11 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 2017–2020 0 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. Browngreen2 sentences2018As we stressed in Robinson , that determination "calls for 'less evidence than is needed to convict at trial.' " Id. at 69, 160 A.3d 1 (quoting State v. Brown , 205 N.J. 133 , 144, 14 A.3d 26 (2011) ). 2018As we stressed in Robinson , that determination "calls for 'less evidence than is needed to convict at trial.' " Id. at 69, 160 A.3d 1 (quoting State v. Brown , 205 N.J. 133 , 144, 14 A.3d 26 (2011) ). | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Edwardsgreen2 sentences2018Under our holding that the government may proceed by proffer or hearsay, cross-examination for the limited purpose of impeaching the witness' credibility is an insufficient reason to compel a witness' presence. [ Id. at 1338 (citation omitted).] The Edwards court concluded that requiring a preliminary proffer about how "a witness' testimony will tend to negate substantial probability 2 that the accused committed the charged offense, is a **506 reasonable limitation on the accused's right to call witnesses" at a pretrial detention hearing. 2017The Edwards court noted "the same liberty interest of the individual — to be free from pretrial detention — is involved in a pretrial detention hearing and a Gerstein hearing on probable cause." Edwards, supra, 430 A.2d at 1337 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Mitchellgreen1 sentence2017Ed. 2d 367 (1961); State v. Mitchell, 164 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Chipperogreen1 sentence2017See State v. Brown, 205 N.J. 133, 144 (2011) ("[F]or an arrest, 'there must be probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that the person sought to be arrested committed the offense.'" (quoting State v. Chippero, 201 N.J. 14, 28 (2009))). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Alonsogreen1 sentence2017Appx. 289 (9th Cir. 2007); United States v. Alston, 899 F. Supp. 1 , 3 n.3 (D.D.C. 1995) (judicial officer has discretion to permit the government to proceed by proffer); United States v. Alonso, 832 F. Supp. 503, 505 (D. | 1 | 1 |
Collins v. Dicksongreen1 sentence2017Because the issue is not before us, we specifically do not consider the nature and scope of a defendant's ability at a pretrial detention hearing "to present witnesses . . . and to present information by proffer or otherwise." N.J.S.A. 2A:162-19(e)(1). 14 A-1787-16T6 see also State v. Smith, 32 N.J. 501, 536 (1960) ("The right [to a preliminary hearing] was not known at the common law and is not a constitutional requirement." (citations omitted)), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 936 , 81 S. Ct. 383 , 5 L. | 1 | 1 |
Committee to Recall Menendez v. Wellsgreen2 sentences2017See Comm. to Recall Robert Menendez from the Office of U.S. Senator v. Wells, 204 N.J. 79, 95 , 7 A.3d 720 (2010) (“[W]e strive to avoid reaching constitutional questions unless required to do so.”); see also Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297, 306-07 , 100 S.Ct. 2671, 2683 , 65 L.Ed.2d 784, 798 (1980) (“[I]f a case may be decided on either statutory or constitutional grounds, this Court, for sound *203 jurisprudential reasons, will inquire first into the statutory question.”). 2017See Comm. to Recall Robert Menendez from the Office of U.S. Senator v. Wells, 204 N.J. 79, 95 , 7 A.3d 720 (2010) (“[W]e strive to avoid reaching constitutional questions unless required to do so.”); see also Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297, 306-07 , 100 S.Ct. 2671, 2683 , 65 L.Ed.2d 784, 798 (1980) (“[I]f a case may be decided on either statutory or constitutional grounds, this Court, for sound *203 jurisprudential reasons, will inquire first into the statutory question.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Smithgreen1 sentence2017Because the issue is not before us, we specifically do not consider the nature and scope of a defendant's ability at a pretrial detention hearing "to present witnesses . . . and to present information by proffer or otherwise." N.J.S.A. 2A:162-19(e)(1). 14 A-1787-16T6 see also State v. Smith, 32 N.J. 501, 536 (1960) ("The right [to a preliminary hearing] was not known at the common law and is not a constitutional requirement." (citations omitted)), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 936 , 81 S. Ct. 383 , 5 L. | 1 | 1 |
