Lost Your Detention Hearing in New Jersey?

When a client loses a detention hearing, it can feel like all options are gone. But that's not the case. New Jersey law gives us a way to reopen detention in the right situations, as long as we approach it with a clear strategy instead of simply trying again.

Below is a brief explainer about how I think about building the strongest possible motion to reopen.

The gold standard: finding new information that truly makes a difference

The statute that controls detention hearings, N.J.S.A. 2A:162‑19(f), says a detention hearing may be reopened any time before trial if the Court finds new information that was not known at the first hearing and that has a material bearing on the decision.

Courts and the Supreme Court have made several important points clear:

• The question is not "Was the first judge wrong?"

• The question is: "Given what we know now, should this person still be detained?"

• Judges have discretion and are not required to reopen unless the new information truly affects the risk of appearance or public safety.

The best approach is to stop repeating old arguments and instead focus on building a record that demonstrates what has changed.

Identify a real "change in circumstances"

We can't just present the same facts and call them "new." New Jersey courts look for information that:

• Was not known to either side at the original hearing; and

• It would likely change the risk assessment, such as appearance, safety, or obstruction.

In practice, the strongest examples of "new information" usually fall into a few categories:

First, changes in the client's life that lower risk

Examples:

• New, verifiable employment with a documented schedule and a supervisor willing to vouch for the client.

• Stable housing with a responsible adult who is willing to appear in Court and act as a third‑party custodian.

• Enrollment in, and actual participation in, treatment (substance use, mental health) confirmed by providers.

• Resolution of a prior case that had counted as a pending matter at the time of the original PSA/DMF.

On their own, these may sound "soft," but if we can show the judge that the facts the Court worried about have materially changed, they can support reopening.

I have had the most success when the team has managed to secure an inpatient drug and alcohol treatment bed for a client. This is often time-consuming, but in nonviolent cases, and even in some violent crime cases, a prosecutor will often agree to successfully completing inpatient treatment (with drug and alcohol monitoring) as a condition of release. Case developments that weaken the State

Examples:

• Charges were downgraded from first‑degree to second‑ or third‑degree.​

• One or more serious counts were dismissed by the grand jury or on motion.​

• Critical State witnesses become unavailable (death, permanent incapacity, complete recantation), and the State cannot reasonably prove the most serious charge.

• Key evidence is ruled inadmissible or is lost/destroyed without bad faith by the defense.​

Each of these goes directly to the "weight of the evidence" and the seriousness of potential punishment—two central detention factors.

Second Possibility: Case developments that weaken the State

Examples:

• Charges were downgraded from first‑degree to second‑ or third‑degree.​

• One or more serious counts were dismissed by the grand jury or on motion.​

• Critical State witnesses become unavailable (death, permanent incapacity, complete recantation), and the State cannot reasonably prove the most serious charge.

• Key evidence is ruled inadmissible or is lost/destroyed without bad faith by the defense.​

Each of these goes directly to the "weight of the evidence" and the seriousness of potential punishment—two central detention factors.

Third Possibility: Time and trial posture

The Supreme Court has recognized that lengthy pretrial detention can itself support reopening, especially if the case has not advanced as expected. In COVID‑related litigation, the Court emphasized that for people detained at least six months, judges must ask whether continued detention is still justified given:

• How long have they been held?

• What progress the case has (or hasn't) made.

• Whether the trial is realistically approaching.

That principle survives beyond COVID: the longer a client sits, the more reasonable it is to argue that continued detention no longer meets the statute's "careful, individualized" standard.

Build an evidentiary package, not just a motion

A bare‑bones notice—"We want to reopen"—almost never moves the needle. The best practice is to craft a fact‑heavy, documented motion that leaves the judge with something concrete to hang a changed decision on.

What I like to include:

• Sworn certifications from the client and family members:

  • New job offers, housing arrangements, caregiving duties.

• Letters or affidavits from:

  • Employers (start date, hours, willingness to accommodate court dates).

