Defendant knowingly waived Miranda after Spanish translation State v. A.M.

Defendant knowingly waived Miranda after Spanish translation State v. A.M. __ NJ __ (2019)

HELD: Although the better practice would have been to read aloud the form’s waiver portion to defendant, the Court relies on the trial court’s well-supported observations and factual findings and reverses the Appellate Division’s judgment. 

1. 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. In State v. S.S., 229 N.J. 360, 381 (2017), the Court extended that deferential standard of appellate review to “factual findings based on a video recording or documentary evidence” to ensure that New Jersey’s trial courts remain “the finder of the facts.” 

2. To ensure that a person subject to custodial interrogation is adequately and effectively apprised of his rights, the United States Supreme Court developed the Miranda warnings. The administration of Miranda warnings ensures that a defendant’s right against self- incrimination is protected in the inherently coercive atmosphere of custodial interrogation. A waiver of a defendant’s Miranda rights must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary in light of all of the circumstances surrounding the custodial interrogation. In the totality-of-the-circumstances inquiry, courts generally rely on factors such as the suspect’s age, education and intelligence, advice as to constitutional rights, length of detention, whether the questioning was repeated and prolonged in nature and whether physical punishment or mental exhaustion was involved. 

3. The Court reviews the trial court’s factual findings in detail and concludes that the failure of Detective Ramos to read the entire Miranda rights form aloud did not “improperly shift[] the burden of proof to defendant to alert the interrogating officers about any difficulty he may be having understanding the ramifications of a legal waiver.” 452 N.J. Super. at 599. To eliminate questions about a suspect’s understanding, the entire Miranda form should be read aloud to a suspect being interrogated, or the suspect should be asked to read the entire form aloud. Where that is not done, the suspect should be asked about his or her literacy and educational background. Nevertheless, in this case, because sufficient credible evidence in the record supports the trial court’s findings, the Court agrees with the trial court that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant made a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary express waiver of his Miranda rights. See S.S., 229 N.J. at 365. The Court therefore does not reach the issue of implicit waiver. 

4. The Court notes that this case demonstrates plainly the importance of videotaping custodial interrogations of suspects by police. 

5. Any defendant has the right to challenge a translation under N.J.R.E. 104(c), which governs pretrial hearings on the admissibility of a defendant’s statement. Because a defendant has the right to contest a translation of a custodial interrogation, as was done here, and Rule 104(c) provides the mechanism to do so, the Court rejects the holdings of the Appellate Division’s concurring opinion. That said, the State, as well as the defendant, is best served by the use of a capable translator during an interview. (A-76-17) 

FRE Rule 702. Testimony by Expert Witnesses

FRE Rule 702. Testimony by Expert Witnesses

   A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:

(a)the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;

(b)the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;

(c)the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and

(d)the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.zx

Drug Recognition Evaluator (DRE) not yet approved by published case in NJ

Drug Recognition Evaluator (DRE) 

A Drug Recognition Evaluator (DRE) is a police officer who claims they  can recognize whether someone is on drugs, what kind of drugs they are  on, and whether their ability to drive has been impaired. The theory of  the DRE is that they claim to be able to determine whether someone is  under the influence of drugs through a visual evaluation. Lawyers  Weekly USA , "Growing New Practice Area for Drunk Driving Lawyers" dated  September 20, 1999, p. 19.  There are few Appellate courts that have called them experts.

      DREs frequently administer their tests when someone is arrested for  drunk driving, but passes a breath test. The DRE's testimony may  provide better evidence for the prosecution than toxicology reports.  Blood tests may not measure the quantity of drugs taken and, even if  they do, may not show a level high enough to prove impairment. Urine  tests do not accurately pinpoint when the drugs were ingested and may  not show the quantity. Therefore blood and urine tests alone may not be  sufficient to prove the person was affected by drugs when they were  driving. The DRE argues they can provide the link between the  toxicology report and the Driving Under the Influence charge. The DRE  offers testimony that the defendant failed the physical tests  administered by the DRE, showing that the defendant may be impaired by  the drugs in his system. Lawyers Weekly USA , "Growing New Practice  Area for Drunk Driving Lawyers" dated September 20, 1999, p. 20.  The DRE advises that their examination of the suspect is broken into 5  parts:   1. Coordination tests.  The suspect must perform the "walk and turn," "one leg stand," "finger  to nose," and "Romberg balance" test (where he must estimate when 30  seconds have passed while standing with his head tilted back and his  eyes closed).