Harris v. McRaegreen2 sentences2017See Comm. to Recall Robert Menendez from the Office of U.S. Senator v. Wells, 204 N.J. 79, 95 , 7 A.3d 720 (2010) (“[W]e strive to avoid reaching constitutional questions unless required to do so.”); see also Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297, 306-07 , 100 S.Ct. 2671, 2683 , 65 L.Ed.2d 784, 798 (1980) (“[I]f a case may be decided on either statutory or constitutional grounds, this Court, for sound *203 jurisprudential reasons, will inquire first into the statutory question.”). 2017See Comm. to Recall Robert Menendez from the Office of U.S. Senator v. Wells, 204 N.J. 79, 95 , 7 A.3d 720 (2010) (“[W]e strive to avoid reaching constitutional questions unless required to do so.”); see also Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297, 306-07 , 100 S.Ct. 2671, 2683 , 65 L.Ed.2d 784, 798 (1980) (“[I]f a case may be decided on either statutory or constitutional grounds, this Court, for sound *203 jurisprudential reasons, will inquire first into the statutory question.”). | 1 | 1 |
State of New Jersey v. Amed Ingramgreen2 sentences2017See id. at 111-12 , 155 A.3d 597 (discussing standards for commitment hearings under Sexually Violent Predator Act and probation violation hearings). 2017See id. at 111-12 , 155 A.3d 597 (discussing standards for commitment hearings under Sexually Violent Predator Act and probation violation hearings). | 1 | 1 |
Reynolds v. Seaboard Air Line Ry.green1 sentence2017Because the issue is not before us, we specifically do not consider the nature and scope of a defendant's ability at a pretrial detention hearing "to present witnesses . . . and to present information by proffer or otherwise." N.J.S.A. 2A:162-19(e)(1). 14 A-1787-16T6 see also State v. Smith, 32 N.J. 501, 536 (1960) ("The right [to a preliminary hearing] was not known at the common law and is not a constitutional requirement." (citations omitted)), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 936 , 81 S. Ct. 383 , 5 L. | 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. Amed Ingram (079079) (Camden and Statewide)
green
2 sentences2018The Court found that "a pretrial detention hearing at which *1070 the State must demonstrate probable cause is not a final adjudication of contested facts or the merits of a charge." Ibid. 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. | 3 | 2018–2018 |
United States v. Jorge Enrique Gaviria and Jose Elkin Echeverry
green
2 sentences2018A smaller number of federal courts agree with Edwards that a defendant has only a conditional right to call adverse witnesses at a pretrial detention hearing, but following the Eleventh Circuit's decision in *66 United States v. Gaviria , 828 F.2d 667 , 670 (11th Cir. 1987), do not impose Edwards ' procedural requirement that the defendant need make any proffer beforehand. 2017In United States v. Gaviria, 828 F.2d 667 (11th Cir. 1987), the Eleventh Circuit specifically considered whether the Federal Act allowed the government to proceed by proffer at a pretrial detention hearing. | 2 | 2017–2018 |
State v. Habeeb Robinson(078900) (Essex County and Statewide)
green
2 sentences2018That is true even if production of additional discovery would better describe the strength of the State's case. **24 At the pretrial detention hearing, the court will consider the State's application to "determine probable cause-whether an officer has a 'well grounded suspicion that a crime has been' committed and that defendant committed the offense." Robinson , 229 N.J. at 68 -69 , 160 A.3d 1 (quoting State v. Gibson , 218 N.J. 277 , 292, 95 A.3d 110 (2014) ). 2018That is true even if production of additional discovery would better describe the strength of the State's case. **24 At the pretrial detention hearing, the court will consider the State's application to "determine probable cause-whether an officer has a 'well grounded suspicion that a crime has been' committed and that defendant committed the offense." Robinson , 229 N.J. at 68 -69 , 160 A.3d 1 (quoting State v. Gibson , 218 N.J. 277 , 292, 95 A.3d 110 (2014) ). | 2 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Slater
green
1 sentence2020Unlike the pretrial detention judge, the sentencing judge had the benefit of defendant's testimony from the plea hearing. 2 State v. Slater, 198 N.J. 145 (2009). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Allen
neutral
1 sentence2018We granted the State's motion for leave to appeal. 230 N.J. 544 , 170 A.3d 325 (2017). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. D.C.
