MAY 13, 2011), THE ISSUES OF SCIENTIFIC TESTING AND TESTIMONY WERE VERY MUCH SIMILAR TO THOSE RAISED IN THE APPEALS OF THE APPELLANT, YET THEY WERE IGNORED BY THE NEW JERSEY COURTS AND FOUND TO BE WITHOUT MERIT.
POINT 4
THE NEW JERSEY STATE COURTS IN STATE[] V. PITTMAN, 419 N.J. SUPER. 584; 18 A.3D 203 (DECIDED MAY 13, 2011) OPENLY ADMITTED THAT PRIOR TO PITTMAN IT HAD NO CASE LAW ON THE ISSUE "THE STATE ADMITS THAT []NEW JERSEY CASE LAW IS SILENT AS TO THE RELIABILITY OF THE PHENOLPHTHALEIN TEST (KM TEST) FOR THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD." THE TRIAL COURT HAD AN OBLIGATION TO REVIEW AND ENSURE THAT STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE APPELLANT [WERE] NOT VIOLATED AND THIS COULD ONLY BE ACCOMPLISHED BY HOLDING AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON THE MATTER OF STATE V. PITTMAN.
PART 5
THERE IS NO CASE LAW SHOWING THAT THE PHENOLPHTHALEIN TEST FOR THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD MEETS THE STANDARDS SET FORTH IN UNITED STATES V. FRYE, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. CIR. 1923). THE STATE'S EXPERT WITNESS
A-4628-15T2 KNOWINGLY MADE FALSE AND MISLEADING STATEMENTS AS TO THE ACCURACY OF THE PHENOLPHTHALEIN TEST FOR THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD AND NEVER MENTIONED OR GAVE REFERENCE TO THE FACT THAT FALSE POSITIVES OCCUR OR WHAT SUBSTANCES COULD CAUSE FALSE POSITIVE READINGS. THIS ISSUE WAS ALSO RAISED DURING THE APPEAL PROCESS.[] ["]Q. OKAY, AND THE BROWN STAIN, IS THAT FECAL MATERIAL OR IS THAT ALSO HAVING TO DO WITH BLOOD? A. AGAIN, THERE COULD BE FECAL MATERIAL IN THERE, BUT I FOUND A POSITIVE PRESUMPTIVE FOR BLOOD, SO THERE IS BLOOD THERE." (EMPHASIS ADDED) (SEE 5T PG. 122 LINES 2 T0 6), "Q. MISS TRAMONTIN, IN A CASE LIKE THIS WHERE BLOOD IS FOUND, DO YOU DO ANY FURTHER TESTING ON THE BLOOD? A. IN A CASE LIKE THIS, THERE IS NO NEED FOR ANY FURTHER TESTING OF THE BLOOD, CORRECT. Q. WHY NOT? A. BECAUSE IT'S PRESUMEDD THAT THE BLOOD WAS FROM THE VICTIM." (EMPHASIS ADDED)[.] THERE IS NO CONSIDERATION OF THIRD PARTY CONTAMINATION OR OF A FALSE POSITIVE AS FINALLY STATED IN PITTMAN.
POINT 6
THE FACT THAT THE ALLEGED POSITIVE [PRESENCE] OF BLOOD FROM THE PHENOLPHTHALEIN TEST WAS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE MEDICAL REPORT ENTERED INTO EVIDENCE BY THE STATE'S PROSECUTOR AT THE APPELLANT'S TRIAL SHOWS A CONFLICT IN THE STATE'S CASE. THE MEDICAL REPORT STATED NO BLOOD PRESENT, FURTHER NO WITNESS WAS
A-4628-15T2 INTRODUCED BY THE STATE THAT COULD STATE WHERE THE ALLEGED BLOOD CAME FROM.
POINT 7
The Imposition OF [N.J.S.A.] 2C:43-7.2 (N.E.R.A.) Rendered Defendant's Sentence Illegal[.]
POINT 8
COMMUNITY SUPERVISION FOR LIFE IS PUNITIVE IN NATURE AND THUS IS CONSIDERED A SECOND SENTENCE WHICH VIOLATES THE PETITIONER'S RIGHTS UNDER THE UNITED STATES AND NEW JERSEY CONSTITUTIONS, NEW JERSEY CIVIL RIGHTS LAW AND NEW JERSEY [STATE] LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION FOR THOSE WITH DIAGNOSED MENTAL, PSYCHOLOGICAL OR PSYCHIATRIC DISABILITIES.
POINT 9
[N.J.S.A.] 2C:14-2a IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN ITS FORMER AND PRESENT FORM BECAUSE, IT IS BIAS, DISCRIMINATES AND DOES NOT ALLOW