State of New Jersey v. Amed Ingram
155 A.3d 597
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2017Background
- Defendant Amed Ingram was arrested and charged (Jan 1, 2017) with multiple firearm offenses (including Graves Act exposure) based on a complaint-warrant and affidavit stating he possessed a defaced, loaded handgun; officers personally observed the offenses and recovered the gun and spent casings.
- At the Jan 5, 2017 pretrial detention hearing the prosecutor introduced documentary evidence only: complaint-warrant, affidavit of probable cause, PLEIR, PSA, and defendant’s criminal history; defense objected to proceeding without live witnesses.
- The PSA rated defendant highest risk (6) for failure to appear and new criminal activity; it recommended against release or recommended home detention with electronic monitoring if released.
- Judge McBride found probable cause from the documents and—considering offense seriousness, weight of evidence, defendant’s criminal record and probation status—concluded by clear and convincing evidence that no conditions would reasonably assure appearance or community safety, and ordered detention.
- Defendant appealed arguing the State must call live witnesses (with opportunity for meaningful cross-examination) to establish probable cause and grounds for detention; amici (AG and ACLU) filed briefs; the Appellate Division affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether due process or the Bail Reform Act requires the State to produce live witness testimony (not just proffers/hearsay) to establish probable cause and grounds for pretrial detention | State: proceeding by proffer/hearsay comports with Act and due process; judge may admit documentary proffers and exercise discretion | Ingram: due process mandates live witnesses with personal knowledge so defense can meaningfully cross-examine; proffers are inadequate | Court: Permitting the State to proceed by proffer does not violate due process or the Act; proffers/hearsay may establish probable cause; judge may require live testimony in discretionary cases |
| Whether the Act’s silence about the State’s mode of proof implies a legislative requirement of live testimony | State/AG: Act parallels Federal Bail Reform Act; silence does not imply restriction; legislative history shows intent to follow federal practice | Ingram: statutory language allowing defendant to "present information by proffer or otherwise" implies asymmetry that requires the State to call live witnesses | Court: Statutory text and legislative context do not require the State to call live witnesses; federal practice is persuasive; judge retains discretion to demand live testimony |
| Whether documentary proffers (PLEIR, PSA, affidavit) were sufficient to establish probable cause and justify detention by clear and convincing evidence | State: documents + PSA + criminal history show probable cause and satisfy clear-and-convincing grounds for detention | Ingram: strict monitoring (electronic) would suffice; State did not meet its burden | Court: Judge’s findings were supported; State met the required burden; release with conditions was not adequate here |
| Standard and scope of appellate review for pretrial detention orders | State/AG: deference to trial court (abuse of discretion) | Ingram: (argued but not fully briefed) implied challenge to sufficiency of proof; requested reversal | Court: did not definitively adopt a single standard but, applying appropriate deference, found no reversible error and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (U.S. 1975) (due process requires a prompt judicial probable-cause determination following arrest)
- County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (U.S. 1991) (Gerstein promptness standard generally met within 48 hours)
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (U.S. 1987) (Federal Bail Reform Act constitutional; procedures adequate)
- United States v. Gaviria, 828 F.2d 667 (11th Cir. 1987) (government may proceed by proffer at detention hearing)
- United States v. Delker, 757 F.2d 1390 (3d Cir. 1985) (hearsay admissible to show commission of charged crime at detention proceedings)
- United States v. Smith, 79 F.3d 1208 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (Federal Act allows government proffers)
- Acevedo-Ramos v. United States, 755 F.2d 203 (1st Cir. 1985) (judge may insist on live testimony when proffer’s accuracy is in question)
- In re J.G., 151 N.J. 565 (N.J. 1997) (probable cause may rest on various documentary or hearsay sources; court may order a hearing if evidence is insufficient)
- State v. Tucker, 137 N.J. 259 (N.J. 1994) (New Jersey procedures satisfy Gerstein requirements)
- State v. Brown, 205 N.J. 133 (N.J. 2011) (probable cause requires more than suspicion but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt)