Marrero v. Feintuch, 11 A.3d 891

Marrero was convicted of armed robbery; conviction reversed on appeal and retrial not pursued by State.
This is a professional negligence action against Marrero’s criminal defense counsel for alleged failures in investigation and alibi support.
During discovery, defendants subpoenaed Stenzer to depose him regarding the day of the robbery; Marrero moved to quash.
The trial court quashed the subpoena, ruling Stenzer’s testimony about guilt/innocence was irrelevant to the malpractice claim.
The appellate court reversed, holding Stenzer’s testimony could be relevant to liability and damages, and that discovery should be broadly permitted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Stenzer deposition is relevant to the malpractice claim	Stenzer's testimony could corroborate alibi evidence	Guilt/innocence is irrelevant to malpractice	Subpoena should not have been quashed; deposition relevance allowed
Whether guilt/innocence affects malpractice liability	Guilt status informs defendant's negligence	Guilt/innocence not controlling for malpractice	Guilt/innocence may be relevant to causation and damages; not dispositive, but permissible evidence
accrual rule and exoneration in malpractice actions	No need for actual innocence to pursue malpractice	Accrual depends on exoneration or relief outcomes	McKnight framework adopted that exoneration or relief can trigger accrual; not requiring actual innocence for liability

McKnight v. Office of Pub. Defender, 197 N.J. 180 (2008) (accrual does not begin until exoneration; nuanced approach to malpractice against criminal defense counsel)
Lieberman v. Emmons, 84 N.J. 325 (1980) (suit within a suit concept and evidentiary framework in malpractice actions)
Garcia v. Kozlov, Seaton, Romanini & Brooks, P.C., 179 N.J. 343 (2004) (proposed alternatives to the traditional suit within a suit approach; use of expert testimony as an alternative)