Criminal Law Blog

On November 20, 2023, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided the Hudson County case of State v. Amandeep Tiwana. The principal issue concerned whether the functional equivalent of an interrogation occurred that resulted in the defendant’s admission. Justice Solomon...

Thus, although Court finds DRE testimony sufficiently reliable to be admitted in our courts, it adopts several limitations on the admissibility and probative use of a DRE’s opinion in criminal and quasi-criminal cases: First, a DRE is only allowed to opine in court...

Judge Sabatino continued in relevant part: “Ordinarily, a key question to be answered in determining whether a theory or technique is scientific knowledge that will assist the trier of fact will be whether it can be (and has been) tested.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 593....

The Court continued in relevant part: The United States Supreme Court identified in Daubert a list of four factors for assessing reliability of an expert’s methodology under Fed. R. Evid. 702: (1) whether the scientific theory or technique can be, or has been, tested;...

The New Jersey Supreme Court majority continued with the following in relevant part: Here, the extensive record substantiates that DRE testimony sufficiently satisfies the Daubert criteria to be admissible, with the following four limitations and safeguards: * The DRE...

The New Jersey Supreme Court continued in relevant part: Defendant Michael Olenowski was convicted of drug-impaired driving based in part on DRE evidence. His convictions were upheld on appeal, and the Court granted certification to determine whether DRE testimony is...

On November 15, 2023, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided the Morris County case of State v. Michael Olenowski. The principal issue before the Court concerned the admissibility of Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) testimony. Presiding Judge Sabatino wrote for the 5-2...

On November 8, 2023, a three-judge appellate panel decided the Monmouth County case of IN the Matter of the Expungement Application of K.M.G. The principal issue under N.J.S.A. 2C:52-1 concerned whether an out-of-state conviction was a bar to a “clean slate”...

Chief Justice Rabner continued in relevant part: But Rule 701(b) contains a critical limiting requirement: a lay witness may only present testimony that will be helpful to the jury. Whether narration testimony is “helpful” depends heavily on the nature of the...

The New Jersey Supreme Court continued in relevant part: N.J.R.E. 701 permits lay opinion testimony that “(a) is rationally based on the witness’ perception; and (b) will assist in understanding the witness’ testimony or determining a fact in issue.” And Rule 602,...