Criminal Law Blog
In-Court Identifications and Narration Testimony (Part 5)
Chief Justice Rabner continued in relevant part: To ensure fair and orderly proceedings, the Court exercises its supervisory authority under the State Constitution to require, going forward, that certain practices be applied to proposed first-time in-court...
In-Court Identifications and Narration Testimony (Part 4)
The Court continued in relevant part: Asking witnesses long after a crime was committed if they can identify the culprit -- when the only person who could reasonably be the defendant would be obvious to the witness, and when it is evident the prosecution team believes...
In-Court Identifications and Narration Testimony (Part 3)
The New Jersey Supreme Court continued in relevant part: Confrontation Clause challenges are fact-specific. The testimony here about consultation with other law enforcement agencies violated defendant’s right to confrontation, and the Court provides guidance for...
In-Court Identifications and Narration Testimony (Part 2)
Chief Justice Rabner continued in relevant part: Joan also testified at trial. She was shown two still photos from the bank surveillance video and testified she was 100 percent positive that each depicted defendant. Sergeant Frank Vitelli, Jr., testified about the...
In-Court Identifications and Narration Testimony (Part 1)
On August 2, 2023, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided the Middlesex County case of State v. Quintin Watson. The principal issues before the Court concerned first-time in-court identifications and video narration testimony. Chief Justice Rabner wrote for a unanimous...
Cell Site Analysis and Identification Testimony (Part 5)
Justice Pierre-Louis and the five-Justice majority concluded with the following in relevant part: Because comments like those made in this case about the defendant’s identity and evidence that purportedly links the defendant to the crime could well make an incourt...
Cell Site Analysis and Identification Testimony (Part 4)
The New Jersey Supreme Court continued with the following in relevant part: Under New Jersey case law, when an expert grounds testimony in personal views, rather than objective facts, the net opinion rule requires the exclusion of such unsupported views. In...
Cell Site Analysis and Identification Testimony (Part 3)
Justice Pierre-Louis continued in relevant part: Prior to trial, defense counsel moved to exclude testimony by the State’s expert, Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent Ajit David, and any first-time in-court identification of defendant by any of the victims....
Cell Site Analysis and Identification Testimony (Part 2)
The New Jersey Supreme court majority continued in relevant part: On December 26, Rosette Martinez misidentified a filler photo in a photo array with 90 percent certainty. She declined to make an identification during a second photo array, which included a photo of...
Cell Site Analysis and Identification Testimony (Part 1)
On August 2, 2023, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided the Essex County case of State v. Roberson Burney. The principal issues concerned the admissibility of GPS and in-court identification testimony. Justice Pierre-Louis, my Rutgers Law classmate, wrote for the 5-2...