neutral
1 sentence2018We granted the State's motion for leave to appeal. 230 N.J. 544 , 170 A.3d 325 (2017). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Dickerson
green
2 sentences2018More recently, in State v. Dickerson , 232 N.J. 2 , 28, 177 A.3d 788 (2018), we noted that it is improper to release a defendant as a "sanction" for the prosecution's failure to comply with its discovery obligations before a pretrial detention hearing. 2018More recently, in State v. Dickerson , 232 N.J. 2 , 28, 177 A.3d 788 (2018), we noted that it is improper to release a defendant as a "sanction" for the prosecution's failure to comply with its discovery obligations before a pretrial detention hearing. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
United States v. Sanchez
green
1 sentence2018Id. at 93-94 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
United States v. Steven Dale Winsor
green
2 sentences2018In 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 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. David M. Gibson (070910)
green
2 sentences2018That is true even if production of additional discovery would better describe the strength of the State's case. **24 At the pretrial detention hearing, the court will consider the State's application to "determine probable cause-whether an officer has a 'well grounded suspicion that a crime has been' committed and that defendant committed the offense." Robinson , 229 N.J. at 68 -69 , 160 A.3d 1 (quoting State v. Gibson , 218 N.J. 277 , 292, 95 A.3d 110 (2014) ). 2018That is true even if production of additional discovery would better describe the strength of the State's case. **24 At the pretrial detention hearing, the court will consider the State's application to "determine probable cause-whether an officer has a 'well grounded suspicion that a crime has been' committed and that defendant committed the offense." Robinson , 229 N.J. at 68 -69 , 160 A.3d 1 (quoting State v. Gibson , 218 N.J. 277 , 292, 95 A.3d 110 (2014) ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
United States v. Alston
neutral
1 sentence2017Appx. 289 (9th Cir. 2007); United States v. Alston, 899 F. Supp. 1 , 3 n.3 (D.D.C. 1995) (judicial officer has discretion to permit the government to proceed by proffer); United States v. Alonso, 832 F. Supp. 503, 505 (D. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
United States v. Hector Acevedo-Ramos
green
1 sentence2017In that way, the judge can proceed "without unnecessarily transforming the bail hearing into a full-fledged trial or defendant's discovery expedition." Id. at 207-08 . 35 A-1787-16T6 Additionally, we note that in light of our decision in Robinson, supra, ___ N.J. ___ (slip op. at 27), the State must provide a defendant with materials relating to the "facts on which the State bases its pretrial detention application." As a result, defendants will have a significant amount of information by which to test the probable cause determination, first made at issuance of the complaint-warrant, and again | 1 | 2017–2017 |
United States v. Ward
neutral
1 sentence2017Cal. 1999) (noting that "both the Government and the defendant may proceed by proffer or hearsay" at a pretrial detention hearing), aff’d, 237 Fed. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State of New Jersey v. C.W.
green
2 sentences2017However, during oral argument before the Court in State v. S.N., No. A-079320, amicus American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU) argued that under the Judiciary's approved Decision Making Framework (DMF), when a defendant is charged with certain crimes, the Pretrial Services recommendation is always no release irrespective of the ratings on the PSA.1 See C.W., supra, 449 N.J. 2017However, during oral argument before the Court in State v. S.N., No. A-079320, amicus American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU) argued that under the Judiciary's approved Decision Making Framework (DMF), when a defendant is charged with certain crimes, the Pretrial Services recommendation is always no release irrespective of the ratings on the PSA.1 See C.W., supra, 449 N.J. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.