  • Treatment providers (diagnosis if appropriate, diagnosis‑relevant risk factors, attendance records, prognosis, and how continued treatment will be monitored).

  • Community or faith leaders are willing to assist in holding the client accountable.

• Case documents:

  • Amended complaints or indictments showing downgraded or dismissed charges.

  • The Court orders the suppression or limitation of key evidence.

  • Discovery that undercuts the State's original narrative (e.g., exculpatory video the State did not have at the time of the first hearing).

Rule 3:4A and case law make clear that motions to reopen should be backed by affidavits or other competent evidence, not just argument. A thick, well‑organized record immediately signals to the Court that this is not a "second bite" but a materially different picture.

Step three: tie everything back to the statutory factors

If the State will not consent to release, the motion to reopen returns to the Court. The judge will still be working under the same statute—N.J.S.A. 2A:162‑19. The State will still argue detention under the clear‑and‑convincing evidence standard, and the Court will still weigh the same factors:​

• Nature and circumstances of the offense.

• Weight of the evidence.

• History and characteristics of the defendant.

• Risk of flight, danger to any person or the community, and risk of obstruction.

Our job is to re‑frame those factors in light of the new information. For example:

• Nature/circumstances: "The top charge is now second‑degree, not first‑degree; the maximum exposure is lower, reducing flight incentives."

• Weight of evidence: "The State lost its only eyewitness; the case is now largely circumstantial."

• History/characteristics: "The client has maintained perfect conduct in jail, started remote classes, and now has verified treatment and housing options on release."

• Risk management: "We are proposing PML 3 with EM, strict no‑contact orders, and third‑party supervision; the question is not 'zero risk' but 'reasonable assurance,' and these conditions now meet that standard."

The more explicitly we track the statutory language, the easier it is for a judge to justify granting relief in a written opinion.

Strategy choices: timing, judge, and level of ask

A few practical decisions shape the likelihood of success:

Timing

• If we move too early with thin new facts, a judge can deny without a full hearing, and we've signaled our whole theory to the State.

• If we wait a bit to accumulate stronger new facts (treatment records, job letters, charge changes), we can present a genuinely different picture.

For clients detained six months or more, the Supreme Court has recognized a stronger argument for reopening, especially where trial is not imminent.

Which judge

• The motion may be returned to the original judge or to another judge in the vicinage.​

• There is no automatic right to a new judge, but depending on local practice and prior rulings, we may have strategic reasons to seek reassignment or to embrace the original judge's familiarity with the case.

Scope of relief

Sometimes the smart move is not to ask the Court to jump straight from detention to bare ROR.

• In serious cases, we often propose a structured release plan: PML 3 or 3+, EM, strict exclusion zones, no‑contact orders, and immediate enrollment in services.

• Framing the motion as "The risk can now be managed with robust conditions" fits the statutory standard of "reasonable assurance" and can be more persuasive than insisting that risk has vanished.​

How realistic is hope?

When a client hears "motion to reopen," most think, "I'm going home." It doesn't mean that, it means another chance to go home, not a guarantee: possibly

• Reopening is discretionary, not automatic, and the Court focuses on what is different now, not re‑litigating old arguments.

• Behavior inside matters: a clean disciplinary record, participation in jail programs, and a respectful demeanor all support a "changed circumstances" argument.​ Judges know that most facilities have different colored uniforms for trustees and folks in segregation, and they know which uniform is which.

• Filing a weak motion to "do something" risks a written denial that will be hard to overcome later.

The goal is controlled, evidence‑driven pressure on the system—not noise.

Bottom line

Losing a detention hearing in New Jersey is not the end of the story. The law provides meaningful tools—such as reopening under N.J.S.A. 2A:162‑19(f)—but they only work if we can show new, material information and connect it closely to the statutory factors.

The best strategy is to treat the motion like a mini‑trial on changed circumstances: dig for real case developments, build a detailed release plan, document everything, and walk the judge through why continued detention no longer fits the law. Done right, that's often our client's best shot at getting home before trial.