If Only the Prosecutor Wasn’t There!
In State v. Brabham, the Appellate Division held that the trial court improperly admitted statements made by the defendant during a meeting with various police detectives and an assistant prosecutor from Middlesex County. The Court determined that the statements were made in the court of plea negotiations, and were therefore not admissible under New Jersey Rule of Evidence 410. Accordingly, the Appellate Division reversed the defendant’s conviction and remanded to the trial court for a new trial. This case illustrates that a New Jersey criminal defense lawyer needs to have a good understanding of the court rules and the rules of evidence to present the best possible defense.
Defendant was charged with various burglaries in New Jersey occurring in several counties. At trial, defendant was convicted of second-degree burglary in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2a(1), b(1), second-degree robbery in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1a, and fourth-degree theft in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:20-3a. Defendant was sentenced as a persistent offender on the robbery charge under N.J.S.A. 2C:44-3a to an eighteen year term of imprisonment, and a concurrent ten year term for the burglary charge. Defendant was also subject to periods of parole ineligibility and parole supervision under the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2
Defendant first met with detectives from New Jersey in April 2006. According to the testimony of the officers, during that meeting, defendant assured the officers that they had found the right person who had committed the various burglaries they were investigating and requested another meeting with one “State’s attorney” to go over all of the cases. Officers also testified that during a second meeting in May 2006, during which all of the detectives were present along with an assistant prosecutor, defendant asked each of the officers what town they were from, and then described in detail crimes he had committed in that town. At trial defendant denied making any of these statements.
The trial judge determined that the testimony of the officers was credible. With respect to the May 2006 meeting, the trial judge determined that the defendant called that meal in order to orchestrate a deal with respect to all of the charges in various counties. In addition, the trial court found that defendant had waived his rights under Miranda because every time officers tried to read the Miranda warnings to defendant, he interrupted them and told them that he knew his rights.
The Appellate Division first noted that the New Jersey common law privilege against self-incrimination provides greater protection than that accorded under the federal privilege pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona. Under the law of New Jersey, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the suspect’s waiver of the privilege against self-incrimination was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary in light of all of the circumstances.
The evidence the State used to meet this high burden in this case provided another ground for exclusion of the statements made by defendant at the May 2006 meeting. Specifically, under N.J.R.E. 410, “any statement made during plea negotiations…is not admissible in any civil or criminal proceedings against the person who made the plea or statement or who was the subject of the plea negotiations.” The evidence used by the State and the specific findings of the judge supported the defense’s position that defendant was trying to negotiate a plea during the May 2006 meeting. Therefore, those statements should not have been admitted. With respect to the statements made at the April 2006 meeting, the Appellate Division held that there was sufficient credible evidence for the trial judge’s finding that those statements were voluntary and not a product of interrogation, and therefore Miranda did not apply.
This case illustrates the importance of a New Jersey criminal defense lawyer having a good understanding of the Rules of Evidence in order to present a strong defense. Anyone charged with a crime in New Jersey should contact a New Jersey criminal defense lawyer for representation.