 2. Eye tests.  The DRE checks the suspect's pupil size under various lighting  conditions. He checks for "horizontal gaze nystagmus" where the eyes  twitch when looking off to the side and "vertical nystagmus" where the  eyes twitch when looking up. The DRE also checks to see if the eyes  cross normally when looking down at the nose.

 3. Vital signs.  The DRE measures the suspect's pulse, temperature and blood pressure.

 4. Muscle tone.  The DRE feels the suspects arm muscles to see if the are loose and  rubbery or tense.

 5. Visual inspection.  The DRE inspects the suspect’s mouth and nose for signs of drug  ingestion, the presence of drug debris and discoloration. The DRE   checks the suspect's arms for needle marks. Lawyers Weekly USA ,   "Growing New Practice Area for Drunk Driving Lawyers" dated September   20, 1999, p. 20.

 The DRE determines whether the results of the exam performed on the  suspect match symptoms associated with 7 drug classes. The drug classes  used are central nervous system (CNS) depressants, CNS stimulants,  hallucinogens, phencyclidine, narcotic analgesics, inhalants, and  cannabis. Journal of Analytical Toxicology, "Laboratory Validation Study  of Drug Evaluation and Classification Program: Ethanol, Cocaine, and  Marijuana", Vol. 20, October 1996, p. 468. For example, a person on a  depressant should have normal pupils, but twitching eyes on the   nystagmus tests, a slow pulse rate, low blood pressure, drowsiness, and   slurred speech. Persons on cannabis should have dilated pupils, no eye   twitching, a high pulse rate and blood pressure, their eyes may not  cross normally when they look down their nose, and they may have  disorientation. The DRE also interviews the arresting officer, reviews  the breathalyzer results and asks the suspect if he has been using  drugs. Finally, the DRE concludes whether the suspect is behaviorally  impaired, if the impairment is drug-related, and the drug class or   combination of classes likely to be causing the impairment. Lawyers  Weekly USA , "Growing New Practice Area for Drunk Driving Lawyers" dated   September 20, 1999, p. 20.

 Drug Recognition Experts are Not Recognized by New Jersey Courts  There is no decision from the New Jersey Supreme Court recognizing the  reliability of DRE testimony as proof of driving under the influence.  The written opinions which permit the admission of DRE testimony either  say the evidence is "non-scientific" or do not address this issue.  However, the recent U.S. Supreme Court case, Kumho Tire Co. v.  Carmichael, 119 S.Ct. 1167 (1999), extends the Daubert screening test    for expert testimony to "non-scientific" testimony. Therefore, if the N.J. Supreme Court adopts Kumho, the DRE's testimony would not qualify  as reliable evidence using the Daubert test. See Lawyers Weekly USA ,

 "Growing New Practice Area for Drunk Driving Lawyers" dated September  20, 1999, p. 20.

 Generally, the party offering results of a scientific test as evidence  is required to show that the scientific technique has gained general  acceptance within the scientific community. Romano v. Kimmelman, 96  N.J. 66 (1984); State v. Kelly, 97 N.J. 178 (1984); State v. Spann, 130  N.J. 484 (1993).  There are three ways to show general acceptance within  the scientific community of a particular procedure. (1) Testimony of  knowledgeable experts. (2) Authoritative scientific literature. (3)    Persuasive judicial decision.  Windmere, Inc. v. International Ins. Co.,   105 N.J. 373 (1987).  A proponent of scientific evidence must show that   the procedure or experiments are generally accepted in their field.    Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir., 1923).

