State v. Pinkston, 187 A.3d 113

Defendant Leo Pinkston was arrested after a high-speed chase and collision; charged with second-degree eluding and aggravated-assault-related offenses.
Pretrial Services' Public Safety Assessment recommended against release (higher risk scores and prior indictable convictions).
At the detention hearing the State proceeded on written materials (complaint, affidavit of probable cause, PSA, police reports); defense sought to subpoena police officers whose reports implicated use of firearms during the pursuit.
Trial court denied an adjournment and refused to compel adverse officers to testify, finding the proffered evidence not relevant to probable cause and citing federal precedent.
Appellate Division affirmed; this Court granted leave to appeal but the appeal became moot after defendant pleaded guilty; Court nonetheless addressed the legal question of whether defendants may compel adverse witnesses at detention hearings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CJRA's "opportunity ... to present witnesses" allows defendants to compel adverse witnesses at detention hearings	State/AG: No absolute right; adopt a qualified approach (follow Edwards)	Public Defender/ACLU & Pinkston: Statute grants unconditional right to call witnesses	Court: Qualified right; defendants may compel adverse witnesses only after an appropriate proffer
What proffer is required to compel an adverse witness on probable-cause issue	State: Defendant must proffer how witness negates probable cause	Pinkston: Officer testimony would show lack of awareness of pursuit and that crash resulted from officers firing	Court: Defendant must proffer that witness testimony would tend to negate the State's probable-cause showing
What proffer is required to compel an adverse witness on detention (clear-and-convincing) issue	State/AG: Require showing that testimony would undermine detention evidence materially	Pinkston: Same evidence would rebut danger to community	Court: Defendant must proffer how testimony would tend to materially undermine State's clear-and-convincing evidence supporting detention
Standard of review for judge's decision to allow adverse witness testimony	—	—	Abuse-of-discretion review; trial judge retains broad control over scope and manner of testimony

United States v. Edwards, 430 A.2d 1321 (D.C. 1981) (interpreting D.C. statute to permit a conditional right to call adverse witnesses and allowing a pre-proffer requirement)
United States v. Winsor, 785 F.2d 755 (9th Cir. 1986) (upholding need for a defense proffer to challenge government's proffer)
United States v. Accetturo, 783 F.2d 382 (3d Cir. 1986) (declining to compel cooperating witness where defense proffer gave no reason to expect favorable testimony)
United States v. Gaviria, 828 F.2d 667 (11th Cir. 1987) (endorsing a conditional right to call adverse witnesses and leaving proffer requirement to district court discretion)
State v. Ingram, 230 N.J. 190 (N.J. 2017) (describing CJRA procedures and that the State may proceed by proffer on probable cause)
State v. Stewart, 453 N.J. Super. 55 (App. Div. 2018) (appellate guidance endorsing Edwards-style balancing and proffer requirements)
State v. Robinson, 229 N.J. 44 (N.J. 2017) (discovery obligations under the CJRA)
State v. Mercedes, 233 N.J. 152 (N.J. 2018) (detention hearing considerations and statutory factors)
United States v. Sanchez, 457 F. Supp. 2d 90 (D. Mass. 2006) (requiring defense to give the court a basis to expect favorable testimony before compelling adverse witnesses)
United States v. Cabrera-Ortigoza, 196 F.R.D. 571 (S.D. Cal. 2000) (refusing to compel live testimony absent credible challenge to government's proffer)