State of New Jersey v. Michael Atkinson, A-2442-22/A-3419-22

Defendants Michael Atkinson and Shaquille John were convicted and pled guilty to aggravated manslaughter related to an armed robbery and shooting at an Elizabeth, New Jersey bodega, after a police investigation triggered by an anonymous caller.
Police responded to a report of gunshots and suspicious activity from an anonymous woman, leading them to evidence at a residence and ultimately to a motel where critical firearm evidence was recovered.
The defendants previously moved to suppress evidence found in the motel room, arguing the police lacked probable cause based on anonymous information; their motion was denied and affirmed on appeal.
Both defendants filed post-conviction relief (PCR) petitions, alleging ineffective assistance of plea counsel for failing to seek the identity and credibility of the anonymous caller, contending this information was critical to challenge the search and potentially result in more favorable outcomes.
The trial court denied the PCR petitions without holding an evidentiary hearing, finding defendants failed to establish a prima facie case for ineffective assistance under the Strickland standard, and the Appellate Division affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiffs' Argument	Defendants' Argument	Held
Was counsel ineffective for not seeking the caller’s ID?	Defendants argue ID of caller was vital to defense	Police could have/were required to identify caller to test veracity and credibility	No; privilege applies and no strong factual showing of need
Does N.J.R.E. 516 compel disclosure of the caller?	Disclosure necessary because caller was key witness	Anonymous informant's identity essential for fair determination of suppression motion	No; evidence corroborated and privilege not overcome
Was there prejudice under Strickland?	Would have rejected plea/gone to trial if caller ID’d	Outcome (suppression or plea deal) would have changed with more on informant's reliability	No; no reasonable probability outcome would differ
Was an evidentiary hearing warranted?	Defendants entitled to hearing due to allegations	Need factual development to test reasons for counsel’s decisions	No; failure to show prima facie case under Strickland

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (sets standard for ineffective assistance of counsel—deficiency and prejudice prongs)
Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957) (establishes informant’s privilege and exception when disclosure is essential to a fair trial)
State v. Milligan, 71 N.J. 373 (1976) (explains purpose and scope of the informant’s privilege in New Jersey)