 In pre-trial motions and at trial, defense lawyers can challenge the   accuracy of the evaluation and the DRE's qualifications to perform the  tests. Lawyers Weekly USA , "Growing New Practice Area for Drunk  Driving Lawyers" dated September 20, 1999, p. 21.  Laboratory studies were done in 1996 and 1998. The 1996 studies were  undertaken to determine the validity of the variables of the Drug   Evaluation and Classification (DEC) evaluation in predicting whether  research volunteers had been administered ethanol, cocaine or marijuana  and to determine the accuracy of DREs in detecting whether subjects had  been dosed with ethanol, cocaine, or marijuana. Using discriminant  function analysis, it was found that 17-28 variables of the DEC  evaluation predicted the presence or absence of each of the three drugs  (ethanol, cocaine and marijuana) with a high degree of sensitivity and  specificity and low rates of false-positive and false-negative errors.  The five best predictive variables were nearly as accurate as the entire  subsets of 17-28 variables. When DREs concluded subjects were impaired  by ethanol or drugs or both, their predictions were consistent with  toxicological analysis in 51% of cases. When ethanol-only decisions,  which were guaranteed to be consistent with toxicology, were excluded,  DREs' predictions were consistent in 44% of cases. Journal of Analytical  Toxicology, "Laboratory Validation Study of Drug Evaluation and   Classification Program: Ethanol, Cocaine, and Marijuana", Vol. 20,   October 1996, p. 475. This study provides a list of the symptoms that  were found to be the best predictors of impairment by a particular class  of drug. Journal of Analytical Toxicology, "Laboratory Validation Study  of Drug Evaluation and Classification Program: Ethanol, Cocaine, and  Marijuana", Vol. 20, October 1996, p. 470, 472, 474. If these symptoms  are not consistent with those found present in the client on the DRE  report, this may call into question the validity of the DRE's  conclusion.  Challenges to the DRE  Aside from challenging the accuracy of the DEC, the defense attorney  can challenge the DRE's qualifications. It may be argued that the DRE  is not a medical doctor and has only had a nine day course and is  therefore not qualified to make a subjective evaluation of the suspect's  physiological symptoms. A lawyer can inquire into what training the DRE   has been given in distinguishing the effects of drugs from those of  other medical conditions. It should be pointed out that only one and a  half pages of the 570 page DRE training manual covers medical conditions  that can be confused with drug impairment. The defense attorney should  get the DRE's training history to see how well he did in the course and  what continued training he has had. The attorney should also try to  find out what the DRE's track record is by requesting  a copy of the running log which DREs are supposed to keep. Lawyers  Weekly USA , "Growing New Practice Area for Drunk Driving Lawyers" dated  September 20, 1999, p. 21.  The defense attorney can also try to explain the suspect's symptoms.    For example, high blood pressure, high pulse rate and muscle rigidity   can be caused by the stress of an arrest. Other symptoms may be caused  by mental conditions such as attention deficit disorder or mania or  delirium, or a medical condition such as diabetes, hypertension or an  abnormal movement disorder. There are many natural causes for  nystagmus. In cases involving accidents, symptoms may be due to a  concussion. Lawyers Weekly USA , "Growing New Practice Area for Drunk  Driving Lawyers" dated September 20, 1999, p. 21.  By reading the DRE manual, the defense should be able to find potential  mistakes made by the DRE while conducting the test. The manual warns  that any deviation from the protocol affects the conclusion. So if the  DRE does not administer the evaluation under the conditions recommended  by the manual, this presents the defense with a good argument that the  results are not reliable. Lawyers Weekly USA , "Growing New Practice   Area for Drunk Driving Lawyers" dated September 20, 1999, p. 21.  Other possible arguments may emerge by comparing the DRE's report with  the notes of the arresting officer. There may be inconsistencies.  Another potential argument is that, even if the DRE correctly determines  that the suspect was affected by drugs, that does not necessarily mean  the suspect's driving ability was impaired. Lawyers Weekly USA ,  "Growing New Practice Area for Drunk Driving Lawyers" dated September  20, 1999, p. 21.

 For more information, see Lawyers Weekly USA dated September 20,  1999. Copies of the above referenced 1996 and 1998 studies are  available by fax from Lawyers Weekly USA. The 1996 study is "Laboratory  Validation Study of Drug Evaluation and Classification Program: Ethanol,  Cocaine, and Marijuana," Lawyers Weekly USA No. 9916532 (16 pages). The  1998 study is "Laboratory Validation Study of Drug Evaluation and  Classification Program: Alprazolam, d-Amphetamine, Codeine, and  Marijuana," Lawyers Weekly USA No. 9916533 (12 pages).

