A Mercer County defendant's conviction was recently sustained when an appellate panel determined that there was no "fundamental unfairness” in a case where defendant met his lawyer for the first time on the date of the trial.

In the case, the defendant’s original public defender was removed and a new one appointed. Later, a trial date was rescheduled.  Although  the new attorney  received the file, reviewed it before the trial date and was ready to try the case, he was anxious to proceed because he had not yet met his client.  Resultantly,  he requested the court for an adjournment.  The trial court rejected the application and in the process said that the case was like "trying an intersection accident case as a civil trial attorney". The matter proceeded to a motion to suppress.  The next day trial began. Ultimately, defendant was convicted of the number of drug-related offenses including a third-degree possession of cocaine and possession with intent to distribute. He received a sentence of five years in prison.  Ultimately, he was paroled.

In affirming the conviction, the appellate panel noted that the new lawyer represented the defendant in various portions of the pretrial stage; that he knew about trial date; and that the new lawyer was able to review the file.

A dissenting judge found that the trial court's refusal to grant an adjournment "fundamentally impugned the integrity of the trial, casting a shadow of unfairness over the preceding that, in my view, can only be removed by the new trial".  This dissent can qualify this case for review by New Jersey’s Supreme Court.