State of New Jersey v. Rami A. Amer

Summary

The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that the Interstate Agreement on Detainers did not require dismissal of Rami A. Amer’s indictment. The Court ruled that defense counsel did not waive Amer’s IAD rights, that the 180-day period was tolled while his suppression motions were pending, and that he was brought to trial when jury selection began. The judgment was affirmed as modified.

Holdings

1. Defense counsel did not waive Amer's rights under the IAD. Counsel conceded only that the trial could not be completed on July 31, 2018 and consistently asserted Amer's IAD rights.
2. A defendant who files a pretrial motion is unable to stand trial under N.J.S.A. 2A:159A-6(a) during the pendency of the motion, so the IAD's 180-day trial period is tolled during that period.
3. Tolling for a pending pretrial motion is limited to time that would be excludable under Rule 3:25-4(i)(3); the IAD period is not indefinitely tolled merely because a defendant files a motion.
4. For purposes of N.J.S.A. 2A:159A-3(a), a defendant is generally brought to trial when jury selection begins, not only when the jury is sworn or evidence is presented.
5. The trial court did not violate Amer's IAD speedy-trial rights because the fifty-three days during which his suppression motions were pending were tolled, moving the deadline to October 13, 2018, and jury selection began on July 24, 2018.

Questions Presented

1. Whether defense counsel waived Amer's right under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers to be brought to trial within the applicable 180-day period.
2. Whether the IAD's 180-day period is tolled while a defendant's pretrial suppression motions are pending because the defendant is unable to stand trial.
3. What limitations apply to tolling the IAD period during the pendency of pretrial motions.
4. Whether a defendant is brought to trial under the IAD when jury selection begins or only when the jury is sworn and evidence is presented.
5. Whether the trial court violated Amer's IAD speedy-trial rights and should have dismissed the indictment.

Disposition

affirmed