## Facts

- Carl S. Williams was charged with aggravated assault and weapons offenses stemming from a fight with his brother-in-law, Brahima Bocoum.
- The altercation followed taunting phone messages and escalated into a physical confrontation with conflicting accounts.
- Williams claimed Bocoum struck him with a large construction shovel; Bocoum claimed Williams retrieved a machete from his car and cut him.
- Police arrested Williams at his apartment and found a machete.
- After the arrest, Williams filed a municipal-court harassment complaint against Bocoum based on the phone messages.
- A court-appointed mediator conducted a mediation under New Jersey Rule 1:40; the session was disorderly and unsuccessful.
- According to the mediator, Bocoum stated during mediation that he had wielded the shovel.
- In the later criminal case, Williams asserted self-defense and sought to call the mediator to testify about Bocoum’s alleged admission.

## Issues

1. Whether Rule 1:40-4(c) prohibits a court-appointed mediator from testifying in a subsequent criminal proceeding about a participant’s mediation statements concerning the same dispute.
2. Whether excluding the mediator’s testimony impermissibly infringed the defendant’s constitutional right to present a defense when the testimony was offered to support self-defense.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed the Appellate Division and upheld the convictions.
- The Court held that Rule 1:40-4(c) barred compelling the mediator to testify about mediation communications in the criminal case.
- The Court concluded that the State’s interest in maintaining mediation confidentiality outweighed Williams’s asserted need for the mediator’s testimony.
- The Court found no applicable express exception in Rule 1:40-4(c) and declined to create an implied criminal-defense exception.
- The Court noted additional concerns that the mediation’s disorderly nature and the mediator’s later involvement reduced the reliability and propriety of mediator testimony.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 1:40-4(c) establishes confidentiality for mediation communications and provides that a mediator shall not be called as a witness in subsequent proceedings related to the mediation’s subject matter, absent specified exceptions.
- Protecting mediation confidentiality serves a strong public policy: parties must be able to speak candidly in mediation without fear of later courtroom use.
- A defendant’s right to present a defense may require case-specific balancing, but it does not automatically override a categorical confidentiality rule where the defendant can present the defense through other available evidence.
- Courts should be cautious about permitting mediator testimony because it can threaten mediator neutrality and may be unreliable given the mediator’s role and the context of mediation communications.

## Conclusion

The court enforced Rule 1:40-4(c)’s confidentiality and non-testimony mandate in a related criminal prosecution, holding that the mediator could not be compelled to testify about a participant’s mediation statements and that the exclusion did not violate the defendant’s right to present a defense under the circumstances.


State v. Williams, 184 N.J. 432, 877 A.2d 1258 (N.J. 2005)