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
New Jersey Supreme Court Chief Justice Stuart Rabner
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
© 2024 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 AllHit by Mail Truck: Man Agrees to $1.85M Settlement for Spinal Injuries
Appellate Div. Follows Fed Reasoning on Recusal for Legislator-Turned-Judge
4 minute readChiesa Shahinian Bolsters Corporate Practice With 5 From Newark Boutique
5 minute readOn the Move and After Hours: Brach Eichler; Cooper Levenson; Marshall Dennehey; Archer; Sills Cummis
7 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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