New Jersey Section 2C:35-19 – Laboratory certificates; use; admission into evidence; objections

New Jersey’s Strict Rules on Admitting Drug Lab Certificates into Evidence

New Jersey has strict statutory rules regarding the admission of drug lab certificates into evidence in criminal trials. Specifically, Section 2C:35-19 of the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice regulates when lab certificates analyzing suspected controlled substances may be admitted. This section, along with court rulings interpreting it, aim to balance the rights of defendants with administrative efficiency. However, as we’ll see, the rules still contain ambiguities leaving room for objections by savvy defense attorneys.

Core Requirements for Admissible Certificates

For a lab certificate to be admissible under §2C:35-19, the prosecution must follow certain steps:

• The lab must be an approved facility designated by the Attorney General. Currently, three state labs run by the New Jersey State Police are authorized along with some county labs.
• The certificate must be sworn and signed under penalty of perjury by the analyst who tested the drugs.
• It must include specific statements about the substance testing procedures, methodology, results, and other details.
• The prosecution must serve advance notice of their intent to submit the certificate at trial, including a copy of the certificate report. This notice must be served on defense counsel, or directly on a pro se defendant, within 20 days before the trial date.

If these conditions are met, the statute states the certificate “shall be admitted” as evidence. However, this doesn’t mean a defendant can’t object.

Grounds for Objections by the Defense

Under §2C:35-19, defendants can file objections seeking to exclude the lab certificate from evidence. However, the objections must allege specific reasons why the testing procedures were unsound.

Some grounds for valid objections include:

• The testing lab is not an approved facility designated by the Attorney General.
• The notice of intent to submit the certificate was untimely served.
• The testing methodology described in the certificate is flawed or scientifically invalid.
• The chemist who signed the certificate will not appear at trial for cross-examination.
• There are doubts about the chain of custody for the tested substance.
• The certificate lacks required statements about the methodology and results.

Conversely, a generic objection that the certificate violates the defendant’s confrontation rights would likely fail. The statute tries to balance efficiency and rights by allowing certificates while preserving defendants’ ability to demand live testimony if there are true reliability concerns. As a result, objections must allege specific defects calling that reliability into question.

Timeframes and Procedures for Objections

If the defense objects to admitting the drug certificate into evidence, they must follow strict timeframes:

• The objection must be served on the prosecution within 10 days of receiving the notice of intent to submit the certificate. This deadline ensures validity issues are raised promptly before trial.
• The objection must clearly state the grounds for exclusion and identify the specific deficiencies alleged. Again, generic boilerplate objections generally won’t suffice.
• If the court holds an evidentiary hearing on the objections, both sides can present arguments and evidence to support their positions.

Notably, the defendant carries the burden at this hearing stage to prove inadmissibility based on their objections. The statute presumes certificates are valid unless shown otherwise.

Court Interpretations of §2C:35-19

While §2C:35-19 aims to streamline evidence rules for drug cases, ambiguities exist, especially regarding confrontation rights. As a result, New Jersey courts have issued rulings interpreting, clarifying, and even extending certain provisions.

For example, the New Jersey Supreme Court held certificates can’t include expert opinions about the substance’s chemical structure or pharmacology. That would allow the expert to testify without cross-examination. Certificates must stick to strictly factual results of the testing itself.

Additionally, appeals courts have strictly enforced the 10-day deadline for objections post-notice. They’ve rejected late objections even when excluding the certificate would help the defense. This shows the importance of promptly alleging specific defects rather than general complaints.

Remaining Gray Areas Under the Statute

Despite guidance from courts so far, the statute retains fuzzy areas defense lawyers can exploit to try excluding certificates:

Approval Status of County Labs

It’s unclear whether certificates from county labs not designated by the Attorney General are admissible. The plain text suggests not, but counties argue they serve as AG agents for testing seized drugs. This is an unsettled issue courts will likely address further.

Certificate Contents

The statute lists required elements for certificates but doesn’t limit other contents. Overly detailed certificates describing substances in prejudicial terms could enable objections. Defense arguments to narrow certificate contents have achieved mixed results so far.

Chain of Custody Concerns

Questions around evidence storage, transport, and handling could form grounds for objections even without allegations of tampering. But the threshold for “reasonable doubts” about the chain remains ill-defined.

As we see, while §2C:35-19 provides a structured process for managing drug evidence, ambiguity still exists around its specifics. The law aims to balance efficiency with fairness but continues evolving through court interpretations. So experienced defense lawyers still have opportunities to challenge admitting certificates if they identify particular reliability gaps. That prevents prosecutors from using the statute to railroad defendants without a chance to contest the evidence. Creative lawyering allows judges to keep applying the law fluidly on a case by case basis.

Impact on Marijuana Cases Post-Legalization

Now that New Jersey has legalized recreational marijuana, it remains unclear how drug lab certificates will be handled in future cannabis cases involving unlicensed sales or illegal amounts. The same procedures under §2C:35-19 could still apply. However, legalization may require revisiting confrontation clause issues when certificates implicate possession right near legal limits.

For example, if a certificate shows THC concentration of 5 ounces when the legal limit is 6 ounces, should defendants have more power to demand live testimony? Arguably yes, to allow cross examining the chemist’s measurements. While illegal sales cases won’t change much, edge cases near legal boundaries may justify exceptions to the certificate rules.

This is just one example of how ongoing social changes could still reshape application of evidence laws on the books like §2C:35-19. Defense lawyers will likely raise creative challenges pushing for incremental tweaks to align statutes with evolving realities even post-legalization.

Conclusion

In summary, Section 2C:35-19 seeks to ease burdens in drug prosecutions through use of sworn lab certificates. However, New Jersey courts still interpret its terms strictly to protect defendants’ rights to contest evidence. Certificates don’t provide prosecutors a blank check. Instead, defense counsel can still raise objections, demand live testimony, and argue to exclude prejudicial contents. Creative lawyering allows navigating gray areas around certificate admissibility and confrontation rights as the caselaw continues developing.

So while the statute has remained in force largely unchanged for many years, its practical application still evolves case by case. New Jersey’s evidence rules try balancing administrative efficiency with fairness for accused drug offenders. But beyond the text, judicial discretion in applying Section 2C:35-19 means both prosecutors and defense lawyers must master its intricacies when battling over critical lab reports. Mastering the nuances offers opportunities to advance arguments even in seemingly routine cases.