Trial Practice and Procedure

John Mahoney shot and killed his father. He was subsequently indicted for first-degree murder, weapons offenses and hindering apprehension, and the case proceeded to trial. His defense was battered child syndrome – his actions toward his father were motivated by the latter’s physical and emotional abuse. The jury convicted him of, among other things, first-degree aggravated manslaughter.

During deliberations, the jury sent the judge an unsolicited note saying, in part, that Mahoney should have significant therapy. Shortly after the verdict, a juror wrote to Mahoney saying that he should have a second chance in life. Mahoney responded, and the juror wrote him another letter saying that she struggled emotionally about the facts of the case. This juror then wrote a letter to the judge that revealed the mental impressions of the jury, and stated further that this was a complicated and emotionally difficult case. The juror asked the judge to place Mahoney on probation and require him to undergo extensive mental health therapy.

A second juror also wrote to Mahoney, the judge and defense counsel. This letter also revealed the jury’s mental impressions, as well as that juror’s own issues with the case. This juror apparently spoke to the other juror that wrote to Mahoney, and stated that s/he planned to contact defense counsel and write to the judge. Significantly, the second juror stated that the jury was conflicted in convicting Mahoney of aggravated manslaughter. Like the first juror, this juror believed that Mahoney needed treatment as opposed to punishment. S/he also wrote to defense counsel on behalf of several jurors. This letter revealed the jury’s deliberative mental impressions, and indicated that the jury wanted Mahoney to receive treatment rather than punishment. Continue reading ›

On July 2, 2009, at 11:30 pm, a car pulled up next to a woman who was walking to her home in Jersey City. The passenger got out, approached her, tapped her hip with a gun, and asked for her phone. The woman surrendered her purse which contained her phone and other valuable items. She ran to a police station to report the crime. While there, a patrol unit had stopped a car matching the description she gave police. She was driven to the scene to view the car and the two occupants, but said that neither was the robber. A few hours later, officers spotted another car matching the description of a car involved in several robberies in Jersey City that night. The police stopped the car and discovered three individuals inside. The occupants gave conflicting stories when questioned, and were taken to the police station and photographed.

Three days later, a detective asked the victim to come to the station to attempt to try to identify the robber from photobooks. The photos of two of the three individuals removed from the second car, including that of the defendant, were placed in the photobooks before the victim saw them. The victim selected defendant’s photo, saying that she was “pretty positive” he had robbed her. The victim also viewed the vehicle, and said that it “looked like” the car from the robbery. Based on this, defendant was arrested.

Six weeks after the robbery, the police arrested Stebbin Drew, who resembled the defendant, and found the victim’s cell phone in his possession. A State Trooper called the victim in August to tell her this. The victim told the assistant prosecutor about this call more than one year later during jury selection in defendant’s trial. The assistant prosecutor told defense counsel about the call on the morning of the second day of trial. The State called the victim as its first witness and, during cross-examination, defense counsel asked the victim about the Trooper’s call. Counsel then moved for a mistrial, asserting that he had been denied exculpatory information. The trial judge denied the motion. During a subsequent discussion about a State Police report that the prosecutor’s office had located which noted that Drew possessed the victim’s cell phone when he was arrested, defense counsel renewed his motion for a mistrial. The trial court again denied the motion. The victim viewed Drew’s arrest photo during further testimony, and stated that he was not the robber. The jury convicted defendant of, among other things, armed robbery, and the trial court imposed a 20-year term with an 85% parole disqualifier subject to the No-Early-Release Act. Continue reading ›

Articles Posted in Trial Practice and Procedure

State v. Mahoney – NJ Appellate Panel Rules that Deliberating Jurors Cannot Speak at Sentencing

State v. Smith – NJ Supreme Court Decision Sets Some Parameters for Declaring Mistrial or Granting Continuance Because of Newly Discovered Evidence that the Prosecutor Failed to Disclose to Defense Counsel Until After Commencement of Trial