New Jersey Supreme Court Affirms Right of Defense Counsel To Examine Alleged Crime Scene

This is a public service blog provided to the people from the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

On September 24, 2014, the New Jersey Supreme Court in State in the Interest of A.B., affirmed the trial court in allowing defense counsel to examine and take photographs of the victim’s home where it was alleged that a sexual assault occurred.

The Supreme Court affirmed that a criminal defendant has a right to a fair trial and that defense counsel has the right to inspect and examine all the evidence which the State has access to.  In other words, New Jersey courts have the “inherent power to order discovery when justice so requires.”  State ex rel. W.C., 85 N.J. 218, 221 (1981)

The court began its discussion with the proposition that New Jersey trial courts have the power to order discovery beyond that mandated by the court rules when doing so will further the truth-seeking function or ensure the fairness of a trial. In the Matter of W.C., 85 N.J. at 221. In

exercising its discretion, a court must weigh the accused’s need for a particular species of discovery against the impact the discovery request may have on the privacy and lives of witnesses and alleged victims.

As the court noted, a criminal trial where the defendant

does not have “access to the raw materials integral to the

building of an effective defense” is fundamentally unfair. Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 77, 105 S. Ct. 1087, 1093, 84 L. Ed. 2d 53, 62 (1985).

In fact the court noted that visiting the crime scene can be critical in preparing a defense and that failure to visit the crime scene when required can be ineffective assistance of counsel. Thomas v. Kuhlman, 255 F. Supp. 2d 99, 109, 112 (E.D.N.Y. 2003)  See, also, 32 New Jersey Practice, Criminal Practice and Procedure § 20:1, at 481 (Leonard N. Arnold) (2010-2011 ed.)

The court noted that familiarity with a crime scene may be essential for an effective direct or cross-examination of a witness.  Further, it might be helpful in ascertaining

and presenting exculpatory evidence. For example, the inability of a witness to have observed an event because of the layout of the area can break a case.  In order words,

in many instances the defense will not be on an equal footing with the prosecution if it is barred from a crime scene to which the prosecutor has access.

In summary this is a great case for the defense, is a case which was long overdue by the court and this case should be in the arsenal of all competent New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorneys.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

September 25, 2014

277 North Broad Street

P.O. Box 261

Elizabeth, New Jersey

Telephone No. (908) 354-7006

New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney, Essex, Newark, Elizabeth, Union, Monmouth, Middlesex, Hudson, Federal District Court of New Jersey, Passaic, Bergen, Somerset, Jersey City, New Brunswick, Toms River, Hackensack, Somerville, NJ Criminal Trial Lawyers, Attorneys, Sexual Assault Attorney, Criminal Practice and Discovery, Inspection of Crime Scene

Promises by Law Enforcement for Leniency Leads to a Remand for Evidentiary Hearing.

Prepared as a Public Service by the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

State v. Carl Hreha, New Jersey Supreme Court, decided May 15, 2014.

Defendant, Carl Hreha, asserted that he waived his Miranda rights and confessed to a crime because the arresting State Police detectives had made promises of leniency to him, thus making his confession not knowingly or voluntary.

Specifically, the officers had promised lenient treatment in exchange for his confession. It was alleged that promises had included that he would not be handcuffed when he was removed from the Hughes Justice Complex, would not be jailed for the week-end, would be admitted to PTI, and would not lose his job with the Attorney General’s Office.

Under New Jersey law, promises of leniency are not per se unlawful, and do not render a subsequent confession involuntary, but such promises under the totality of the circumstances may render such a confession involuntary, and hence, inadmissible.  In other words, based on the promises made, and other factors, the trial court can determine that the confession was not knowingly and voluntary.

It is well settled however, that before any suspect under custody can be questioned, that the suspect be advised of his Miranda Rights.  However, once a defendant has been so advised, the defendant may waive his or her Miranda rights and confess, but that waiver must be “voluntary, knowing, and intelligent.”

In New Jersey, the State shoulders the burden of proving

beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant’s confession was

actually volunteered and that the police did not overbear

the will of the defendant. See, State v. Galloway, 133

N.J. 631, 654 (1993). Determining whether the State has met that burden requires a court to assess “the totality of the circumstances, including both the characteristics of the defendant and the nature of the interrogation.”

Although not a bright line rule, after a 104 hearing, the trial court can conclude that a defendant’s confession was involuntary if the interrogating officers extended a promise so enticing as to induce that confession. See, State v. Fletcher, 380 N.J. Super. 80, 89 (App. Div. 2005)

In the Hreha case it was determined that the trial court improperly gave undue weight to the credibility of the detective and mis-characterized the testimony of the State police detective.

The Supreme Court took issue with the fact that the trial court mis-characterized the testimony provided by the detective.   The trial court determined that the detective’s testimony directly contradicted defendant’s version of events, and the trial court chose to credit the detective’s testimony over defendant. However, the detective only testimony regarding such promises was provided in response to questions by defense counsel during cross-examination. Instead of denying that the officers had extended any such promises, he merely asserted that he could not recollect whether any promises had been made.

Further, the Supreme Court took issue with the trial court explained that defendant’s audio-recorded statement included no mention of any promises of leniency, and defendant denied being subjected to coercion or 21 threats. That statement, however, captured only eight minutes of a lengthy interrogation; defendant alleges that he was offered leniency long before he provided the recorded statement. Moreover, although defendant twice denied having been coerced or threatened, the officers did not ask whether he had been offered leniency in exchange for his confession.

Based on the foregoing the Supreme Court remanded the case back to a new judge to determine whether the facts warrant a suppression of the confession.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth (Union County), New Jersey

(909) 354-7006

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney with 24-years experience in defending people accused of crimes in Union, Essex, Bergen, Hudson, Middlesex, Monmouth, Ocean, Somerset Passaic, Warren, Camden, Atlantic Counties.