Driver hearing

From a home for articles deleted from Wikipedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article was considered for deletion at Wikipedia on August 15 2015. This is a backup of Wikipedia:Driver_hearing. All of its AfDs can be found at Wikipedia:Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Driver_hearing, the first at Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Driver_hearing. Purge

Wikipedia editors had multiple issues with this page:

oooh, orphan Template:Citation style Primary sources

The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. But, that doesn't mean someone has to… establish notability by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond its mere trivial mention. (August 2015)

Driver hearings are evidentiary hearings a New Jersey court must conduct before admitting a sound recording into evidence. In State v. Driver, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that any sound recording offered into evidence at trial must be competent and relevant.[1] In resolving such disputed questions, the court should determine that the speakers on the recording are identified, and that:

  1. the device was capable of taking the conversation or statement;
  2. its operator was competent;
  3. the recording is authentic and correct;
  4. no changes, additions or deletions have been made; and
  5. the statements, if confessions, are voluntary.[2]

The Driver court also instructed that trial judges "should listen to the recording out of the presence of the jury before allowing it to be used" in order to determine that the recording is "sufficiently audible, intelligible, not obviously fragmented, and... whether it contains any improper and prejudicial matter which ought to be deleted."[3] In Driver, the Court overturned the defendant's murder conviction because the taped recording played for the jury was so garbled and unclear that the trial judge instructed the jury, "[i]f you can't hear it, you can't hear it. Inaudible."[4]

The Court found that "[b]asic fairness demanded [the tape's] exclusion."[5] The NJ Appellate Court clarified some nuances of the Driver decision vis-a-vis that a Driver hearing is not a strict requirement in all cases where sound recordings are offered as evidence. Rather, a defendant may waive a Driver hearing.[6]

Moreover, a trial judge has wide discretion in applying the requirements of Driver. In State v. Zicarelli, 122 N.J. Super. 225, 238-240 (App. Div.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 875, 94 S. Ct. 71, 38 L. Ed. 2d 120 (1973), the NJ Appellate Division held that, even when part of a tape is inaudible, it is within the judge's discretion to admit the portions that are audible and relevant: "[I]f a tape is partially intelligible and has a probative value, it is admissible even though substantial portions thereof are inaudible."[7]


  2. (Driver, 38 N.J. at 287)
  3. (Id. at 288)
  4. (Id. at 288)
  5. (Id. at 288)
  6. (State v. King, 215 N.J. Super. 504, 516 (App. Div. 1987), State v. Rockholt, 186 N.J. Super. 539, 547 (App. Div. 1982), aff'd, 96 N.J. 570 (1984))
  7. Id. at 239