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

alcohol gaze nystagmus (AGN) - Gaze nystagmus caused by the effects of alcohol upon the nervous system.

caloric nystagmus - A vestibular system nystagmus caused by differences in temperature between the ears, e.g., one ear is irrigated with warm water and the other irrigated with cold water.

epileptic nystagmus - Nystagmus evident during an epileptic seizure.

field sobriety test (FST) - Any number of tests used by law enforcement officers, usually on the roadside, to determine whether a driver is impaired. Most FSTs test balance, coordination and the ability of the driver to divide his or her attention among several tasks as once. Other tests, such as the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, are used to measure a subject's impairment level.

fixation - ability of the eye to focus on one point.

gaze nystagmus - Nystagmus that occurs when the eyes gaze or fixate upon an object or image. Usually caused by a disruption of the nervous system.

horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) - Gaze nystagmus that occurs when the eyes gaze or move to the side along a horizontal plane.

jerk nystagmus - Nystagmus where the eye drifts slowly away from a point of focus and then quickly corrects itself with a saccadic movement back to the point of focus.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) - The agency within the United States Department of Transportation that administers traffic safety programs. NHTSA's duties include funding studies on field sobriety tests and training law enforcement officers in the administration of the standardized field sobriety test battery.

natural nystagmus - Nystagmus that occurs without any apparent physiological, vestibular, or neurological disturbance. Natural nystagmus occurs in approximately 2%-4% of the population.

neurological nystagmus - Nystagmus caused by some disturbance in the nervous system.

nystagmus - An involuntary bouncing or jerking of the eye caused by any number of vestibular, neurological or physiological disturbances.

oculomotor - Movement of the eyeball.

one-leg-stand (OLS) test - One of the three tests that make up the standardized field sobriety test battery. This test requires a subject to stand on one leg, look at his or her foot and count out loud to thirty. The subject is assessed on the ability to understand and follow instructions as well as the ability to maintain balance for thirty seconds. [post-publication note (August 1999), sentence should read: "...count out loud until told to stop."]

optokinetic nystagmus - A nystagmus evident when an object that the eye fixates upon moves quickly out of sight or passes quickly through the field of vision, such as occurs when a subject watches utility poles pass by while in a moving car. Optokinetic nystagmus is also caused by watching alternating moving images, such as black and white spokes on a spinning wheel.

oscillate - to move back and forth at a constant rate between two points

pathological disorder - Disruptions of the normal functions of organs of the body due to disease, illness, or damage.

pendular nystagmus - Nystagmus where the eye oscillates or swings equally in two directions.

physiological nystagmus - A nystagmus that occurs so that light entering the eye will continually fall on non-fatigued cells on the retina. Physiological nystagmus is so slight that it cannot be detected without the aid of instruments and it occurs in everyone.

positional alcohol nystagmus (PAN) - Positional nystagmus when the foreign fluid is alcohol. Pan I - The alcohol concentration is higher in the blood than in the vestibular system. Pan II - The alcohol concentration is lower in the blood than in the vestibular system.

positional nystagmus - Nystagmus that occurs when a foreign fluid is in unequal concentrations between the blood and the fluid in the semi-circular canals of the vestibular system.

post-rotational nystagmus - Nystagmus caused by disturbances in the vestibular system fluid when a person spins around. Post-rotational nystagmus lasts for only a few seconds after a person stops spinning.

resting nystagmus - Nystagmus that occurs as the eye are looking straight ahead.

rotational nystagmus - Nystagmus caused by disturbances in the vestibular system fluid when a person spins around. Rotational nystagmus occurs while the person is spinning.

saccadic - Movement of the eye from one fixation point to another.

smooth pursuit - The eye's course as it tracks a moving image.

