Aidan P. O’Connor Quoted in New Jersey Law Journal Article regarding New Jersey Supreme Court Ruling on DRE Testimony in State v. Michael Olenowski

Aidan P. O’Connor, partner and co-chair of the Criminal Defense and Investigations practice groups at Pashman Stein Walder Hayden P.C., was quoted in the New Jersey Law Journal article, “Driving-While-Stoned Test Case Pushed Back as Court Adopts ‘Daubert’ Standard.” The article discusses the New Jersey Supreme Court opinion in State v. Michael Olenowski fundamentally changing how New Jersey courts will evaluate the admissibility of expert evidence under New Jersey Rules of Evidence in criminal and quasi-criminal cases.

“Today’s ruling represents a seismic shift in how New Jersey courts will evaluate the admissibility of expert testimony in criminal cases, one that was necessary to address the ever-changing landscape of science and technology and their use in court to prosecute defendants of this state. The decision aligns with the approach to expert evidence taken by a majority of states in criminal cases and with the standards that have been applied by New Jersey courts in civil cases for decades,” said Aidan O’Connor, president of the ACDL-NJ.

“In addition to the impact on criminal cases in the future, the court’s ruling once again puts into question whether DRE evidence can be accepted in court. Notably, New Jersey’s cannabis laws require the use of the same type of DRE evidence to determine whether someone is under the influence of cannabis in the workplace.  So the special master’s next report and ultimately the Supreme Court’s final ruling in this matter will have a far-reaching impact in this state,” said O’Connor, of Pashman Stein Walder Hayden.

Aidan P. O’Connor, Marc Yenicag and Darcy Baboulis-Gyscek have participated as counsel for amicus ACDL-NJ in the Olenowski case before the Supreme Court and Special Master.

To view the full article, click here.

Our firm is proud of the results it has achieved for clients, some of which are noted here.  Of course, each legal matter is unique on many levels, and past successes are not a guarantee of results in any other pending or future matters.