The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed an Appellate Division opinion that allowed jurors to play video evidence in slow motion and agreed with the lower court's recommendation to change the Model Criminal Jury Charge Committee rule regarding video evidence.

Two brothers, Fuquan and Shaquan Knight, appealed their Essex County Superior Court convictions in State v. Knight for armed robbery and other offenses, according to the high court's opinion. Their appeals argued that the trial court erred in allowing the jury to watch a surveillance video of the alleged crime multiple times, in slow motion, and pausing the footage.

In a six-page per curiam order issued Wednesday, the state's top court affirmed the Appellate Divison opinion, authored by Judge Jack M. Sabatino, that said the jury can use the video that way if it assists in resolving a factual dispute.

“Watching a video in slow motion is a commonplace method of playing a video that is not beyond the ken of an average juror,” the high court's order said.

The Appellate Division's decision had included guidance and a list of nonexclusive factors for trial courts to consider when it comes to jurors' use of videos.

In its ruling Wednesday, the state high court noted that the defense had raised concerns from a study, "Slow Motion Increases Perceived Intent," by Eugene M. Caruso, but said that the study would need to be tested under the standard in State v. Olenowski, which evaluates the reliability of expert testimony.

“Pushing a button to play a video at a speed slower than normal to assist the jury in viewing the difficult-to-perceive recording here was not an alteration or distortion of the video,” the opinion said. “It was the same exact video—simply played in slow motion.”

The court also pointed to its 1995 decision in Boland v. Dolan, a slip-and-fall case, where the court found that the jury was permitted to use a magnifying glass during deliberations to examine photographic evidence.

In Boland, the jury asked for a magnifying glass during deliberations, and the plaintiffs objected. The trial judge overruled the objection and sent the jury a magnifying glass. After the jury found for the defense, the plaintiffs successfully appealed. However, the court reversed the Appellate Division’s decision, finding that a magnifying glass is not new evidence but a commonplace tool.

“Here, playing in slow motion the same video that was properly admitted into evidence to highlight the action occurring onscreen and assist the jury is generally no different from allowing the jury in Boland to use a magnifying glass to meticulously inspect a picture,” the per curiam order said.

However, the order also noted that some tools or functions may be so specialized that using them does constitute creating new evidence. If a party intends to play a video using something beyond “basic techniques” noted in the court’s 2023 opinion in State v. Watson, the party must tell the trial court and opposing counsel, the court said.

"We also agree with the [Appellate Division] opinion’s recommendation that the Model Criminal Jury Charge Committee consider a model charge regarding jury requests to replay video evidence," the order said.

Andrew R. Burroughs, a solo practitioner, represented Fuquan Knight. Assistant Public Defender Zachary G. Markarian represented Shaquan Knight. Hannah Faye Kurt, an assistant Essex County prosecutor, represented New Jersey. None immediately responded to requests for comment.