Southern California Research Institute (SCRI) - A research organization that conducted the first two research studies that eventually produced the standardized field sobriety test battery. SCRI has conducted subsequent field sobriety test validation studies as well as drug recognition evaluation studies.

standardized field sobriety test (SFST) battery - A group of tests selected as the best field sobriety tests to increase the ability of law enforcement officers to detect driver impairment. The results of this battery, usually administered along the roadside, contribute extensively to a law enforcement officer's decision to arrest a person for impaired driving.

walk-and-turn (WAT) test - One of the three tests that make up the standardized field sobriety battery. This test requires a person to take nine heel to toe steps down a straight line, turn and take nine heel to toe steps back up the line. The subject is assessed on the ability to understand and follow instructions as well as the ability to maintain balance during the instruction stage and walking stage.

vertical nystagmus - nystagmus that occurs when the eyes gaze or move upward along a vertical plane.

vestibular system - The system of fluid-filled canals located in the inner ear that assists in balance, coordination and orientation.

vestibular system nystagmus - Nystagmus caused by a disturbance in the vestibular system.

Consequences of a Criminal Guilty Plea

1. You will have to appear in open court and tell the judge what you did that makes you guilty of the particular offense(s)

2. Do you understand that if you plead guilty:

a. You will have a criminal record

b. You may go to Jail or Prison.

c. You will have to pay Fines and Court Costs.

3. If you are on Probation, you will have to submit to random drug and urine testing. If you violate Probation, you often go to jail.

4. In indictable matters, you will be required to provide a DNA sample, which could be used by law enforcement for the investigation of criminal activity, and pay for the cost of testing.

5. You must pay restitution if the court finds there is a victim who has suffered a loss and if the court finds that you are able or will be able in the future to pay restitution.

6. If you are a public office holder or employee, you can be required to forfeit your office or job by virtue of your plea of guilty.

7. If you are not a United States citizen or national, you may be deported by virtue of your plea of guilty.

8. You must wait 5-10 years to expunge a first offense. 2C:52-3

9. You could be put on Probation.

10. In Drug Cases, a mandatory DEDR penalty of $500-$1,000, and lose your driver's license for 6 months - 2years. You must pay a Law Enforcement Officers Training and Equipment Fund penalty of $30.

11. You may be required to do Community Service.

12. You must pay a minimum Violent Crimes Compensation Board assessment of $50 ($100 minimum if you are convicted of a crime of violence) for each count to which you plead guilty.

13. You must pay a $75 Safe Neighborhood Services Fund assessment for each conviction.

14. If you are being sentenced to probation, you must pay a fee of up to $25 per month for the term of probation.

15. You lose the presumption against incarceration in future cases. 2C:44-1

16. You may lose your right to vote.

The defense of a person charged with a criminal offense is not impossible. There are a number of viable defenses and arguments which can be pursued to achieve a successful result. Advocacy, commitment, and persistence are essential to defending a client accused of a criminal offense.

Jail for Crimes and Disorderly Conduct:

If someone pleads Guilty or is found Guilty of a criminal offense, the following is the statutory Prison/Jail terms.

NJSA 2C: 43-8 (1) In the case of a crime of the first degree, for a specific term of years which shall be fixed by the court and shall be between 10 years and 20 years;

(2) In the case of a crime of the second degree, for a specific term of years which shall be fixed by the court and shall be between five years and 10 years;

(3) In the case of a crime of the third degree, for a specific term of years which shall be fixed by the court and shall be between three years and five years;

(4) In the case of a crime of the fourth degree, for a specific term which shall be fixed by the court and shall not exceed 18 months.

2C:43-3 Fines have been increased recently! 2C:43-3. Fines and Restitutions. A person who has been convicted of an offense may be sentenced to pay a fine, to make restitution, or both, such fine not to exceed:

a. (1) $200,000.00 when the conviction is of a crime of the first degree;

(2) $150,000.00 when the conviction is of a crime of the second degree;

b. (1) $15,000.00 when the conviction is of a crime of the third degree;

(2) $10,000.00 when the conviction is of a crime of the fourth degree;

c. $1,000.00, when the conviction is of a disorderly persons offense;

d. $500.00, when the conviction is of a petty disorderly persons offense;

If facing any criminal charge, retain an experienced attorney immediately to determine you rights and obligations to the court. Current criminal charge researched by Kenneth Vercammen, Esq. 732-572-0500

What is an Expert Witness in a DWI case If you are charged with DWI/ Driving While under the Influence.

 What is an Expert Witness in a DWI case If you are charged with DWI/ Driving While under the Influence.

