Cell phone video capability is commonplace now, and police in New Jersey are getting used to it. Experts claim that under the First Amendment recording police in plain view is protected. A police officer may not seize a cell phone, delete anything on it, or even demand that the person turn it over to him without a warrant. As long as the person is not truly interfering with a police investigation, they can record as much as they want.
Robert W. Fox, president of the New Jersey State Fraternal Order of Police, stated police should face the fact that cell phone cameras are a reality. “‘We tell our officers out there . . . that, anything they do, consider themselves being filmed,’” Fox said. “‘No matter where you are anymore, there is some sort of video on the incident – whether it comes from a building camera or an individual cellphone or things like that.’” Arguably, the videos not only protect citizens but also the police from being falsely accused. For most police, video recording should not matter, because they are doing things by the book anyway.
It should be noted that cell phone videos may not capture everything that is taking place during a police encounter. Therefore, rushing to judgment against police would be unfair.
Posted by Jen Suarez.
On April 6th, 2015, Phi Kappa Psi at University of Virginia announced that it is taking legal action against Rolling Stone Magazine for falsely accusing them of gang rape. Columbia Journalism School Review stated the magazine “acted recklessly and defamed the chapter’s members” by publishing this “shock narrative” and as a result the fraternity house has been vandalized. A police investigation was started but was suspended due to lack of evidence after two weeks.
The woman who wrote the article, only identified as “Jackie,” claimed to be the victim of this gang rape. Rolling Stone magazine vowed to analyze their practices and remove the article, which has been viewed by millions, but publisher Jann S. Wenner refused to fire anyone for this obvious case of bad journalism. The fraternity stated, “The reporter in question not only failed to apologize to members of Phi Kappa Psi, but doesn’t even acknowledge the three witnesses she quoted in the article but never interviewed.” This controversy has damaged the school’s reputation, sparked protests, and hurt efforts to fight sexual violence. Rolling Stone Managing Editor, Will Dana, and author, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, have both apologized but the school and fraternity are still waiting for a sincere apology from corporate and for those responsible for this serious fault to be reprimanded.
Libel is the defamation by written or printed words, pictures, spoken words, or gestures. It is also defined as malicious and damaging misrepresentation. We have all seen ignorant comments on the Internet from people all over the world. They say inaccurate and hurtful things because they can hide behind a keyboard and these vicious comments can be very damaging to the reputation of the individual and company. They cry out “Freedom of Speech!” but they aren’t exercising their rights; they are intentionally trying to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Defamation is considered a civil wrong and is cause for a lawsuit for damages. In many cases, the target must be able to prove that the statements published were a lie. In this case, however, there is overwhelming lack of evidence and inaccurate information.
Jen is a business administration major with a concentration in management at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.
A New Jersey appellate court recently ruled in James v. Ruiz that testifying experts cannot bolster their opinions by piggybacking or “bootstrapping” the written conclusions of other experts who are not testifying in court.
The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the right of the accused to confront witnesses against him, thereby excluding hearsay from a case. Hearsay is testimony from a witness who relays information to a jury from a second-hand witness. Hearsay is considered unreliable because the witness who supposedly said the statement is not present in court to be subject to cross-examination.
To illustrate how this works, imagine a case where counsel is trying to prove that Peter was in New York at the time of a robbery. Counsel asks a witness on the stand whether Patrick told him that Peter was in New York in order to place Peter in New York at that time. This is an out-of-court statement made to prove the truth of the matter asserted (that Peter was in New York), and therefore, cannot be cross-examined by opposing counsel because Patrick is not in court. As a result of scenarios like this, rules of court have been crafted to prevent juries from considering hearsay statements in both criminal and civil cases.
Under Federal Rule 703, “an expert may base an opinion on facts or data in the case that the expert has been made aware of or personally observed.” New Jersey has adopted Rule 703 and takes a strict view on what constitutes personal observance. For example, while certain medical records can be admitted under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, if those records contain medical opinions regarding a complex medical condition, then under the recent decision in James, they cannot be referenced by a testifying witnesses as a consistent (or non-consistent) opinion to his opinion, unless the testifying expert relied on those opinions for his or her own “personal” findings. The witnesses relied upon must be testifying as well. Therefore, simply rubber-stamping one’s own opinion based on a non-testifying expert’s opinion, is bootstrapping and violative of Rule 703.
Together with the business records exception and Rule 703, New Jersey also has Rule 808, which has no federal analog. Under N.J.R.E. 808:
Expert opinion which is included in an admissible hearsay statement shall be excluded if the declarant has not been produced as a witness unless the trial judge finds that the circumstances involved in rendering the opinion, including the motive, duty, and interest of the declarant, whether litigation was contemplated by the declarant, the complexity of the subject matter, and the likelihood of accuracy of the opinion, tend to establish its trustworthiness.
Thus, there are times when a non-testifying expert’s opinion can be permitted, but the trial judge must evaluate the expert’s motives, duty, and interest in giving the opinion; whether they had litigation in mind at the time of the opinion; the complexity of the subject matter; and whether the opinion is accurate. If the opinion regards something that is complex and contested in the lawsuit, the opinion will not be permitted under Rule 808. If it is an uncontested opinion or something insignificant, then it will more than likely be admitted.
There is a line drawn between facts and data, which any expert can discuss, provided that they are relied upon by other experts in the field, and expert opinions. And again, non-testifying expert opinions cannot be admitted unless the testifying expert relied upon those opinions in his analysis of the case and will be testifying. According to the court, “[i]f the requirements of Rule 808 are met, and a testifying expert has reasonably relied upon the non-testifying expert’s opinions, then the testifying expert may be permitted to refer to that absent expert’s opinions in the course of explaining his or her own opinions in court.” The court continued: “However, this pathway should not be used as a ‘subterfuge to allow an expert to bolster the expert testimony by reference to other opinions of experts not testifying.’”
The bottom line is testifying experts cannot be used as a conduit to admit non-testifying expert testimony. This applies especially to bootstrapping “net opinions” in this manner. In addition to the constitutional issues raised here, doing so is simply unfair. If a plaintiff has an expert who is testifying against the defendant’s expert with an opposite opinion, then permitting the bootstrapping of a non-expert’s opinion is like having two experts against one in front of the jury for the price of one.