How are you talking but not actually a part of the conversation? Being a party to the conversation means you are one of the people participating in the conversation — i.e. you are part of the group having the conversation. If you are talking on the phone in the next room then you are not a party to the conversation. The situation has to be such that the typical person would consider you to be part of the conversation that is taking place. Trying to find some loophole to record a conversation between others that does not involve you could come back to bite you. You don’t want to try introducing a recording that turns out to be illegally recorded in court. Not only would the recording not be allowed as evidence, you’d risk criminal prosecution for having made the recordings. I think you know when you are included in a conversation and when you are not. If the others would not regard you as a participant in the conversation, you have a problem.
Totally understand on the severity. I read the news article on the Kentucky woman that was prosecuted with felony charges recording her care giver and special needs child. My situation is one where the initial abusive dialogue is between my wife and daughter, so my reaction is to engage in the conversation and record. But, for cases where I don't engage I can see where that won't make me a participant. Either way I'll consult my lawyer about admissibility. Thank you!
To any conversation there are only ever two parties. If you are participating then you are participating at that moment by talking to one of the others. But you cannot record a conversation where two or more others than yourself are talking.
I disagree with that premise. A conversation certainly can include more than two people. Suppose Amy, Becky, and Carl are talking together about last week’s football game. While only one person is talking at a time, the other two are listening and participants to that conversation. i.e. there are three people to that conversation. So, under federal and NJ law, if Amy wanted to record that conversation, she could do so legally. And not just the parts of it in which she talks, as you seem to suggest. If I understand correctly what you are saying, I find it very bizarre.