detention hearing in New Jersey

2020See Robinson, 229 N.J. at 68 (stating that the detention hearing "should not turn into a mini-trial").

2019Defendant additionally argues the motion court improperly considered evidence listed in the Preliminary Law Enforcement Incident Report (PLEIR) that was not introduced at the detention hearing, in violation of State v. Robinson, 229 N.J. 44, 73 (2017).

2024Where a court denies a motion to reopen a detention hearing , "it should provide a statement of reasons for review on appeal." Hyppolite, 236 N.J. at 172 ; see also R. 1:7-4(a).

2020N.J.S.A. 2A:162-19(f) "imposes a materiality standard to determine whether to reopen a detention hearing when information 'that was not known . . . at the time of the hearing' later surfaces." Hyppolite, 236 N.J. at 166 .

2018The State need not present a live witness at a detention hearing, State v. Ingram , 230 N.J. 190 , 213, 165 A.3d 797 (2017), but it has the option to do so.

2018The State need not present a live witness at a detention hearing, State v. Ingram , 230 N.J. 190 , 213, 165 A.3d 797 (2017), but it has the option to do so.

2018A majority of federal courts have adopted the rationale first set forth in United States v. Edwards , 430 A.2d 1321 , 1337-39 (D.C. 1981), where the court interpreted the D.C.

2018Before permitting a defendant to subpoena adverse witnesses to appear at the detention hearing, the judge should require a proffer as to the witness' likely testimony, and how that testimony will negate a finding that there is a "substantial probability that the accused committed the charged offense." Edwards , 430 A.2d at 1338 .

2018In Sanchez , for example, the defendant specifically sought to call a police officer as a witness regarding "the weight of the government's evidence of criminality." 457 F.Supp.2d at 92 .

2017See, e.g., United States v. Acevedo-Ramos, 755 F.2d 203, 208 (1st Cir. 1985) ("If the court is dissatisfied with the nature of the proffer, it can always, within its discretion, insist on direct testimony." (quoting Edwards, supra, 430 A.2d at 1334 )); United States v. Sanchez, 457 F. Supp. 2d 90, 93 (D.

2018In United States v. Winsor , 785 F.2d 755 , 756 (9th Cir. 1986), after the government proceeded by proffer at the detention hearing, the defendant argued he should be permitted *1071 to examine the government witnesses who were involved in the investigation and his arrest "to demonstrate that he was arrested without probable cause." The Ninth Circuit found the court was not required to allow him to do so without first making a showing "that the government's proffered information was incorrect." Id. at 757 .

2018In United States v. Winsor , 785 F.2d 755 , 756 (9th Cir. 1986), after the government proceeded by proffer at the detention hearing, the defendant argued he should be permitted *1071 to examine the government witnesses who were involved in the investigation and his arrest "to demonstrate that he was arrested without probable cause." The Ninth Circuit found the court was not required to allow him to do so without first making a showing "that the government's proffered information was incorrect." Id. at 757 .

2024A court's "[f]ailure to make explicit findings and clear statements of reasoning [impedes meaningful appellate review and] 'constitutes a disservice to litigants, the attorneys, and the appellate court.'" Gnall v. Gnall, 222 N.J. 414, 428 (2015) (citation omitted).

2021See, e.g., United States v. Ojeda Rios, 846 F.2d 167, 168-69 (2d Cir. 1988) (32 months of pretrial detention); Gonzales Claudio, 806 F.2d at 341-43 (26 months of detention expected through trial).

2021See, e.g., United States v. Ojeda Rios, 846 F.2d 167, 168-69 (2d Cir. 1988) (32 months of pretrial detention); Gonzales Claudio, 806 F.2d at 341-43 (26 months of detention expected through trial).

2018See, e.g. , State v. Henderson , 208 N.J. 208 , 291, 27 A.3d 872 (2011) (noting defendant's proffer of statements made by administrator of an identification procedure may compel Wade 6 hearing); State v. Cotto , 182 N.J. 316 , 332-34, 865 A.2d 660 (2005) (considering proffered evidence of third-party guilt and concluding exclusion did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights); State v. Kelly , 97 N.J. 178 , 197-98, 478 A.2d 364 (1984) (requiring consideration of defense proffer regarding expert testimony on battered-woman's syndrome before considering relevancy to a claim of self-def

2018See, e.g. , State v. Henderson , 208 N.J. 208 , 291, 27 A.3d 872 (2011) (noting defendant's proffer of statements made by administrator of an identification procedure may compel Wade 6 hearing); State v. Cotto , 182 N.J. 316 , 332-34, 865 A.2d 660 (2005) (considering proffered evidence of third-party guilt and concluding exclusion did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights); State v. Kelly , 97 N.J. 178 , 197-98, 478 A.2d 364 (1984) (requiring consideration of defense proffer regarding expert testimony on battered-woman's syndrome before considering relevancy to a claim of self-def

2018See State v. S.N. , 231 N.J. 497 , 500, 176 A.3d 813 (2018).

2018See State v. S.N. , 231 N.J. 497 , 500, 176 A.3d 813 (2018).

2018See Robinson , 229 N.J. at 74 -76 , 160 A.3d 1 . **171 In his brief requesting leave to appeal, defendant notes that he "sought immediate release to remedy the harm caused by the State in withholding exculpatory evidence at the detention hearing." For the reasons expressed in Dickerson , release is not an appropriate remedy for a discovery violation, as a general proposition. 232 N.J. at 28 , 177 A.3d 788 .

2018See Kyles v. Whitley , 514 U.S. 419 , 432, 115 S.Ct. 1555 , 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995) ; State v. Nash , 212 N.J. 518 , 544, 58 A.3d 705 (2013).

2018See Kyles v. Whitley , 514 U.S. 419 , 432, 115 S.Ct. 1555 , 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995) ; State v. Nash , 212 N.J. 518 , 544, 58 A.3d 705 (2013).

2018See also United States v. Delker , 757 F.2d 1390 , 1395 (3rd Cir. 1985) (bail hearings should not become mini-trials to debate likelihood of conviction).

2018See also United States v. Hare, 873 F.2d 796 (5th Cir. 1989) (affirming a district court decision not to reopen a detention hearing based on proffered testimony of defendant's family members and a friend because the proffered information was not new).

2018See also United States v. Hare, 873 F.2d 796 (5th Cir. 1989) (affirming a district court decision not to reopen a detention hearing based on proffered testimony of defendant's family members and a friend because the proffered information was not new).

2018See United States v. Dillon , 938 F.2d 1412 (1st Cir. 1991) (affirming a district court decision not to reopen a detention hearing based on defendant's submission of affidavits from witnesses that could have been introduced at the original hearing).

2018See United States v. Dillon , 938 F.2d 1412 (1st Cir. 1991) (affirming a district court decision not to reopen a detention hearing based on defendant's submission of affidavits from witnesses that could have been introduced at the original hearing).

2017See United States v. Stone, 608 F.3d 939, 948-49 (6th Cir. 2010); United States v. El-Hage, 213 F.3d 74, 82 (2d Cir. 2000); United States v. Smith, 79 F.3d 1208, 1209-10 (D.C.

2017Me. 2007) (rejecting the defendant's argument that only he had a right to submit evidence at the detention hearing by proffer); United States v. Cabrera- Ortigoza, 196 F.R.D. 571, 574 (S.D.