Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
18 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1908–2024 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Jersey courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Kingkamau Nantambugreen2 sentences2021As to counsel's decision to withdraw the request for a Driver hearing, a partially intelligible recording with probative value "is admissible even though substantial portions thereof are inaudible." State v. Nantambu, 221 N.J. 390, 406 (2015) (quoting State v. Zicarelli, 122 N.J. 2018The court was satisfied as to the video's admissibility under the Driver test but expressed confusion "in terms of the value of the evidence and . . . what it was being proffered to show." At another point, the court stated it did not think the video "necessarily is the best proffer for the evidence" presumably to prove defendant's receipt of the stolen Ford Focus. 10 A-3238-17T3 Although we ordinarily defer to the trial court's assessment of the undue prejudice of relevant evidence under N.J.R.E. 403, see State v. Nantambu, 221 N.J. 390, 402-03 (2015), our concern here is the court's apparent | 4 | 4 |
State v. Drivergreen2 sentences2021The suppression motion was denied as to "all other evidence seized." 8 The PCR judge noted that contrary to defendant's claim, prior to admitting the surveillance video into evidence, the trial judge conducted "a Driver hearing" to determine the video's "trustworthiness" and "reliability." See Driver, 38 N.J. at 287 (holding that "[a]s a condition to admissibility" of a sound recording, a court should consider several factors including whether "the recording is authentic and correct," and whether any "changes, additions, or deletions have been made" to the recording). 9 Regarding defendant's p 2021The suppression motion was denied as to "all other evidence seized." 8 The PCR judge noted that contrary to defendant's claim, prior to admitting the surveillance video into evidence, the trial judge conducted "a Driver hearing" to determine the video's "trustworthiness" and "reliability." See Driver, 38 N.J. at 287 (holding that "[a]s a condition to admissibility" of a sound recording, a court should consider several factors including whether "the recording is authentic and correct," and whether any "changes, additions, or deletions have been made" to the recording). 9 Regarding defendant's p | 3 | 10 |
State v. Kinggreen2 sentences2021State v. King, 215 N.J. 2021State v. King, 215 N.J. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Zicarelligreen1 sentence2021As to counsel's decision to withdraw the request for a Driver hearing, a partially intelligible recording with probative value "is admissible even though substantial portions thereof are inaudible." State v. Nantambu, 221 N.J. 390, 406 (2015) (quoting State v. Zicarelli, 122 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Cardell, Inc. v. Piscatelligreen2 sentences2018Super. 156, 169 (App. Div. 2013) (quoting Cardell, Inc. v. Piscatelli, 277 N.J. 2018Super. 156, 169 (App. Div. 2013) (quoting Cardell, Inc. v. Piscatelli, 277 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
McLean v. Liberty Health Systemgreen2 sentences2018The court was satisfied as to the video's admissibility under the Driver test but expressed confusion "in terms of the value of the evidence and . . . what it was being proffered to show." At another point, the court stated it did not think the video "necessarily is the best proffer for the evidence" presumably to prove defendant's receipt of the stolen Ford Focus. 10 A-3238-17T3 Although we ordinarily defer to the trial court's assessment of the undue prejudice of relevant evidence under N.J.R.E. 403, see State v. Nantambu, 221 N.J. 390, 402-03 (2015), our concern here is the court's apparent 2018The court was satisfied as to the video's admissibility under the Driver test but expressed confusion "in terms of the value of the evidence and . . . what it was being proffered to show." At another point, the court stated it did not think the video "necessarily is the best proffer for the evidence" presumably to prove defendant's receipt of the stolen Ford Focus. 10 A-3238-17T3 Although we ordinarily defer to the trial court's assessment of the undue prejudice of relevant evidence under N.J.R.E. 403, see State v. Nantambu, 221 N.J. 390, 402-03 (2015), our concern here is the court's apparent | 1 | 1 |
State v. Padavanogreen1 sentence1965N.J.S.A. 39:5-25; State v. Padavano, 81 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Cusmano
green
2 sentences2015The Appellate Division examined the operator-competence factor in Cusmano, supra, and concluded that trustworthiness is the polestar for the admissibility of a recording. 274 N.J.Super. at 514-17 , 644 A.2d 672 . 2015The Appellate Division examined the operator-competence factor in Cusmano, supra, and concluded that trustworthiness is the polestar for the admissibility of a recording. 274 N.J.Super. at 514-17 , 644 A.2d 672 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Romano v. Kimmelman
green
2 sentences2006Romano, supra, 96 N.J. 66 , 474 A. 2d 1 . [6] The fifth factor in the Driver analysis is irrelevant to the case at hand as it applies to confessions and S-1 was not a video recording of a confession. 2006Romano, supra, 96 N.J. 66 , 474 A. 2d 1 . [6] The fifth factor in the Driver analysis is irrelevant to the case at hand as it applies to confessions and S-1 was not a video recording of a confession. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Green v. General Motors Corp.
green
2 sentences2000Green, supra, 310 N.J.Super. at 521 , 709 A. 2d 205 . 2000Green, supra, 310 N.J.Super. at 521 , 709 A. 2d 205 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Halstead
green
1 sentence1996State v. Halstead, 414 A. 2d 1138 (R.I. 1980) (discussing New Jersey law). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
State v. Allen
green
1 sentence1978It is a normal part of the trial process, and can be helpful not only in removing prejudiced persons from the jury, but also in assessing the need for a change of venue, a continuance, or a foreign jury. [ State v. Allen, supra 73 N.J. at 161 ] This court could voir dire prospective jurors to ascertain if any have read or heard of the testimony received in the pretrial Driver hearing. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Little v. Hackett
green
1 sentence1908The same result was reached in the Supreme Court of the United States in Little v. Hackett, 116 U. S. 366 , in which Mr. Justice Field characterized the opinions delivered by Chief Justice Beasley and Mr. Justice Depue in the two New Jersey cases as «of marked ability and learning.” The fact is that Thoro-gnod v. Bryan has been quite generally discredited both in this country and in England, and in all the courts in which it has been repudiated stress has been laid upon the passenger's lack of control over the driver as the test to be applied in such cases. 1'pon principle I am unable to disti | 1 | 1908–1908 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.