State of New Jersey v. Christopher Mazzarisi, 114 A.3d 745

On Nov. 9–10, 2011, after a girlfriend reported defendant Mazzarisi fired a gun at her, police executed a search warrant at his home, seized a rifle and shell casing, and charged him with multiple offenses.
The next day Mazzarisi surrendered to police with his attorney (Plaza); Detective Hernando activated an audio/video recorder in the interview room and left attorney and client alone while recording for about ten minutes.
The recording captured some nonstrategic remarks (discussion of possible drug use, comments about defendant being a "decent kid who made a mistake"). Recording violated Monmouth County policy requiring tapes be turned off during private attorney-client discussions.
Hernando testified he intentionally turned the recorder on as standard procedure and later said other officers (Ackerson, Kret) knew it was on; the State presented Hernando to the grand jury but did not use recorded content in that presentation.
Defendant moved to suppress three officers (Hernando, Ackerson, Kret) and to dismiss the indictment; the trial court excluded the three and dismissed the indictment without prejudice. The Appellate Division affirmed exclusion of witnesses and suppression of recorded content but reversed the dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether recording attorney-client conversation was intentional	Recording was unintentional or routine policy; not prosecutorial misconduct	Hernando intentionally left recorder on and left attorney/client alone	Recording was intentional (Hernando intentionally activated recorder and left them recorded)
Whether recording violated the Sixth Amendment (prejudice inquiry)	No prejudice: no trial strategy revealed; nothing from tape used in grand jury or investigation	Tape intrusion harmed attorney-client confidentiality and risked prejudice	No Sixth Amendment violation — recorded content did not reveal trial strategy nor produce evidence used against defendant
Proper remedy for police misconduct absent Sixth Amendment violation	No remedy needed beyond policy compliance if no prejudice	Exclude tainted evidence/witnesses; possibly dismiss indictment	Tailored remedy required: suppress tape-derived information and exclude primarily tainted witnesses; dismissal not warranted because grand jury presentation was untainted
Whether Ackerson and Kret are "primarily tainted" and must be disqualified	State: their disqualification was arbitrary; they did not participate in the recording intentionally	Defendant: both knew tape was on and are therefore tainted and must be excluded	State failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt Ackerson and Kret were free of taint; they must be excluded along with Hernando

State v. Sugar, 84 N.J. 1 (addressing illegal eavesdropping on attorney-client consultations and prescribing exclusion of tainted witnesses and evidence)
State v. Sugar, 100 N.J. 214 (clarifying that persons who participated in or had first‑hand knowledge of an illegal intercept are disqualified as witnesses)
Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545 (holding not every intrusion on attorney-client relationship automatically violates Sixth Amendment)
United States v. Noriega, 764 F. Supp. 1480 (describing factors to assess prejudice from government intrusion: intent, nature of information obtained, and use of information)
United States v. Morrison, 449 U.S. 361 (remedies for constitutional violations should be tailored to the injury)
State v. Smith, 212 N.J. 365 (prosecutor "in no better position than" absent illegality; supports tailored remedies)