State v. Amed Ingram (079079) (Camden and Statewide)
165 A.3d 797
| N.J. | 2017Background
- Arrest on Jan. 1, 2017: Ingram was arrested after officers observed him with a defaced, loaded .45-caliber handgun; charged in a complaint-warrant with multiple firearms offenses.
- Pretrial materials: State submitted complaint-warrant, affidavit of probable cause (which largely tracked statutory language and stated officer observations), a PLEIR, a PSA (rated highest risk), and defendant’s criminal history.
- Trial court ruling: Accepted the State’s documentary proffer, found probable cause and clear-and-convincing grounds for detention, and ordered detention.
- Appellate Division: Affirmed, holding the CJRA does not require live witness testimony and that the State may proceed by proffer; courts retain discretion to require testimony.
- Supreme Court holding: Affirmed Appellate Division — neither CJRA text nor due process mandates live witness testimony at every detention hearing; State may proceed by proffer though trial judges may demand direct testimony when proffers are insufficient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State/AG) | Defendant's Argument (Ingram / ACLU) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CJRA requires the State to call a live witness at a detention hearing to establish probable cause | CJRA permits documentary proffers; statute and precedent allow proffer; requiring witnesses would impose large practical burdens | Statute’s language and due process require live testimony so defendant can test facts underlying detention | No; CJRA does not require live witness testimony; State may proceed by proffer, but courts may require testimony when proffer is inadequate |
| Whether due process requires live testimony to establish probable cause | Federal and state precedents (Gerstein/Salerno) permit probable cause findings on hearsay/written proffers; CJRA affords safeguards | Due process requires confrontation/cross-examination because pretrial detention severely limits liberty | No; due process does not compel live testimony at every detention hearing; proffer is constitutionally permissible subject to judicial discretion |
| Whether federal case law construing the Bail Reform Act supports allowing proffers (distinguishing probable cause vs. detention grounds) | Federal decisions interpreting similar statutes allow government to proffer; Edwards and multiple circuits support proffer approach | Some federal decisions addressed detention grounds after indictment; defendant argues those are not on-point for pre-indictment probable cause | Court treats federal authority as persuasive and applicable; Edwards and circuits support permitting proffers for probable cause as well |
| Adequacy of the particular proffer in this case | State’s submissions (affidavit, PLEIR, PSA) were sufficient to support detention | Proffer was thin; affidavit tracked statutory language and lacked factual detail on unlawful-purpose element | Court: State failed to establish probable cause as to Count Two (possession for unlawful purpose); trial court nevertheless within discretion to require witness testimony where proffer inadequate; affiant should supply factual narrative, not legal conclusions |
Key Cases Cited
- Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (establishing that probable-cause determinations can rely on hearsay and written proffers in a nonadversary proceeding)
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (upholding federal Bail Reform Act; finds procedural safeguards adequate without requiring live testimony at detention hearings)
- United States v. Edwards, 430 A.2d 1321 (D.C. Ct. App. 1981) (D.C. detention statute permits government to proceed by proffer; court may require live testimony if proffer is unsatisfactory)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (framework for balancing due-process procedural safeguards)
- State v. Robinson, 229 N.J. 44 (N.J. 2017) (discussing CJRA’s relation to federal schemes and discovery/defense rights under CJRA)