The proposed amendments to Rule 3:26-2 regarding a process for reviewing a defendant’s compliance with pretrial release conditions require additional clarifying amendments, said the New Jersey State Bar Association in a letter to the Administrative Office of the Courts.
“The NJSBA supports the goals of the proposed amendments and agrees wholeheartedly that these measures are needed to provide a structure for the review of pretrial release conditions and the handling of alleged violations of monitoring,” NJSBA President William H. Mergner, Jr. said to Acting Administrative Director Judge Glenn A. Grant. “The NJSBA suggests, however, that additional amendments are needed to strengthen to process that is sought to be established.”
The Judiciary’s proposed amendments to R. 3:26-2 would authorize review of the conditions of pretrial monitoring for a defendant who has been compliant with all conditions for at least six months. The proposed amendments would also provide specific timeframes for resolution of violations of monitoring filed by the prosecutor and/or by the Pretrial Services Program.
The NJSBA suggests that the amendments include more details to clarify the method of notifying all parties of a pretrial compliance review as well as a defined timeframe for any party to file an objection. With respect to no contact or no return conditions, that no changes may be granted to these terms unless all parties consent in writing or a hearing is held by the court and all parties are given the opportunity to be heard. With regard to the procedure for addressing violations of monitoring, language should be added to make it clear that the timeframes contained in the rule may be adjusted for appropriate reasons.
A full copy of the proposed rule amendments can be found here.
Matrimonial Case Management Orders Should Remain in Rules Appendix, Says NJSBA
The NJSBA called upon the Judiciary not to move the FM Case management order that is now included in the New Jersey Rules of Court as Appendix X from the appendix to allow future amendments as needed. The Judiciary proposed its removal to “simplify the process for future amendments.”
“The comment process currently afforded to individuals before any changes are made to forms contained in the Rules Appendix is critical to ensuring any changes are thoroughly vetted and take all perspectives into account,” Mergner said in a letter to Judge Grant. “The NJSBA is concerned if the form is not included in the Court Rules, the opportunity to provide such comments will not be made available.”
In addition to concerns about the ability to weigh in on future amendments, the NJSBA signaled possible access to justice concerns, especially for self-represented litigants who should be afforded easier access to the form.
A full copy of the notice may be found here.