Twenty-Five years ago, an individual was shot in Atlantic City. In 2004, the accused was finally brought to trial.  That trial resulted in a hung jury.  The second trial resulted in a mistrial that occurred when the government failed to disclose that one of its witnesses was a paid informer.  In the  third trial, the defendant was convicted.  The defendant was sentenced to 65 years in prison.  The case was most notably for the government’s use of a variety of unsavory witnesses, including one or two who recanted prior testimony that the defendant was the murderer.

Prior to the first trial, the government moved the trial court to issue a protective order preventing the defendant from obtaining access to a number of documents in its file.  The government’s position was that it did not intend to use the witnesses identified in these documents and that these witnesses needed to be protected from the defendant.  The application was granted.  The case proceeded to trial and, as explained, the defendant was convicted.
                   
This month, an appellate court in New Jersey reversed that conviction on a variety of grounds.  The most important of which was the trial court’s decision to prohibit the turn-over of the documents subject of the protective order.  In its opinion, the court observed that there were “numerous pages” of relevant information that could have assisted the defendant in impeaching the credibility of various witnesses. The court also said that some of these documents could have helped defendant  develop his claim that the government’s delay in bringing this accusation to trial was a violation of a Speedy Trial Rights.

CRIMINAL LAW IN BERGEN AND PASSAIC COUNTIES:
THE RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL
(Part 2)