State v. Williams, 1233

CourtNew Jersey County Court
Writing for the CourtFOLEY
Citation46 N.J.Super. 98,134 A.2d 39
PartiesSTATE of New Jersey v. James H. WILLIAMS, Defendant. IndictmentTerm.
Docket Number1956,No. 1233,1233
Decision Date05 July 1957

Page 98

46 N.J.Super. 98
134 A.2d 39
STATE of New Jersey
James H. WILLIAMS, Defendant.
Indictment No. 1233, 1956 Term.
Essex County Court, Law Division, New Jersey.
July 5, 1957.

Page 99

Howard T. Rosen, Newark, for the motion.

Maurice J. McKeown, Newark, contra.

[134 A.2d 40] FOLEY, J.C.C.

This is a murder case. The defendant moves for the following relief:

1. That he be admitted to bail.

2. That he be permitted to copy his sworn statement to the police.

3. That the State produce for his inspection and copying all statements and reports of persons who will testify in the State's behalf at the trial, a number of such persons being named.

As to bail. The State Constitution provides:

'* * * All persons shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, except for capital offenses when the proof is evident or presumption great.'

See also R.R. 3:9--1(a). The grand jury having returned an indictment for murder in the statutory form, a capital offense is charged, and for the purposes of an application to admit to bail a strong presumption of guilt is to be inferred. State v. Goldstein, 40 N.J.L.J. 71 (Sup.Ct.1917). Here there are no proofs to countervail the presumption of guilt. All that is offered is the affidavit of the defendant's attorney,

Page 100

which is, of course, hearsay with respect to the circumstances of the occurrence from which the charge arose. Cf. State v. Tune, 13 N.J. 203, 98 A.2d 881 (1953).

The same proof deficiency disposes of the application for leave to copy the defendant's sworn statement to the police.

The application for inspection and copying of statements and reports of the State's witnesses is said to be grounded upon the recent holding in Jencks v. United States, 77 S.Ct. 1007 (1957). The argument runs that the broad view expressed therein creates a right in the defendant to inspect in advance of trial the statements of all who may possibly become witnesses for the State. But Mr. Justice Brennan's holding is considerably narrower than this. In the Jencks case the defense requested the court to examine the Federal Bureau of Investigation's files which were in the possession of the Government and to make available to counsel such parts of it as would be relevant to a proper cross-examination of two government witnesses whose direct testimony was then in the record. Such had been the prevailing practice in the federal courts, and it was the judicial refusal to engage in this screening process...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • State v. Hunt, A--38
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • 20 janvier 1958
    ...statements made by the state's prospective witnesses, Mr. Burgess and Mr. Pantel. His application was denied. See State v. Williams, 46 N.J.Super. 98, 134 A.2d 39 (Cty.Ct.1957); State v. Thompson, Del.Super, 134 A.2d 266 (Super.Ct.1957). At the trial Mrs. Burgess and Mr. Pantel testified. T......
  • Corbo, Application of, A--195
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • 16 février 1959
    ...placement of the burden of proof or the Quantum of evidence necessary to sustain or refute any burden imposed. See State v. Williams, 46 N.J.Super. 98, 134 A.2d 39 (Cty.Ct.1957); State v. Goldstein, 40 N.J.L.J. 71 (Sup.Ct.1917); State v. Kuchler, 3 N.J.Misc. 636, 129 A. 632 (Sup.Ct.1925); S......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT