laboratory analysis in New Jersey

2006Here, defendant asserted his right to "contest at trial the composition, quality and quantity of substances submitted to the laboratory for analysis." The New Jersey Supreme Court in Miller held that "to avoid constitutional infirmity ... *314 N.J.S.A. 2C:35-19c [must be read] to require only that a defendant object to the lab certificate and assert that the composition, quality or quantity of the tested substance will be contested at trial." 170 N.J. at 436 , 790 A. 2d 144 .

2006Here, defendant asserted his right to "contest at trial the composition, quality and quantity of substances submitted to the laboratory for analysis." The New Jersey Supreme Court in Miller held that "to avoid constitutional infirmity ... *314 N.J.S.A. 2C:35-19c [must be read] to require only that a defendant object to the lab certificate and assert that the composition, quality or quantity of the tested substance will be contested at trial." 170 N.J. at 436 , 790 A. 2d 144 .

2025Defendant maintained the search warrant for his blood and urine should be invalidated because Celi "acted with reckless disregard for the truth during the telephonic application by providing [the] [c]ourt with false statements and omitting relevant information." The trial court gave defendant the opportunity to file a formal Franks motion, requested written summations on the motion to suppress, and reserved decision. 4 Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978).

2019Defendant contends the incriminating DNA proof should have been excluded because the buccal swab was obtained without a sufficient foundation, as prescribed by State v. Gathers, 234 N.J. 208 (2018).

2014In this companion case to State v. Michaels, 219 N.J. 1 , 95 A.3d 648 , 2014 WL 3843299 (2014), the majority again announces that a defendant may be denied the opportunity to confront and cross-examine a state-employed scientist or analyst who conducts a laboratory test that implicates him in a crime.

2014In this companion case to State v. Michaels, 219 N.J. 1 , 95 A.3d 648 , 2014 WL 3843299 (2014), the majority again announces that a defendant may be denied the opportunity to confront and cross-examine a state-employed scientist or analyst who conducts a laboratory test that implicates him in a crime.

2007In United States v. Feliz, 467 F.3d 227 , supplemental opinion at 2006 WL 3044420 , 2006 U.S.App.

1992In the course of his opinion, the judge observed that our decision in State v. Thomas, 245 N.J.

1990The offending statements were (1) that a sample bottle of the *482 plaintiff's bottled spring water did "not contain pure spring water, according to a laboratory analysis obtained by" the newspaper; (2) that "pure spring water should not contain any chlorine"; and (3) that the director of the testing laboratory could not "see how it could possibly be spring water unless the spring source was contaminated and chlorine was added at the source." Id. at 154 , 516 A. 2d 220 .

1990The offending statements were (1) that a sample bottle of the *482 plaintiff's bottled spring water did "not contain pure spring water, according to a laboratory analysis obtained by" the newspaper; (2) that "pure spring water should not contain any chlorine"; and (3) that the director of the testing laboratory could not "see how it could possibly be spring water unless the spring source was contaminated and chlorine was added at the source." Id. at 154 , 516 A. 2d 220 .

1990The first two statements were held to be "facts" and therefore protected by a qualified privilege which could be overcome only by proof of "actual malice." Id.

1990"A proffered certificate shall be admitted in evidence unless it appears from the notice of objection and specific grounds for that objection that the composition, quality, or quantity of the substance submitted to the laboratory for analysis will be contested at trial." Ibid.

1986In Metpath the Supreme Court, dealing with an exemption provided under N.J.S.A. 54:32B-8.20 for chemicals used in laboratory analysis, held that a printed report was only incidental to the laboratory analysis, that “the sale of such a report is a sale of information and, as such, is a service, rather than a sale of tangible personal property.” 96 N.J. at 154 , 474 A.2d 1065 .

1986In Metpath the Supreme Court, dealing with an exemption provided under N.J.S.A. 54:32B-8.20 for chemicals used in laboratory analysis, held that a printed report was only incidental to the laboratory analysis, that “the sale of such a report is a sale of information and, as such, is a service, rather than a sale of tangible personal property.” 96 N.J. at 154 , 474 A.2d 1065 .