STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. BRIDGETTE N. ARCHUT (13-11-3428, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)
A-5737-14T3
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | May 23, 2017Background
- Rafiq Saleem, a life‑sentenced NJSP inmate, was charged with *003 (assault with a weapon) after officers observed him swing a sock containing a lock at his cellmate during a fight; the sock/lock was recovered and photographed.
- A unit camera recorded Saleem swinging the sock; the recording was obtained but withheld from Saleem for security reasons (camera location unknown).
- Saleem was served the charge, received a counsel‑substitute, declined to call witnesses or make a statement, and pleaded not guilty.
- A disciplinary hearing officer (DHO) reviewed reports, the photocopy of the weapon, and summarized the video, found Saleem the aggressor, and imposed 15 days detention, 250 days administrative segregation, and loss of 250 days commutation.
- An administrative appeal arguing the charge should be downgraded to attempted assault and seeking leniency was denied; Saleem appealed to the Appellate Division.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for *003 assault with a weapon | Saleem: evidence is unsubstantial; he only swung and missed, no injury, charge should be attempted assault | DOC: camera, physical evidence (lock in sock), officer reports and victim statement provided substantial credible evidence | Court: Affirmed—substantial credible evidence supports finding of guilt |
| Withholding of video recording | Saleem: denial of ability to review possible exculpatory evidence required downgrading or other relief | DOC: video withheld for security (camera location); DHO summarized recording in decision so defense not impaired | Court: Affirmed—summary sufficed and due process preserved |
| Reliance on inmate silence / impartiality of hearing | Saleem: DHO relied on his silence in violation of rule prohibiting guilt based solely on silence; investigation was inadequate | DOC: silence considered with other evidence; investigation met regulatory requirements and Saleem declined to pursue witnesses/statements | Court: Affirmed—guilt was not predicated solely on silence; investigation adequate |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel‑substitute / self‑defense | Saleem: counsel‑substitute advised not to plead or testify; self‑defense claim would have succeeded | DOC: no claim raised administratively; even if considered, video and reports show Saleem was aggressor so self‑defense would fail | Court: Declined to consider unraised ineffective‑assistance claim; in any event claim fails on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Figueroa v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 414 N.J. Super. 186 (App. Div. 2010) (defines substantial‑evidence standard in prison disciplinary reviews)
- In re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644 (1999) (limits of appellate review of administrative decisions)
- Avant v. Clifford, 67 N.J. 496 (1975) (due process protections in prison disciplinary hearings)
- Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571 (1980) (standard for upsetting administrative determinations)
- Nieder v. Royal Indem. Ins. Co., 62 N.J. 229 (1973) (issues not raised below need not be considered on appeal)