The 4-3 majority continued in relevant part: Campanella also testified, however, that the “white blip” on the video indicated “the defendant firing the handgun”; that a frame depicted the suspect “turning towards the officer”; that another view of the first muzzle flash showed “where the suspect has turned and discharged the first round”; and that […]

Justice Patterson continued in relevant part: The Court reviews N.J.R.E. 701, which governs the admission of lay opinion testimony, and recent decisions in which the Court has applied Rule 701 to an officer’s testimony about a photo or video relating to an offense. In State v. Higgs, the Court barred the lay opinion of a […]

The Court continued in relevant part: During defendant’s trial, Officer McGhee testified, in part narrating the videos as they were played for the jury. Campanella testified later, describing the steps taken in the investigation. After the State indicated its intent to replay the surveillance videos that the jury had already viewed during McGhee’s testimony, defense […]

On August 2, 2023, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided the Monmouth County case of State v. Dante C. Allen. The principal issue before the Court concerned whether the defendant was denied a fair trial because the trial court permitted a detective to present lay opinion testimony in which he narrated a video recording. Justice […]

The New Jersey Supreme Court continued in relevant part: Applying those principles to the newly revised LAP, the Court sets forth guidelines and factors to assist trial courts in deciding whether VRI should be used during criminal jury trials. Consistent with New Jersey’s jurisprudence to ensure all court users have equal access to court proceedings, […]

Justice Pierre-Louis continued in relevant part: In 2017, the Judiciary implemented the LAP to ensure all people, including persons with limited English proficiency, have equal access to court proceedings. And the Court has consistently recognized the significance of access to interpreting services. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, court proceedings and services generally occurred and were […]

The New Jersey Supreme Court continued in relevant part: In a criminal jury trial, there is a presumption that foreign language interpretation services will be provided in person, which is consistent with the New Jersey Judiciary’s longstanding practice. The Court sets forth guidelines and factors to assist trial courts in deciding whether VRI should be […]

On August 15, 2023, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided the Hudson County case of State v. Oscar Juracan-Juracan. The principal issue before the Court concerned whether the defendant was entitled to in-person as opposed to remote interpreting services during his trial. Justice Pierre-Louis, my Rutgers Law classmate, wrote for the Court in relevant part. […]

The three-judge panel concluded with the following in relevant part: Of course, should plaintiff ever be subjected to the threat of violence at the hands of a third party, he will not be without recourse. In Stimler, a small group of rabbis were convicted of kidnapping-related charges when, ostensibly on behalf of agunot, they “worked with ‘tough […]

The Appellate Division continued in relevant part: Because calls to exhort social pressure on plaintiff would necessarily fall under the aegis of First Amendment protection and the specter of imprisonment for refusing a get is unrealistic, harassment must be found–if at all–in the threat of violence. However, the judge’s conclusion that such threats were real and imminent […]