Opinion ID: 2159715
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Exclusion of the PCR Experts' Testimony

Text: Defendant asserts that the PCR court erred in refusing to hear in-court testimony from four experts, Dr. Goldstein, Dr. Van Gorp, Dr. Smith, and Jill Miller. Before the PCR court, counsel asked that the court permit such testimony as well as receive the experts' reports into evidence. Specifically, PCR counsel stated that the testimony would certainly be within the four corners of the reports, but I'm sure the State would like the opportunity to cross-examine, andand we would like the opportunity to present their testimony. After some review of the trial record, the PCR court stated: I'm now aware of what your experts would say if they had been the experts that were called during the original trial.... I know that there is now some difference of opinion as to what his true psychological condition was. And quite frankly, if we get past the first prong, [I] could accept that that's what your witnesses would say, and wouldn't need to hear from one of those witnesses. And I could still make a legal ruling. The point is, do I need them to repeat what I know they're going to say? You couldn't have been more thorough.... [I] don't necessarily know that I need to hear every single person come here and tell me what your best presentation would be. You have done a very, very thorough job on presenting to me what your best case would have looked like. In challenging the PCR court's ruling, defendant argues that the experts' in-court testimony was necessary for the experts to explain that their findings were significantly different from those presented at the sentencing retrial. The State responds by arguing that, because of their detail, the reports obviated the need for in-court testimony. We agree with the State. Ordinarily, the necessity for and admissibility of expert testimony are matters to be determined within the sound exercise of discretion by the trial court. State v. Berry, 140 N.J. 280, 293, 658 A. 2d 702 (1995) (citation omitted). Generally, a trial court will admit expert testimony if the subject matter at issue, or its specific application, is one with which an average fact finder might not be sufficiently familiar, or if the trial court determines that the expert testimony would assist it in understanding the evidence and determining facts in issue. Id. at 292-93, 658 A. 2d 702. We are satisfied the PCR court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony. The experts were offered to show that their findings were significantly different from the findings of the experts at retrial. The PCR court recognized that the purpose of the new expert reports was to demonstrate that which the retrial experts failed to uncover. Dr. Goldstein's and Miller's reports explicitly state how the performance of the retrial experts allegedly was deficient. With respect to Dr. Silikovitz's evaluation of defendant, Dr. Goldstein expressed his view that Dr. Silikovitz had failed to administer a series of personality tests that are an essential element of a comprehensive forensic psychological evaluation conducted by the reasonably prudent professional. Similarly, Miller's report extensively details the asserted deficiencies of the Alfonso investigation, noting that [i]n addition to their failure to interview many potential sources of information, Alfonso Associates made mistakes in the interviews they did conduct, that resulted in their failure to obtain significant and valuable information. It might have been helpful to the PCR court to hear from the new experts on how their diagnoses and investigations differed from the former experts. In our view, to have permitted the experts to testify would have been preferable. That said, the differences between the new and former experts are clear from the written reports. Indeed, defense counsel acknowledged that the testimony would certainly be within the four corners of the reports, indicating that those reports covered the subject matter about which the experts would testify. Under those circumstances, the PCR court was within its discretion to rely solely on the experts' written submissions. C.