The Court rejects the de novo standard introduced in Diaz-Bridges. A policy of deferring to findings of fact of a trial court based on its review of video and documentary evidence has certain tangible benefits. When more than one reasonable inference can be drawn from the review of a video recording, a trial court’s factual […]
Appellate Deference & Video Evidence: Part 3
Generally, on appellate review, a trial court’s factual findings in support of granting or denying a motion to suppress must be upheld when those findings are supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record. The issue here, however, concerns the level of deference owed to a trial court’s factual findings based solely on its review […]
Appellate Deference & Video Evidence: Part 2
The interrogation proceeded, and defendant continued to suggest that he did not want to speak. Eventually, he indicated that “it happened” when, after a shower, he was drying himself and his daughter entered the bathroom. In ruling on the motion, the trial court relied solely on its review of the video-recorded interrogation. Because it found […]
Appellate Deference & Video Evidence: Part 1
On June 21, 2017, in the case of State v. S.S., Justice Albin wrote for a unanimous New Jersey Supreme Court. In this interlocutory appeal, the Court determines two issues: what is the appropriate standard of appellate review of a trial court’s factual findings based solely on the court’s viewing of a video-recorded police interrogation, […]