Monahan also presented his work to the NRC study group, focusing on the uses of scientific framework evidence. In the Massachusetts ruling, justices relied on recommendations and information from the National Academy of Sciences National Research Council committee report, which provided detailed summaries of the scientific research, as well as recommendations for improved practices and future research. Other states have made smaller updates to jury instructions on eyewitness evidence, Garrett said, while many provide no explanation of how eyewitness evidence is different, thus leaving it to jurors to judge the accuracy of an eyewitness based on their own common sense. In the New Jersey Supreme Court's 2011 decision, justices cited Garrett and UVA Law professor John Monahan, who had also testified in the hearings conducted before a Special Master. The changes to the way eyewitness identifications are presented in Massachusetts courts are the third major overhaul of their kind, behind similar rulings in New Jersey and Oregon. The new instructions cite the opportunity and conditions the witness had to view the event the characteristics of the witness, such as eyesight how much time has passed between the event and the identification the witness's certainty whether the witness may have had his memory affected by information from others failure to identify or inconsistent identification and the totality of the evidence. "For example, the confidence of an eyewitness in the courtroom may not correspond to accuracy."
"Some scientific research on eyewitness memory is highly counterintuitive," Garrett said. The instructions are intended to help jurors better assess the value of eyewitness testimony. Garrett's 2011 book, "Convicting the Innocent: Where Criminal Prosecutions Go Wrong" was cited in the decision, and Garrett served as a member of a National Academy of Sciences National Research Council committee that produced a 2014 report called "Identifying the Culprit: Assessing Eyewitness Identification" that was also referenced multiple times in the decision. Last week's Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision to overhaul jury instructions about eyewitness evidence was informed by the work of University of Virginia School of Law professor Brandon Garrett.