 In New Jersey, the  Prosecutor is forbidden from accepting a plea bargain in a DWI case. These cases are very difficult and the evidence rules and reported decisions usually permit the state to introduce records and certain reports. Sometimes if a defendant has an expert report and there are problems with the state's case, the prosecutor can amend a DWI to a lower charge if the state cannot prove the case. However, the expert may also confirm there is no scientific basis to keep out the breath test results.

         In addition to your attorney cross-examining the state's witness, people charged with offenses can hire DWI experts to testify.  These experts are often former state police scientists and troopers. They may be able to review the discovery. , Sometimes they can prepare a written report for a fee of approximately four hundred dollars if there are additional errors in the state's case.  These DWI experts can also testify if there are problems with the state's case. Experts usually charge approximately nine hundred dollars to testify. Some prosecutors will allow the report into evidence.  Other prosecutors require direct testimony.  You would be responsible for the expert's costs up front.

         These experts can also testify if there are problems with the state's case.  They usually charge approximately eight hundred dollars - $1,000 for a report.  Some prosecutors will allow the report into evidence. Other prosecutors require direct testimony. You would be responsible for the expert's costs up front. Please advise my office if you wish to hire to have an expert review the scientific results. The expert fees are not part of the retainer you paid the law office.

         A well known DWI expert in Central/ South Jersey is Kevin Flanagan.

https://newjerseydwiexpert.com

        North Jersey Expert

Frank Novakowski

Novakowski DWI Consulting

http://dwiconsultants.com/services/

     The following is the NJ Court Rule on discovery:

7:7-7. Discovery and Inspection

      (a) Scope. If the government is represented by the municipal or a private prosecutor, discovery shall be available to the parties only as provided by this rule, unless the court otherwise orders. In the absence of a municipal or private prosecutor, discovery shall be available to the parties in the manner directed by the court. All discovery requests by defendant shall be served on the municipal prosecutor, who shall be responsible for making government discovery available to the defendant. If the matter is, however, not being prosecuted by the municipal prosecutor, the municipal prosecutor shall transmit defendant's discovery requests to the prosecutor, or, if there is no prosecutor, the municipal prosecutor shall transmit defendant's court ordered discovery requests to the complaining witness.

      (b) Discovery by Defendant. In all cases involving a consequence of magnitude or when ordered by the court, the defendant, on written notice to the municipal prosecutor or private prosecutor, shall be allowed to inspect, copy, and photograph or to be provided with copies of any relevant:

     accompanying them, as described by R. 7:5-1(a);……

      (11) the names and addresses of each person whom the prosecuting attorney expects to call to trial as an expert witness, the expert's qualifications, the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify, a copy of the report, if any, of the expert witness, or if no report was prepared, a statement of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for each opinion. If this information is requested and not furnished, the expert witness may, upon application by the defendant, be barred from testifying at trial.

       (d) Documents Not Subject to Discovery. This rule does not require discovery of a party's work product, consisting of internal reports, memoranda or documents made by that party or by that party's attorney or agents, in connection with the investigation, prosecution or defense of the matter. Nor does it require discovery by the government of records or statements, signed or unsigned, by defendant made to defendant's attorney or agents.

      (e) Protective Orders.

      (1) Grounds. Upon motion and for good cause shown, the court may at any time order that the discovery or inspection, copying or photographing sought pursuant to this rule be denied, restricted, or deferred or make such other order as is appropriate. In determining the motion, the court may consider the following: protection of witnesses and others from physical harm, threats of harm, bribes, economic reprisals and other intimidation; maintenance of such secrecy regarding informants as is required for effective investigation of criminal activity; protection of confidential relationships and privileges recognized by law; and any other relevant considerations.

      (2) Procedures. The court may permit the showing of good cause to be made, in whole or in part, in the form of a written statement to be inspected by the court alone. If the court enters a protective order, the entire text of the statement shall be sealed and preserved in the court's records, to be made available only to the appellate court in the event of an appeal.

