State of New Jersey v. Edward Peoples
141 A.3d 350
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2016Background
- Edward Peoples was indicted for and convicted of murder and related weapons offenses stemming from the 2006 killing of Rahman Jenkins; he received a 65-year NJ term with an 85% parole disqualifier.
- Trial counsel Paul W. Bergrin later was suspended and ultimately federally convicted for unrelated offenses; defendant alleges Bergrin steered witness-tampering and other misconduct.
- While incarcerated, Peoples engaged in witness tampering (letters, threats, recruiting inmates) which the court found and several witnesses corroborated; no witness implicated Bergrin in the tampering.
- The State moved to disqualify Bergrin based primarily on a letter from Peoples to a witness; the trial court denied disqualification and admitted the letter as evidence of guilt.
- Peoples filed a PCR petition claiming ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) based on (a) counsel’s alleged involvement in or encouragement of witness tampering and fabrication of witnesses, (b) failure to object to jury access to videotaped statements, and (c) other alleged failures; the PCR court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing.
- On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed, holding Peoples failed to make a prima facie showing of IAC and concluding that a defendant who participates in or acquiesces to counsel’s illegal or unethical conduct cannot obtain IAC relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Peoples) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Peoples established IAC based on counsel allegedly advising/participating in witness tampering | PCR denial: no competent evidence counsel was involved; defendant’s own tampering evident | Bergrin gave illegal/ unethical advice to tamper and recruited false witnesses; counsel’s conduct deprived him of effective assistance | Denied — no evidence linking Bergrin to tampering; even if involved, a defendant who participates or acquiesces to counsel’s illegal conduct is not entitled to IAC relief |
| Whether Bergrin had a conflict of interest requiring reversal | Conflict claim barred/meritless because no contemporaneous indictment or prosecution by same office; defendant waived representation choice | Bergrin’s subsequent federal indictment and suspension show conflict compromising representation | Denied — no per se conflict (no contemporaneous indictment by same prosecutor); Peoples waived any conflict by wanting Bergrin to continue |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not objecting to jury having videotaped statements during deliberations | Court: procedure not shown to be erroneous under then-law; no prejudice shown | Jury had unfettered access to videotapes; counsel should have objected and been ineffective for failing to preserve error | Denied — procedurally barred or meritless; no prima facie prejudice shown |
| Whether rejection of an alleged plea offer entitles Peoples to relief | No evidence State ever made the claimed plea offer | Bergrin assured defendant to reject plea because witnesses would disappear/manufactured alibis, causing rejection of plea | Denied — no evidence a plea offer existed; claim rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 (New Jersey adoption of Strickland two-prong test)
- State v. Cottle, 194 N.J. 449 (conflict-of-interest framework and per se conflict discussion)
- State v. Taccetta, 200 N.J. 183 (denying IAC relief where defendant would have pled guilty to a false plea; attorney misconduct cannot be used to validate perjury or fraud on the court)