New Jersey Criminal Expert Testimony – Appellate Division Ruling
On October 3, 2024, the New Jersey Appellate Division decided State of New Jersey v. Tyrell S. Lansing, ___ N.J. Super ___ (App. Div. 2024), upholding the trial court’s decision denying the defendant’s request to have his expert witness testify remotely. This case highlights key procedural concerns related to New Jersey criminal expert testimony and the balance courts must strike between health concerns and in-person testimony in criminal trials. 

Facts and Procedural History of the New Jersey Criminal Expert Testimony Case
Tyrell S. Lansing was indicted in 2021 on charges of first-degree murder and weapons-related offenses. The charges arose from a shooting death on a Morristown Street on August 18, 2021. Investigators recovered video footage from the morning of the shooting. During its case-in-chief, the State intended to present a reconstruction of the shooting using the video footage to identify Lansing as the shooter. To create the reconstruction, the State retained an expert in photogrammetry, a scientific field involving the use of photography in surveying and mapping to measure the distance between objects. Lansing retained his own expert in forensic video analysis to challenge the admissibility and reliability of the prosecution’s expert testimony at the pretrial hearing, and at trial, if necessary. 

Lansing’s expert, who was recovering from surgery and served as the primary caregiver for his spouse, requested to testify remotely due to his medical condition. The defense moved to allow the expert to testify remotely at the trial and the evidentiary hearing under New Jersey Rule 1:2-1(b). The trial court denied the motion, emphasizing the need for the expert to testify in person. 

Legal Issue: Remote Testimony Under New Jersey Rule 1:2-1(b)
The first legal issue in this New Jersey criminal expert testimony case was whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s request for remote testimony. The trial court examined Rule 1:2-1(b), which allows remote testimony for good cause and with appropriate safeguards, and balanced it against a 2022 Supreme Court post-Covid order requiring criminal trials and evidentiary hearings to be conducted in person unless all parties consent to a virtual format. 

In reviewing this issue, the appellate court applied the factors set forth in Pathri v. Kakarlamath, 462 N.J. Super. 208 (App. Div. 2020), a pre-Covid case, including the importance of the expert’s testimony and the potential challenges of cross-examination in a virtual format. The appellate court found that the trial court did not mistakenly exercise its discretion in denying the motion given the technical nature of the testimony, the critical role of cross-examination, the prevalent role the video evidence will play in determining admissibility of the State’s expert’s testimony, the physical proximity of the defense expert to the courthouse, the defense’s knowledge of the expert’s desire to testify remotely when he retained the expert, and the absence of medical evidence requiring remote testimony.  

The Court’s Reasoning on Expert Credibility and Cross-Examination
In evaluating the request for remote testimony, the appellate court emphasized that expert credibility is particularly important in criminal cases involving complex technical evidence. The defense’s expert testimony challenged the prosecution’s reconstruction of the shooting, making the expert’s credibility a key factor. The court reasoned that in-person testimony allows the jury to better assess the expert’s demeanor, reliability, and trustworthiness, which could be difficult to evaluate over a video feed. 

Additionally, the court highlighted the challenges the State might face in cross-examining the expert remotely, especially given the technical nature of the evidence. The court expressed concerns that remote testimony could hinder effective cross-examination, as it might limit the State’s ability to respond to the expert’s testimony dynamically during the proceedings. 

The Court’s Conclusion on New Jersey Criminal Expert Testimony
Ultimately, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision, concluding that the denial of remote testimony was within the trial judge’s broad discretion broad discretion in controlling the courtroom and court proceedings. The appellate court ruled that although health concerns are valid, they must be balanced against the need for in-person testimony in criminal trials, particularly when the testimony involves technical and highly contested issues. This decision establishes that New Jersey courts will continue to require in-person expert testimony in criminal cases unless there are compelling reasons to allow remote appearances. 

Key Takeaways from the Decision on New Jersey Criminal Expert Testimony
The Lansing decision provides important insights into how New Jersey courts decide requests for remote testimony in criminal cases. The ruling underscores the court’s emphasis on maintaining the integrity of cross-examination and expert credibility in criminal trials. Moving forward, this decision clarifies that health concerns must be balanced with the need for in-person testimony in cases involving complex technical evidence. 

Criminal law is complicated and constantly changing. If you are facing criminal charges, you should immediately contact our team of experienced former prosecutors to schedule a free case review with one of our expert criminal defense attorneys. A complete understanding of criminal law by your attorney is crucial to your defense. Your rights and freedoms are in jeopardy, and you owe it to yourself to act. We are available to provide immediate assistance and further counsel on your case at 862-315-7929. 

No aspect of this attorney advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.