’s view, eyewitness evidence is the most unreliable evidence and needs to be verified, typically by circumstantial evidence!

Circumstantial evidence does not prove a fact but helps in developing a conclusion as to what happened.  Steve gave another example involving fingerprints on a car.  A neighbor was a witness to someone breaking into a car.  The police stopped a pedestrian near the crime scene but said he had nothing to do with this.  His fingerprint was found on the car – but where?  On the windshield – but where on the windshield?  The outside or inside?  If on the inside, then that tends to indicate he was inside the car and may be guilty.  If on the outside, that may indicate he was not the one breaking into the car.

Courts have a responsibility to act as a filter.  It is the judge’s responsibility to keep the right things out of the trial record.  There must be a reliability test for evidence.  He talked about the unreliability of jailhouse snitches.  A law was finally passed in California stating such testimony is unreliable and must be supported by additional evidence.

Justice Perren concluded with the recent New Jersey case that involved how a 6-pack (six photos of possible perpetrators on one page) is presented to a possible witness.  A statement must be read, sort of like a Miranda statement.  The six photos should be generally similar, without one standing out from the others.  The 6-pack should be presented in a neutral way, preferably by someone not involved in the case.  Rules are now established for identifying suspects in a lineup.  The environment and pressure contribute to inaccurate identifications.  One study showed that 70% of eyewitness convictions were wrong!  Additional questions are always necessary.

The judicial system is designed to build in protections so a jury can reach a fair verdict.  Eyewitness ID is at best dicey and must be carefully scrutinized.

 Thank you, Justice Perren, for a fascinating and very informative presentation.

 Rocky Ludes