On April 17, 2012, the Appellate Division ruled that an expert opinion related to the possession of cocaine by the defendant with intent to distribute cocaine was improper because it was expressed in a manner directly commenting on the defendant’s guilt. Generally, the opinion of an expert in a drug distribution case should be expressed in hypothetical terms. However, in Jones, the expert specifically used the defendant by name in his testimony and expressed a direct opinion as to defendant’s obvious guilt. The Appellate Division found this to be plain error and vacated defendant’s conviction. This case provides an excellent review of the parameters for the use of expert testimony in a criminal drug distribution prosecution.
View the full case including Facts, Procedural History, Holding, At Trial and On Appeal.
Legal Developments
That Affect You
-
Appellate Victory Protects a Former Spouse’s Share of Pension Benefits
Submitted by New Jersey Family Lawyer, Jeffrey Hark. A Successful Family Law Appeal Our firm successfully represented the appellant in a New Jersey family law appeal concerning the division of pension benefits after divorce. On October 20, 2026, the Appellate Division reversed the order under review and sent the matter back to the Family Part for…