      (f) Time and Procedure. A defense request for discovery shall be made contemporaneously with the entry of appearance by the defendant's attorney, who shall submit a copy of the appearance directly to the municipal prosecutor. If the defendant is pro se, any requests for discovery shall be made in writing and submitted by the defendant directly to the municipal prosecutor. The municipal prosecutor shall respond to the discovery request in accordance with paragraph (b) of this rule within 10 days after receiving the request. Unless otherwise ordered by the judge, the defendant shall provide the government with discovery, as provided by paragraph (c) of this rule within 20 days of the prosecuting attorney's compliance with the defendant's discovery request.

(g) Continuing Duty to Disclose; Failure to Comply. If a party who has complied with this rule discovers, either before or during trial, additional material or names of witnesses previously requested or ordered subject to discovery or inspection, that party shall promptly notify the other party or that party's attorney of the existence of these additional materials and witnesses. If at any time during the course of the proceedings it is brought to the attention of the court that a party has failed to comply with this rule or with an order issued pursuant to this rule, the court may order that party to permit the discovery, inspection, copying or photographing of materials not previously disclosed, grant a continuance, prohibit the party from introducing in evidence the material not disclosed or enter such other order as it deems appropriate.

Notice to the Bar ORDERS BY JUDGE LISA AS SPECIAL MASTER IN STATE V. EILEEN CASSIDY STAYING CERTAIN ALC0TEST-RELATED DWI CASES

Notice to the Bar

ORDERS BY JUDGE LISA AS SPECIAL MASTER IN STATE V. EILEEN CASSIDY

STAYING CERTAIN ALC0TEST-RELATED DWI CASES

The Supreme Court granted direct certification in the matter of State v. Eileen

Cassidy pursuant to Rule 2: 12-1. On April 6, 2017, the Court appointed Appellate Divison

Judge Joseph F. Lisa, Retired on Recall, as Special Master. The Court directed Judge

Lisa to determine whether the failure of New Jersey State Police Sergeant Marc Dennis

to test the simulator solutions with the NIST-traceable digital thermometer before

calibrating an Alcotest machine (breath-testing device) undermines or calls into question

the scientific reliability of breath tests subsequently performed on the Alcotest machine.

The Alcotest machines calibrated by Sergeant Dennis during his tenure with the State

Police were used in over 20,000 DWI prosecutions. Although most of these cases were

filed in five counties (Middlesex, Monmouth, Ocean, Somerset and Union Counties), there

have been cases in twelve counties total.

On November 2, 2017, Judge Lisa issued an Order (attached) requiring a stay in

all open DWI cases where the Alcotest reading was taken using a machine serviced by

Sergeant Dennis ("Dennis" cases). That same order provides that a stay is also to be

granted, unless the defendant expressly waives his or her right to the stay, on any new

case (e.g., new DWI, refusal or driving while suspended charge) where an original

"Dennis" DWI conviction constitutes a predicate offense to enhance the gradation or

applicable punishment in that subsequent proceeding. Finally, judges handling these

cases have the discretion to stay outstanding sentence provisions pending the Supreme

Court's ultimate decision in State v. Cassidy.

Additionally, on November 28, Judge Lisa issued a Supplemental Order (attached)

providing that the burden for determining whether or not the defendant provided a breath

sample on an Alcotest device calibrated by Sergeant Dennis rests with the prosecutor

handling the case. The prosecutor is also required to produce and provide documentary

evidence of that determination to the defendant and the court. Further, in any proceeding

in any court involving a prosecution for an offense in which a prior "Dennis" DWI conviction

constitutes a predicate offense that can enhance the gradation or applicable punishment

in that new case, or involving a sentence emanating from such a case that has been

adjudicated, the burden rests with the prosecutor to determine whether or not the

defendant provided a breath sample on an Alcotest device calibrated by Sergeant Dennis

in that prior DWI case, and to produce documentary evidence of that determination to the

defendant and the court.

Glenn A. Grant, J.A.D.

Acting Administrative Director

Dated: December 6, 2017

•c' I

CHRISTOPHER S. PORRINO·

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY

BY: ROBERT CZEPIEL, JR.

SUPERVISING DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL

DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

PROSECUTORS SUPERVISION & TRAINING BUREAU

25 MARKET STREET

P.O. BOX 085

TRENTON, NEW JERSEY 08625

(609) 984-0941

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Movant,

v.

EILEEN CASSIDY,

Defendant-Respondent.

