Supreme Court Mulls Whether Pretrial Defendants Can Call Adverse Witnesses
In yet another case calling into question the extent of evidence to be produced at detention hearings under New Jersey's revamped bail system, the Supreme Court on Monday heard arguments over whether a criminal defendant had the right to call witnesses adverse to him.
March 13, 2018 at 11:14 AM
4 minute read
In yet another case calling into question the extent of evidence to be produced at detention hearings under New Jersey's revamped bail system, the Supreme Court on Monday heard arguments over whether a criminal defendant had the right to call witnesses adverse to him.
The case involves a man who led Jersey City police on a car chase and who was then shot.
The officers themselves now face criminal charges.
The driver who led the police on the chase, Leo Pinkston, recently pleaded guilty to reduced charges. Nevertheless, Chief Justice Stuart Rabner said Monday that the court decided to hear the case because of its public importance.
Officers Eric Kosinski, Francisco Rodriguez, Lt. Keith Ludwig and former Officer M.D. Kahn are charged with various offenses in connection to the June 4, 2017, chase which began in Greenville when police tried to stop Pinkston, 48, during a shooting investigation, officials said.
The chase ended when Pinkston's car collided with that of Miguel Feliz at Tonnelle Avenue near North Street. The vehicles slammed into a utility pole and downed wires ignited them. Video shows Feliz being kicked after emerging from his car with his clothing on fire, according to reports in the Jersey Journal. Pinkston was shot while still in his vehicle, reports have said.
Earlier this month, Pinkston pleaded to eluding police and aggravated assault in connection to the pursuit.
The officers' attorneys have said that they now also seek transcripts of Pinkston's plea hearing and his upcoming sentencing hearing as part of discovery.
Well before his plea, Pinkston was subject to a detention hearing. Under the new bail system implemented last year by New Jersey's Criminal Justice Reform Act, criminal defendants are either held pending trial or are released without having to post monetary bail. After a defendant undergoes a series of tests administered by judiciary officials, a judge determines whether the defendant should be released.
In Pinkston's case, a judge ordered him held without bail after rejecting his request to call as witnesses the officers involved in the case.
An appeals court affirmed that ruling, and the Supreme Court took up the case.
It is not the first time the high court has examined this type of issue. Last October, the court said in a unanimous ruling that a prosecutor's proffer of a witness's testimony will generally suffice if pretrial detention is being sought, although the justices took care to point out that a judge retains the discretion to require live testimony from a witness if he or she is dissatisfied with the state's proffer.
Pinkston's attorney, Newark solo Thomas Ashley, argued Monday that Pinkston should have been allowed to confront the officers at his bail hearing since it could have determined what probable cause they had when they attempted to stop him.
Justice Faustino Fernandez-Vina said a parade of witnesses could result in a “full-blown trial.”
Ashley disagreed. “This judge has the power to control the court,” he said.
Assistant Hudson County Prosecutor Stephanie Elson argued that no defendant should be given the absolute right to call witnesses.
“It would open the hearing for more than there was intended to be,” she said.
Khan and Kosinski are charged with firing at Pinkston's moving vehicle at Tonnelle and Carlton avenues during the chase. Both are charged with attempted murder, aggravated assault, and weapons offenses. The indictment states that one of Khan's shots struck Pinkston's leg, according to the Jersey Journal's report. Rodriguez is accused of opening fire on Pinkston as the car passed through the intersection of Manhattan and Tonnelle avenues. He is charged with unlawfully firing at Pinkston's car and aggravated assault, the report said. Khan and Ludwig reportedly have been charged as the officers seen kicking Feliz, of West New York, who was later hospitalized for severe burns.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNJ Jury Awards $8M to Woman Injured by Employees Chasing Suspected Shoplifter
3 minute readOn the Move and After Hours: Connell Foley; Greenbaum Rowe; Tanenbaum Keale; NJ Commission of Investigation
4 minute readBankruptcy Judge Clears Path for Recovery in High-Profile Crypto Failure
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Jury Seated in Glynn County Trial of Ex-Prosecutor Accused of Shielding Ahmaud Arbery's Killers
- 2Ex-Archegos CFO Gets 8-Year Prison Sentence for Fraud Scheme
- 3Judges Split Over Whether Indigent Prisoners Bringing Suit Must Each Pay Filing Fee
- 4Law Firms Report Wide Growth, Successful Billing Rate Increases and Less Merger Interest
- 5CLOs Face Mounting Pressure as Risks Mushroom and Job Duties Expand
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250