State v. Stewart, 179 A.3d 1065

Background

Dakevis A. Stewart was arrested for multiple weapons- and related offenses after police alleged he fled from officers and discarded a handgun; he was on pretrial release for an earlier arrest.
The State sought pretrial detention and proceeded at the initial detention hearing by proffer (complaint-warrant, PSA, PLEIR, affidavit of probable cause by Patrolman Johnson).
Defense counsel served a subpoena on Johnson and sought subpoenas for four other officers; the trial judge initially allowed subpoenas for officers on-scene to testify on probable cause but did not require a proffer.
The State obtained emergent appellate review; this appeal raises whether N.J.S.A. 2A:162-19(e)(1) permits a defendant to subpoena adverse (State) witnesses at a detention hearing without a prior proffer.
The court granted amici (AG, OPD, ACLU) leave; parties debated whether federal precedents under the Bail Reform Act (and D.C. law) require a defendant proffer before compelling adverse witnesses.
The Appellate Division reversed the trial court order permitting blanket subpoenas and remanded, holding a defendant must proffer the expected testimony and its relevance before compelling adverse witnesses at either the probable-cause stage or the later clear-and-convincing detention stage.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Stewart/OPD/ACLU)	Held
Whether N.J.S.A. 2A:162-19(e)(1) allows a defendant to subpoena adverse (State) witnesses at a pretrial detention hearing without limitation	State: No absolute right; court should require defendant to proffer how witness testimony will be favorable and material to avoid mini-trials and protect witnesses	Stewart/OPD/ACLU: Statute's plain language grants an unfettered right to present witnesses at detention hearings; judge's courtroom control suffices to prevent abuse (ACLU: allow unless State shows harm)	Court: A defendant must make a proffer of the witness' anticipated testimony and its relevancy to negate probable cause or to rebut clear-and-convincing detention evidence before compelling appearance
Whether the State must present live witnesses rather than proceed by proffer	State: Proffer is permissible and practical; live testimony not required every time	Defendant: Live testimony or access to adverse witnesses may be necessary to challenge State evidence	Court (citing Ingram): State may proceed by proffer; detention hearings are not mini-trials and need not require live testimony every time
Whether a proffer requirement applies at both the probable-cause phase and the detention (clear-and-convincing) phase	State/AG: Same standard should apply at both phases; proffer required to compel adverse witnesses	Defendant/ACLU: Proffer not necessary; defendants should be allowed to compel witnesses to address weight and nature of evidence	Court: Proffer required at both stages before compelling adverse witnesses, though judge retains discretion to allow testimony if proffer shows necessity
Proper balance between speedy, efficient detention hearings and defendants' rights to present/cross-examine witnesses	State: Proffer protects speed, prevents discovery abuse, and shields witnesses	Defendant: Restricting subpoenas without proffer undermines statutory right to present witnesses	Court: Proffer requirement strikes balance; preserves defendants' opportunity to present testimony while preventing mini-trials and undue burdens on resources

Key Cases Cited

State v. Ingram, 230 N.J. 190 (N.J. 2017) (detention hearings may proceed by proffer; not final adjudication of guilt)
State v. Robinson, 229 N.J. 44 (N.J. 2017) (CJRA context; discovery obligations and scope of detention hearings)
United States v. Edwards, 430 A.2d 1321 (D.C. 1981) (defendant has conditional right to call adverse witnesses; proffer may be required)
United States v. Winsor, 785 F.2d 755 (9th Cir. 1986) (court need not permit adverse witness absent showing that government's proffer is incorrect)
United States v. Accetturo, 783 F.2d 382 (3d Cir. 1986) (declined to compel government witness where no reason to believe testimony would favor defendant)
United States v. Gaviria, 828 F.2d 667 (11th Cir. 1987) (judicial officer has discretion to allow adverse witness with or without initial proffer)
United States v. Delker, 757 F.2d 1390 (3d Cir. 1985) (court may curtail cross-examination to prevent hearing becoming full trial)
United States v. Acevedo-Ramos, 755 F.2d 203 (1st Cir. 1985) (judge can selectively require evidence production to balance speed and reliability)
United States v. Martir, 782 F.2d 1141 (2d Cir. 1986) (proffer typically sufficient where risk of flight is at issue)
State v. Nesbitt, 185 N.J. 504 (N.J. 2006) (trial judges' wide discretion and gatekeeping role regarding testimony)