In Latest Bail Reform Ruling, High Court Sets Standard for Reopening Detention Proceedings
In the latest decision implicating New Jersey's revamped bail system, the state Supreme Court reiterated the mandate that prosecutors must release all exculpatory information to criminal defendants before pretrial hearings, and set guidelines for situations in which judges should reopen detention proceedings.
December 11, 2018 at 03:51 PM
3 minute read
The New Jersey Supreme Court on Tuesday reiterated the mandate that prosecutors must release all exculpatory information to criminal defendants before pretrial hearings, and set guidelines for situations in which judges should reopen detention proceedings.
In a unanimous ruling in State v. Hyppolite, the court said a defendant facing a murder trial—and who was ordered held without bail pending that trial—should be afforded a new detention hearing because his attorney was not initially provided with conflicting witness statements.
Had defendant Shaquan Hyppolite's attorney been provided with that evidence, Chief Justice Stuart Rabner wrote for the court, Hyppolite might have been released before trial under the state's Criminal Justice Reform Act.
The court ordered a new detention hearing for Hyppolite.
“If there is a reasonable possibility that the result of the detention hearing would have been different had the evidence been disclosed, the hearing should be reopened,” Rabner said. “To craft and present arguments for release, defendants are entitled to all exculpatory evidence before the hearing.”
Hyppolite was arrested on March 29, 2017, in connection with the shooting death of Terrel Smith, whose body was found lying in the street in the Lafayette Gardens section of Jersey City, according to the ruling.
At the pretrial detention hearing, prosecutors gave Hyppolite's attorney a statement from a witness identifying Hyppolite as the shooter. A judge ordered Hyppolite held without bail pending trial. Days later, prosecutors revealed that the witness had given an earlier statement in which the witness had said he could not identify the shooter, the court said.
Hyppolite's attorney moved for another pretrial detention hearing. A judge said Hyppolite should have been given all of the exculpatory material, but added that it would not have changed the ultimate outcome, and thus refused to reopen the hearing.
A grand jury indicted Hyppolite on murder and weapons charges two months later, and he remains in jail pending the outcome of a newly ordered detention hearing.
Rabner said the court acknowledged that in the practical world, investigations can remain ongoing after an arrest is made and a detention hearing is held. However, he added that information gleaned before the hearing is held should be turned over to the defendant.
“The requirement to turn over exculpatory evidence before a detention hearing is grounded in the state's affirmative obligation to disclose evidence favorable to a defendant,” Rabner said.
To that end, Rabner said, judges should adopt a “modified materiality standard” when deciding whether to reopen a detention hearing.
“Judges should determine whether there is a reasonable possibility—not probability—that the result of the hearing would have been different had the evidence been disclosed,” Rabner said. “The burden is on the state to demonstrate that a new hearing is not required under that standard.”
Neither Hyppolite's attorney on the appeal, Assistant Deputy Public Defender Elizabeth Jarit, nor officials from the Hudson County Prosecutor's Office, who prosecuted the case, responded to requests for comment on the ruling.
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 All3rd Circuit Strikes Down NLRB’s Monetary Remedies for Fired Starbucks Workers
On the Move and After Hours: Goldberg Segalla, Faegre Drinker, Pashman Stein
3 minute readFirst-of-Its-Kind Parkinson’s Patch at Center of Fight Over FDA Approval of Generic Version
3 minute readA Year of Controversy: NJ Judges Face Disciplinary and Legal Issues With Mixed Results in 2024
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'Largest Retail Data Breach in History'? Hot Topic and Affiliated Brands Sued for Alleged Failure to Prevent Data Breach Linked to Snowflake Software
- 2Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 3Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 4Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 5Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
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