Howard Pashman Discusses Recent Supreme Court Decision on CSLI
Howard Pashman, counsel at Pashman Stein Walder Hayden P.C., through the Justice Gary S. Stein Public Interest Center, recently represented amicus curiae Larry E. Daniel, Executive Director of the Digital Forensics Justice Initiative before the New Jersey Supreme Court in State v. Jule Hannah (A-44-24) (089819). The case involved whether cell site location information (“CSLI”), sometimes called historical cell site data, can only be presented to juries through expert testimony. CSLI is information that cell phone carriers keep such as which tower a phone connected to at a certain time, the times of calls and texts, and other data about a phone’s use. The defendant in the case, Jule Hannah, had been convicted of first-degree murder based on a police officer’s testimony about CSLI. The conviction was reversed on appeal and the Supreme Court affirmed the reversal.
In reversing the conviction, the Court adopted amicus’ argument that only expert testimony can provide the necessary scientific context to prevent juries from being misled by CSLI evidence. The Supreme Court established a new statewide standard governing the use of CSLI evidence in criminal trials, ruling that such testimony must be presented through a qualified expert witness rather than a lay witness.
The unanimous April 16, 2026 decision stemmed from Hannah’s appeal of his 2021 murder conviction in Cumberland County. At trial, a Bridgeton police officer testified about cell phone tower data that prosecutors used to place Hannah in the victim’s car at the time of the fatal shooting. The jury convicted Mr. Hannah of first-degree murder and weapons charges. Mr. Hannah appealed the conviction, the Appellate Division reversed, and the State appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court.
Howard Pashman supported Hannah’s appeal to the Supreme Court. In a statement following the ruling, Pashman said the decision “protects the rights of criminal defendants and strengthens the quality of evidence that juries hear.”
CSLI “has become an increasingly common form of evidence in criminal trials," Pashman said in the statement.
Pashman argued that CSLI evidence does not by itself permit any reliable conclusions about the proximity of a phone to a cell tower. Rather, CSLI evidence can be affected by numerous variables, including terrain, weather conditions, antenna strength, and tower height, all of which may cause a phone to connect to a more distant cell site than the closest tower.” The Court cited those concerns in emphasizing the need for expert testimony to ensure jurors properly understand the limitations and reliability of CSLI evidence.
The ruling will have broad implications for criminal prosecutions across New Jersey, where CSLI evidence has become common in trials.
To read the full article in Courier Post, click here.
Pashman Stein Walder Hayden P.C. is proud of the results he has achieved for clients. Of course, each legal matter is unique on many levels, and past successes are not a guarantee of results in any other pending or future matters.
