594 (App. Div. 1968) (dismissal of indictment following
a 3-year delay was upheld as proper exercise of court’s
inherent power to control its own calendar). However,
courts are “loath” to dismiss cases “because the demands
of justice require adjudications on the merits to the
greatest extent possible.” State v. Farrell, 320 N.J. Super.
425, 447 (App. Div. 1999).
D. Appointment of Defense Experts for Indigent Defendants
The Due Process Clause requires that a State provide
access to a psychiatrist’s assistance when an indigent
defendant has made a preliminary showing that his sanity
at the time of his offense is likely to be significant factor
at trial. Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 105 S.Ct. 1087
(1985). Three factors are relevant to the determination
of whether, and under what conditions, the participation
of a psychiatrist is important enough to the preparation
of a defense: (1) the private interest in the accuracy of a
criminal proceeding, (2) the governmental interest that
will be affected if the psychiatric assistance is to be
provided and (3) the probable value of the psychiatric
assistance sought and the risk of error in the proceeding
if such assistance is not offered. Id. at 79-80, 105 S.Ct.
at 1094. The Court noted, however, that while an
indigent defendant has a constitutional right to
psychiatric assistance where his sanity is an issue, he does
not have a right to choose a psychiatrist of his personal
liking or to receive funds to hire one. Id. at 83, 105 S.Ct.
at 1096. Finally, the court noted that the states will
decide the implementation of this right. Ibid.
In New Jersey, before the State will finance an
indigent defendant’s expert services, the facts of the case
must “warrant” the need for expert testimony. State v.
Manning, 234 N.J. Super. 147, 161 (App. Div. 1988),
certif. denied, 117 N.J. 657 (1989) (given that defendant
maintained at trial that he shot trooper, defendant did
not demonstrate need for ballistic and trace evidence
experts); State v. Green, 55 N.J. 13, 18 (1969) (in a
forgery prosecution, where crucial issue is whether
defendant signed check, the court on application of an
indigent defendant should order the appointment of a
handwriting expert); State v. Williams, 46 N.J. 427
(1966) (in prosecution for entering with intent to steal,
trial court properly authorized retention of toxicologist).
A municipal court has the power to appoint an expert at
public expense upon assigned counsel’s representation as
to his need for an expert witness in order to prepare an
adequate defense. State v. Ryan, 133 N.J. Super. 1 (Cty.
Ct. 1975). However, an indigent defendant who chooses
not to be represented by the Public Defender is not
entitled to the services of an expert witness at the expense
of the county or the State. In re State v. Stockling, 160 N.J.
Super. 486 (App. Div. 1978); See also N.J.S.A. 2A:158A-
5; State in the Interest of R.G.D. and W.T.P., 108 N.J. 1
(1987) (a juvenile who retained private counsel was not
entitled to any services available through public
defender’s office). Moreover, the New Jersey Supreme
Court has noted, “[i]t is doubtful that a juvenile has a
constitutional right to a psychiatrist at a juvenile waiver
hearing.” Id. at 18. In a waiver hearing, guilt or
innocence is not at issue; rather the focus is on
determining which court should hear the case.II. MANAGEMENT OF THE TRIAL
A. Public Trial - Access of the Press (See also, FREEDOM
OF PRESS and SIXTH AMENDMENT, this Digest)It is generally accepted that the public enjoys a First
Amendment right to attend criminal trials. Richmond
Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 100 S.Ct.
2814 (1980). However, the right of access is not absolute
and can be abrogated if closure is necessary to serve a
compelling state interest and narrowly tailored to serve
that interest. Id. at 607, 100 S.Ct. at 2620.In Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S.
596, 102 S.Ct. 2613 (1982), the Court reaffirmed its
decision in Richmond Newspapers and struck as
unconstitutional a state statute mandating that the
testimony of minor victims in criminal cases involving
certain sex offenders be taken in closed proceedings.
Although the Court concluded that “safeguarding the
physical and psychological well-being of a minor” was a
compelling state interest, that interest could not “justify
a mandatory closure rule.” The Court concluded that the
state statute was not narrowly tailored to serve the
compelling state interest in protecting the welfare of
minor victims.The Supreme Court has also extended this right of
access to include a right to attend the jury selection
process in criminal trials, Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior
Court, 464 U.S. 501, 104 S.Ct. 819 (1984) and to
preliminary hearings similar to a trial before a magistrate
in criminal cases, Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court,
478 U.S. 1, 106 S.Ct. 2735 (1986).The Sixth Amendment’s right to a public trial is at
least as strong as the First Amendment’s. Waller v.
Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 46, 104 S.Ct. 2210 (1984) (“there
can be little doubt that the explicit Sixth Amendment