STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DAVID GHIGLIOTTY (17-02-0154, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), 232 A.3d 468

2004 homicide: three projectiles recovered from victim; only one (a damaged jacket fragment) was suitable for comparison.
2005: defendant's handgun seized; initial examiner (Mayer) compared the fragment to test fires with a comparison microscope and excluded the gun as the source.
2015–2016 reopening: Lt. Michael Sandford reexamined the fragment, took additional test fires, then used BULLETTRAX (3D confocal scanner) and Matchpoint software in Montreal to image the fragment and test bullets.
Sandford used BULLETTRAX images to locate "areas of interest," later reexamined those areas with a comparison microscope, and changed his opinion from inconclusive/elimination to a positive identification linking the fragment to defendant's gun.
Trial court found Sandford relied on BULLETTRAX images in forming his opinion, ordered a Frye hearing on BULLETTRAX/Matchpoint reliability, and directed disclosure of BULLETTRAX algorithms and limited the scope of Sandford's prospective testimony; State appealed.
Appellate Division: affirmed that a Frye hearing is required for the untested BULLETTRAX/Matchpoint technology, vacated the algorithm-disclosure and testimony-limitation orders as premature, and remanded for proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether use of BULLETTRAX/Matchpoint required a Frye hearing	State: Sandford's ultimate opinion was formed by live microscopic comparison; BULLETTRAX merely identified "areas of interest," so Frye is unnecessary	Defense: BULLETTRAX images materially informed Sandford's identification; because the tech is novel and unvalidated a Frye hearing is required	Court held Frye hearing required because record showed Sandford's opinion was at least partially based on BULLETTRAX images and the tech lacked demonstrated general acceptance
Whether State must produce BULLETTRAX/Matchpoint algorithms pre‑hearing	State: Algorithms are proprietary and not shown necessary; no duty to produce without a specific showing	Defense: Algorithms are needed to test reliability and meaningfully cross‑examine at Frye	Court vacated the turnover order as premature; defense must make a concrete showing and court to manage discovery and protective measures on remand
Whether Sandford should be limited to "consistent with" (not exclusionary/certainty) testimony	Defense sought to preclude exclusionary certainty language even if Frye passed	State: If Frye passed, expert may testify fully based on validated tech and standard methods	Court vacated the pretrial limitation as advisory and premature; scope of testimony to be revisited after Frye determination

Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923) (establishes general‑acceptance test for novel scientific evidence)
State v. J.L.G., 234 N.J. 265 (2018) (trial judge is gatekeeper under N.J.R.E. 702; Frye applies in criminal cases)
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (methodology‑based factors for reliability—adopted in NJ civil context but not to supplant Frye in criminal cases)
State v. McGuire, 419 N.J. Super. 88 (App. Div. 2011) (distinguished: expert’s independent testing vs. reliance on novel third‑party tech)
State v. Chun, 194 N.J. 54 (2008) (general acceptance need not be unanimous; admissibility standards for expert evidence)
State v. Harvey, 151 N.J. 117 (1997) (Frye governs scientific evidence in criminal matters)
State v. Cassidy, 235 N.J. 482 (2018) (state’s burden to show non‑experimental, generally accepted techniques)