The following two tabs change content below.

Richard A. DeMichele, Jr. is a seasoned litigator, devoting a substantial part of his practice to family law and personal injury matters.

Latest posts by Rick DeMichele (see all)
“Expert Testimony” in New Jersey Intent to Distribute Drug Cases

“…Mr. Jones was found to be in possession of 98 bags, each weighing an estimated .12 grams, which equals 11.7 grams of cocaine, which is less than half an ounce. Hence, he would have overpaid hundreds of dollars to purchase cocaine in that manner. If Mr. Jones merely wanted to use cocaine, he would go out, buy a half ounce of cocaine for $600 and use it. Mr. Jones was in possession of individual bags which were destined for sale. No user of cocaine in his right mind would overspend over $300 for cocaine. It just wouldn’t make any sense. They would go out, buy a half ounce of cocaine and use it. These bags are packaged in street level distribution amounts, i.e., an individual drug dealer would go out in the street and he’ll sell them by the bag or two bags or three bags for $10 each, $10, $20, $30.”At the conclusion of Mr. Jone’s trial the jury found him guilty of third-degree possession of a controlled dangerous substance, second-degree possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute, third-degree possession of cocaine with intent to distribute within 1000 feet of a school, and secondary possession of cocaine with intent to distribute within 500 feet of public housing. As a result of this conviction the judge sentenced Mr. Jones to a 13 year prison term subject to a five-year parole ineligibility. In reversing the conviction the New Jersey Appellate Division relied upon State v. Odom, New Jersey’s seminal decision on the state’s use of expert witness testimony and in drug distribution prosecutions.. In drug distribution cases the defendant is entitled to court imposed “safeguards” when the prosecution attempts to use expert testimony to secure a conviction. In this case it isparticularly noteworthy that the State did not and offer any evidence of the sale of any narcotics by Mr. Jones. The case solely turned upon thepackaging and location of the drugs on the defendant. In order for expert testimony on drug distribution to be admissible it must meet all of the following standards:
- questions posed and the testimony offered must be in a hypothetical format, and
- the testimony offered cannot use the precise terminology of the statute
- the testimony offered should not use the defendant’s name
- the testimony offered cannot express a direct opinion as to the defendant’s guilt
The following two tabs change content below.

Richard A. DeMichele, Jr. is a seasoned litigator, devoting a substantial part of his practice to family law and personal injury matters.
