New Jersey
New Jersey has no forensic science commission or analyst license, and its lab accreditation rules apply only to postconviction DNA testing. Since 2023 the Supreme Court has replaced Frye with a Daubert-type test in criminal cases and held that the State had not shown shaking-only Shaken Baby Syndrome testimony to be generally accepted under Frye. An appeals court has opened facial recognition to defense discovery. The Legislature has set a 10-day lab deadline for sexual assault kits, required a statewide kit tracking system, and given victims the right to learn about DNA profiles and matches.
- Sources checked
- Part of
- Forensic Science Tracker
At a glance
- Oversight body
- None. No statute creates a standing forensic science commission or lab oversight board. A972 and S458 (2026–27) would create a New Jersey Forensic Science Planning Commission. They were introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to committee (A972).
- Lab accreditation
- Postconviction DNA testing only. Testing ordered on a postconviction motion must be done by a lab both parties agree on that is accredited by a nationally recognized nonprofit forensic association and approved by the FBI Director under the federal DNA Identification Act. Without agreement, the State Police Office of Forensic Sciences does it, or, for good cause, another accredited lab (N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-32a(e)). N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-32c sets procedures for accredited labs outside the national DNA index. No general accreditation rule for crime labs was found.
- Analyst licensing
- None. No statute licenses or certifies forensic analysts, and no law from 2023 to 2026 does.
- Admissibility standard
- A Daubert-type test set by case law. The text of N.J.R.E. 702 is unchanged since 1993. In State v. Olenowski, 253 N.J. 133 (decided February 17, 2023), the Supreme Court adopted for criminal and quasi-criminal cases, going forward, a non-exclusive Daubert-type reliability test in place of Frye. In re Accutane Litigation, 234 N.J. 340 (2018), governs civil cases. Matters ruled on before February 17, 2023 stay under Frye. A 2026 Official Court Comment dated July 23, 2026 says the rule incorporates the Accutane and Olenowski standards (N.J.R.E. 702). New Jersey has not adopted the text of the 2023 change to Federal Rule 702.
- Post-conviction forensic relief
- No changed-science statute was found. A motion for forensic DNA testing goes to the trial court that entered the conviction (N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-32a). It is open to a person serving a sentence that includes imprisonment, or to one who has finished the sentence and shows just cause. The court must find, among other things, that identity was a significant issue and that favorable results would raise a reasonable probability that a new-trial motion on newly discovered evidence would be granted ((d)(5)). For a person who has finished the sentence, just cause requires a “significant likelihood” of that result (m). The method must be generally accepted ((d)(7)). The cost of testing “shall be borne by the eligible person” (g), though counsel is appointed for an indigent movant (c). The order is appealable (h). A motion for a new trial on newly discovered evidence “may be made at any time” (R. 3:20-2). A first petition for post-conviction relief is due within 5 years of the judgment, with an exception for excusable neglect and fundamental injustice, and, in limited circumstances, a later petition within one year of a triggering event such as discovery of its factual basis (R. 3:22-12).
- DNA database scope
- Convictions plus limited arrestee collection. Samples are taken from everyone convicted of, or found not guilty by reason of insanity of, any crime, and of specified disorderly persons offenses; shoplifting is excluded. Juvenile adjudications are covered on the same basis. Arrestee samples are taken before release only for listed offenses: aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault, criminal sexual contact, murder, manslaughter, second-degree aggravated assault under N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1b(1) or (6), kidnapping, luring a child, endangering the welfare of children other than under 2C:24-4a(2), and attempts (N.J.S.A. 53:1-20.20). P.L.2019, c.122 added endangering-welfare arrests involving child pornography.
- Facial recognition
- No statute. In State v. Arteaga, No. A-3078-21 (App. Div. June 7, 2023), a published decision, the Appellate Division held that the State must give the defense its remaining requested discovery on the facial recognition technology used to identify the defendant. Bills A5423 and A759 are pending.
Changes, 2023 to 2026
Official comment ties Rule 702 to the Accutane and Olenowski standards
The comment says N.J.R.E. 702 “incorporates the expert reliability standard for civil cases prescribed in In re Accutane Litigation” and the standard “for criminal cases prescribed in State v. Olenowski.” Trial courts must do “a rigorous gatekeeping analysis” of the expert’s method using non-exclusive factors drawn from Daubert. The comment restates the case-law standard; the rule text is unchanged and still has no “more likely than not” wording.
For practitioners: Cite the comment along with Olenowski when asking for a reliability hearing on a forensic method.
10-day lab deadline for sexual assault kits; unreported kits kept 20 years
Every State, county and municipal police agency must submit every consented kit to the appropriate forensic lab within 10 calendar days of the exam. Exam facilities must notify police within 24 hours, and police must take the kit within 3 business days. Kits from victims who have not reported or consented must be kept at least 20 years from collection, or for minors 20 years after age 18. A victim may report and submit the kit for testing at any time in that period. The Attorney General must issue or amend guidelines. No earlier statutory submission deadline was found.
For practitioners: Compare the exam date with the lab submission date; a gap of more than 10 days misses the statutory deadline.
Shaken Baby Syndrome testimony based on shaking alone excluded under Frye
The Court affirmed exclusion of State expert testimony that shaking alone, without impact, caused the triad of symptoms. The State “has not met its burden in establishing the reliability of SBS/AHT testimony here” under Frye, which governed because the matters were ruled on before Olenowski. The State may still present physical evidence of trauma or other abuse, and may try a future Daubert showing on new science. Justice Wainer Apter dissented, noting that every other state admits the testimony.