. •

SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY

DOCKET NO. M-244/245/246

SEPTEMBER TERM 2016 078390

CRIMINAL ACTION

ORDER GRANTING STAY

OF PROCEEDINGS IN OTHER COURTS

THAT RAISE ISSUES POTENTIALLY

AFFECTED BY THE SUPREME COURT'S

DETERMINATION IN THIS CASE

This matter having been brought before this Court by Robert

Czepiel, Jr., Supervising Deputy Attorney Gene~al, appearing for the

State of New Jersey, and Michael R. Hobbie, Esq., appearing on

behalf of the defendant, Eileen Cassidy, and Sharon A. Balsamo,

Esq., appearing on behalf of the New Jersey State Bar Association,

and Samuel Louis Sachs, Esq., appearing as amicus curiae, and John

Menzel, J.D., appearing as amicus curiae, and Matthew w. Reisig,

Esq., appearing as amicus curiae, on the State's Motion for a Stay

of all proceedings in other courts that raise issues potentially

affected by the Supreme Court's determination to be made in this

matter; and the Court having heard oral argument and for good cause.

shown;

It is on this 2nd day of November, 2017 ORDERED that, based

on the attached certification of Mr. Czepiel, the State's Motion

for a stay of proceedings in other courts that raise issues

potentially affected by the Supreme Court's ultimate

determination in this matter, i.e. a DWI prosecution in which a

BAC reading derived from an Alcotest device calibrated by

coordinator Marc Dennis, is hereby GRANTED.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that the stay of proceedings contained

in this Order shall not preclude other courts from ordering that

sentences for DWI convictions or sentences for driving while

suspended under N.J.S.A. 39:3-40(£)(2) and (3) or N.J.S.A. 2C:40-

26 in, or as a result of, adjudicated Dennis cases be stayed

pending the ultimate determination by the Supreme Court in this

matter;

It is FURTHER ORDERED that if a DWI conviction in a Dennis

case constitutes a predicate offense to enhance the gradation or

applicable punishment in a subsequent prosecution for another

charge, proceedings in the subsequent prosecution shall be

stayed, unless the defendant expressly waives the right to the

stay (and therefore the right to challenge his or her DWI

conviction in the Dennis case regardless of the determination

- 2 -

,.

ultimately made by the Supreme Court in this matter), and agrees

to allow the prosecution

- 3 -

"

. Lisa, P.J.A.D.

recall)

Prepared by the Court

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Movant

v.

EILEEN CASSIDY,

Defendant-Respondent.

SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY

M-244/245/246 September Term 2016

078390

Order Supplementing Order Granting Stay of Proceedings in Other

Courts that Raise Issues Potentially Affected by the Supreme

Court's Determination in this Case

This matter being opened on the court's own initiative and

being entered, after notice to all parties, as a supplement to

the November 2, 2017 order of this court staying certain

proceedings in other courts, for the purpose of effectively

identifying cases in which breath samples were provided on an

Alcotest device calibrated by New Jersey State Police

coordinator Marc Dennis, to which the November 2, 2017 stay

order applies,

It is on this 28th day of November, 2017, ORDERED AS

FOLLOWS:

1. In any proceeding in any court involving a prosecution,

conviction or sentence for a DWI offense for which the offense

date was between January 1, 2008 and September 30, 2016, it

shall be the affirmative obligation of the prosecutor in that

proceeding to determine whether or not the defendant provided a

breath sample on an Alcotest device that had been calibrated by

coordinator Marc Dennis, and to produce documentary evidence of

that determination to the defendant and the court;

2. In any proceeding in any court involving a prosecution

for an offense in which a prior DWI conviction constitutes a

predicate offense to enhance the gradation or applicable

punishment in that subsequent prosecution for another charge, or

involving a sentence emanating from such a case that has been

adjudicated, it shall be the affirmative obligation of the

prosecutor in that proceeding to determine whether or not the

defendant provided a breath sample on an Alcotest device that

had been calibrated by coordinator Marc Dennis in that prior DWI

case, and to produce documentary evidence of that determination

to the defendant and the court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Attorney General shall

forthwith provide a copy of this order to all county and

municipal prosecutors.

Dated: November 28, 2017

2