Court: Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate DivisionJurisdiction: FederalCase Name: State v. IngramCitation: 2019 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 865
Facts
The defendant, Dawan Ingram, appealed against an August 9, 2016 conviction judgment for the murder of Najee Montague.
In the evening of September 21, 2013, police officers responded to a disturbance at Salem Street and South Orange Avenue in Newark, New Jersey. Upon arriving at the scene, officers found Montague lying on the ground. A friend of Montague’s was inside a bodega just before the shooting. When the friend was trying to help Montague, a bystander either pointed out the gun to the friend dropped by the shooter or handed over the gun to him. Montague’s friend took said gun, hid it in a backyard garage down the street, and did not mention the gun to the police officers at that time. One day after the friend identified the defendant as a shooter, he led Detective Tyrone Crawley to the place where he hid the gun. Two live rounds were also recovered from the gun. These two rounds were consistent with the rounds recovered from the scene of the shooting.
The Expert
The state called a ballistics expert witness to testify. The expert was a retired police sergeant and firearms examiner with the Newark Police Department Ballistics Laboratory for more than 20 years. During his tenure, the expert evaluated and identified all weapons submitted as evidence. His experience also included conducting microscopic examinations, identifications, and comparisons of discharged projectiles, discharged casings, cartridges, and shotshells.
The expert opined that all the 9 shell casings were identical and concluded that all rounds were fired from the same gun. When the shells were compared to the markings made by the gun recovered, the expert concluded that the bullets were fired from the same gun that Montague’s friend led to the police.
Court Discussion
The court rejected the defendant’s arguments that the testimony of the expert relating to the murder weapon should be excluded. The defendant did not take any objection to the testimony of the expert at the time of trial. The court reviewed for plain error.
The defendants argued that the expert’s opinions were subjective and were not backed by reliable, scientific analysis. The defendant sought re-examination of firearm toolmark identification testimony of the expert. The defendant’s main argument was that the expert should not be allowed to testify with certainty that bullets found at the crime scene were from the same gun that was found. The defendant pointed out that the expert had no way to opine that the bullet was not fired from a different but identical gun. The friend had testified that the shooter had dropped the gum he picked it up and later turned over the gun to the police. Therefore, there was little doubt that the expert had examined the gun used in the shooting.
It was determined that the methodology adopted by a firearm expert witness must be backed by scientific analysis in order to be admissible.
About the author
Zach Barreto
Zach Barreto is a distinguished professional in the legal industry, currently serving as the Senior Vice President of Research at the Expert Institute. With a deep understanding of a broad range of legal practice areas, Zach's expertise encompasses personal injury, medical malpractice, mass torts, defective products, and many other sectors. His skills are particularly evident in handling complex litigation matters, including high-profile cases like the Opioids litigation, NFL Concussion Litigation, California Wildfires, 3M earplugs, Elmiron, Transvaginal Mesh, NFL Concussion Litigation, Roundup, Camp Lejeune, Hernia Mesh, IVC filters, Paraquat, Paragard, Talcum Powder, Zantac, and many others.
Under his leadership, the Expert Institute’s research team has expanded impressively from a single member to a robust team of 100 professionals over the last decade. This growth reflects his ability to navigate the intricate and demanding landscape of legal research and expert recruitment effectively. Zach has been instrumental in working on nationally significant litigation matters, including cases involving pharmaceuticals, medical devices, toxic chemical exposure, and wrongful death, among others.
At the Expert Institute, Zach is responsible for managing all aspects of the research department and developing strategic institutional relationships. He plays a key role in equipping attorneys for success through expert consulting, case management, strategic research, and expert due diligence provided by the Institute’s cloud-based legal services platform, Expert iQ.
Educationally, Zach holds a Bachelor's degree in Political Science and European History from Vanderbilt University.