For practitioners: In a pending or past shaking-only case, the ruling supports a challenge to the medical testimony; it does not bar evidence of impact or other abuse.
Statewide online tracking system for sexual assault kits
The Attorney General must set up, by guideline or directive, a statewide internet-based system. Victims, police, health care and lab staff, and others the Attorney General names can follow each kit from collection through transfer to police, lab submission and testing, to final disposition. The act sets no deadline for the system to be running and has no appropriation. Whether the system is operating could not be checked from official sources on October 19, 2026. The earlier law, P.L.2019, c.168, required only a survey of untested kits.
For practitioners: Ask whether the kit in your case is in the tracking system and request its history.
Sexual assault victims may learn about DNA profiles, data bank entry and matches
New section 52:4B-60.2a gives a victim the right to be told whether an assailant DNA profile was obtained, whether it was entered into any data bank, whether there is a match, and when evidence went to a lab and was compared, with the results. The match and comparison rights do not apply if disclosure “would impede or compromise an ongoing investigation.” On request, the agency must give the status of evidence processing. Failure to notify “shall not be the basis for setting aside the conviction or sentence.” The 5-year retention of forensic medical evidence and the right to status on request in 52:4B-60.2(c)(6) date from P.L.2019, c.103; this act only added a cross-reference to the new section.
For practitioners: A notice failure under this section does not support relief from a conviction.
Drug recognition expert testimony admitted with limits; Daubert rulings reviewed fresh on appeal
Appeals courts review trial-court Daubert reliability rulings in criminal cases de novo; other expert issues stay under abuse of discretion. Drug recognition expert testimony meets the standard with four safeguards. The expert may say only that findings are “consistent with” drug use. The testimony must be excluded if the State, without a persuasive reason, did not reasonably try to get a toxicology report. The defense must get a fair chance to impeach. Model jury instructions should be considered.
For practitioners: On appeal, a Daubert ruling on a forensic method gets fresh review, not deference.
Defense gets discovery on facial recognition used to identify the defendant
On leave to appeal, the court reversed a Hudson County order denying discovery about the facial recognition technology used to produce a photo that identified the defendant. It remanded for an order “directing the State to provide the eleven remaining items of discovery requested by the defense.” The motion judge may enter protective orders, review materials in camera, and “hold a Daubert hearing if necessary.” It is a published Appellate Division ruling on facial recognition discovery. It does not bar the technology.
For practitioners: When facial recognition led to an identification, request discovery on how the technology was used, citing Arteaga.
Daubert-type test replaces Frye in criminal cases
The Court adopted, going forward, a non-exclusive, multi-factor reliability test for criminal and quasi-criminal cases, patterned on Daubert and on the civil test in Accutane. The factors include testability, peer review, error rate and standards, and general acceptance. It declined to adopt the full body of Daubert case law. Matters ruled on before this date stay under Frye. The date and holding come from the court’s later opinions in Olenowski II and Nieves.
For practitioners: Error rates and standards for a forensic method now matter in criminal cases, not only general acceptance.
Pending bills
These 2026–27 bills had no governor action as of October 19, 2026.
- S4312 and A4202 would require a DNA sample for certain arrests. S4312 was reported from Senate committee as a substitute and referred to Senate Budget and Appropriations on October 15, 2026. S4312
- A972 and S458 would create a New Jersey Forensic Science Planning Commission. Both are in committee. A972
- A5045 and S4678 concern investigative genetic genealogy and would appropriate $500,000. A5045 is in committee, and S4678 was introduced on October 1, 2026. A5045
- A5423 would bar using facial recognition as the sole basis for probable cause for an arrest warrant. A759 would require the Attorney General to study police use of facial recognition. Both are in committee. A5423 A759
- Other bills: S4103 would require sexual assault forensic evidence to be kept 10 years and is in Senate Law and Public Safety; its Assembly version, A4553, was withdrawn on September 10, 2026. A3232 and S2933 would restrict genetic testing of newborn and crime-victim DNA. A3534 would require a State Police report on drug-evidence testing data. A4132 would create a forensic science lab at Rutgers-Camden. Bill search
Checked and unchanged
- N.J.S.A. 53:1-20.20 (DNA collection) was last amended by P.L.2019, c.122. The rest of the DNA Database and Databank Act was last amended in 2015 or earlier.
- N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-32a (DNA testing motions) was last amended by P.L.2015, c.127, and 2A:84A-32e to -32h (preservation of biological evidence) are unchanged since P.L.2017, c.248.
- The text of N.J.R.E. 702 is unchanged since 1993; only the 2026 comment is new. Rules 3:20 and 3:22 show no amendment from 2023 to 2026.
- No statute on rapid DNA, genetic genealogy or digital forensics was found in the statutes database, which runs through P.L.2026, c.50.
- Attorney General guidelines or directives under P.L.2025, c.1 and c.350 were not checked.
Last updated October 19, 2026Source: United States Council for Law & InvestigationCite as: United States Council for Law & Investigation, “New Jersey forensic science oversight: Forensic Science Tracker,” uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/new-jersey (last updated October 19, 2026). Text licensed CC BY 4.0.