The following New Jersey criminal appeal cases were decided by the New Jersey Superior Court - Appellate Division and the New Jersey Supreme Court in September. These case summaries were provided courtesy of Mark Friedman of the New Jersey State Office of the Public Defender.
CRIMINAL APPEALS
State v. David Cooper, ? N.J. Super. ?, 2009 N.J. Super. LEXIS 219 (September 25, 2009) - Denial of PCR affirmed. "We first reject the suggestion that this appeal is moot by virtue of the Governor's commutation of defendant's sentence to life without parole and the Legislature's abolition of the death penalty and substitution of a sentence of life without parole. In State v. Fortin, 198 N.J. 619 (2009), the Supreme Court held that a defendant who had been found guilty of capital murder committed before the death penalty was abolished, but who had not been sentenced at the time the death penalty was abolished, could only receive the statutorily substituted sentence of life without parole if he were tried at a penalty proceeding and the jury found that an aggravating factor or factors existed and outweighed any mitigating factors.... As a result, if defendant's conviction were to be set aside in the PCR proceedings, he would be entitled to a new trial and, if found guilty of capital murder, he would be in the same position as Fortin, subject to life without parole only after another penalty phase hearing in which the aggravating factor or factors were found to exist and to outweigh the mitigating. And if defendant were found to have ineffective assistance of counsel at the penalty phase only, or the sentence were otherwise set aside, he would be entitled to a new penalty phase hearing because the result could still impact the sentence. Under Fortin, life without parole, as opposed to a sentence with a thirty-year period of parole ineligibility, can only follow a penalty proceeding at which the aggravating factors were found to outweigh the mitigating. 198 N.J. at 633. Otherwise, ex post facto principles would preclude imposition of a sentence of life without parole." (Claudia Van Wyk, Designated Counsel; Jean D. Barrett, Lawrence S. Lustberg, and Jonathan L. Hafetz, Designated Counsels [on the brief])
http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a2810-07Redacted.pdf
CRIMINAL DEFENSE AND APPEAL ATTORNEYS
State v. Samuel Siligato, unpublished opinion, App. Div. Docket No. A-0603-06T1 (September 3, 2009) - Case remanded for evidentiary hearing. "[D]efendant argues that ... a new trial is required because defendant's trial attorney or his firm 'represented three important adverse trial witnesses'.... The argument is premised on the fact that his trial attorney, Louis Barbone, also represented Gary, Franks, Will and Gary Dixon, Jr.... The State now contends that 'the potential for actual conflict at trial' was eliminated in this case because defense counsel's representation of the State's witnesses 'ended well before the start of defendant's jury trial in May 2006.' However, that contention is not supported by the record and was not the State's position at times before the trial court. It appears that Barbone continued to represent defendant after the witness tampering charges were filed while his firm, at least technically, remained the attorney of record for two of the affected witnesses, Gary and Willy, and another key witness for the State, Angela Davis. Through the trial, it continued to represent one of the affected witnesses, Willy, in a matter on appeal.... [T]he Sixth Amendment right to conflict-free counsel, and the possible impact of Barbone's representation on the testimony of his other clients, necessitate a remand for an evidentiary hearing as to whether a new trial is warranted on that basis. In addition, the judge should take evidence and consider defendant's knowledge of any conflict, its impact and whether he waived the conflict by his actions. While the 'appearance of impropriety' may no longer be a basis for discipline of a lawyer, it should be considered in connection with the perception of a conflict of interest and a fair trial." (David A. Ruhnke)
http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a0603-06.pdf
Continue reading "NJ Criminal Appeal Law Highlights (September 09)" »