The three-judge panel continued in relevant part: Next, the State argues that defendant's argument should be rejected because it "ignores the pragmatic approach historically adopted by New Jersey courts on issues of this type." The State points to the statute as a...
The Appellate Division continued in relevant part: In the municipal court, and again in the Law Division during the trial de novo, defendant argued that Crawford precludes the State from relying on the contents of the certificate in the absence of testimony from its...
The Court continued in relevant part: The defense called Gary L. Lage as an expert in toxicology and pharmacology with specific stipulated expertise in blood testing. He explained that any number of possible errors in the blood extraction procedures could have...
The Court continued in relevant part: Upon returning to police headquarters, Muller placed the sealed box containing the vials of defendant's blood inside a refrigerator outfitted with specially-designed locked boxes. He removed the key, depositing it through a hole...
The Appellate Division continued in relevant part: Except for Point III, each claim lacks merit. As to Point III, we conclude that the hearsay admission of the "Uniform Certification for Bodily Specimens Taken in a Medically Acceptable Manner," (certification) without...
The next important case to address Confrontation Clause issues was the 2007 New Jersey Appellate Division case of State v. Renshaw. There, a three-judge panel wrote in relevant part: Defendant Robert Renshaw appeals from a conviction for driving while intoxicated, in...
Justice Scalia concluded with the following in relevant part: Amy Hammon’s statements were testimonial. They were not much different from those in Crawford. It is clear from the circumstances that Amy’s interrogation was part of an investigation into possibly criminal...
The Court continued in relevant part: McCottry’s statements identifying Davis as her assailant were not testimonial. This case requires the Court to decide whether the Confrontation Clause applies only to testimonial hearsay, and, if so, whether the 911 recording...
Justice Scalia also wrote for an 8-1 majority of the United States Supreme Court in Davis v. Washington, a 2006 case that addressed the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause. He held in relevant part: In No. 05–5224, a 911 operator ascertained from Michelle McCottry...
The Court concluded with the following in relevant part: Second, the Framers would not have allowed admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for...