STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. AL-SHAREEF METZ (12-06-1491 AND 12-06-1492, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-4030-14T4
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Nov 16, 2017Background
- Defendant Al-Shareef Metz was convicted by a jury of murder and related weapons offenses for the 2011 killing of Tariq Walker; the only evidence linking him to the crime were out-of-court identifications/statements by two witnesses who recanted at trial.
- Witness T.J. initially selected a photo (not defendant) in a recorded photo array, but later the same night crossed out that signature and signed a different photo (defendant); the recording of the first identification was lost and no written summary was produced.
- Police involvement in the second identification included Detective Kelly (not an independent administrator), and T.J. testified she felt intimidated by police after hours in custody and later expressed fear about testifying.
- Witness K.L. gave recorded statements implicating defendant but testified at trial he was coerced; the trial court held a Gross hearing, admitted K.L.'s recorded statements/grand jury testimony, but a separate recorded conversation between K.L. and defense counsel (Bashir) was not admitted.
- During summation the prosecutor characterized witnesses as being in a "cocoon" and urged the jury to accept K.L.'s statements to Bashir as truthful despite that conversation not being in evidence; the court failed to give a limiting instruction clarifying the restricted purpose of the Bashir remarks.
- The court read back to the jury "the entire testimony" of T.J. during deliberations, but defense and prosecution agreed a re‑cross question/answer was omitted; the court declined to retrieve the backup recording or accept a stipulation and told the jury the official record was complete.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Metz) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by not holding an evidentiary (Wade/Henderson) hearing and by admitting T.J.'s out-of-court photo identifications despite a lost first recording and possible suggestiveness | State argued defense did not timely file a Wade motion and that the court could resolve admissibility without a full hearing; State sought admission of the second ID | Defense argued the lost recording and suggestive procedures (detective prompting, lack of independent administrator) required a hearing and suppression of identification | Court held the trial court erred by failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing and make findings; remand for hearing on admissibility and potential taint under Manson/Madison framework (pre-Henderson rule applicable) |
| Admissibility/use of K.L.'s prior statements and the Gross hearing determination | State argued it established reliability by a preponderance at Gross hearing and properly admitted K.L.'s recorded statements/grand jury testimony under N.J.R.E. 803(a)(1) | Defense argued K.L.'s statements were coerced, unreliable, and the State improperly used other out-of-court remarks | Court upheld the Gross hearing analysis and admission of K.L.'s recorded statements to detectives/grand jury (trial court did not abuse discretion on those rulings) |
| Prosecutor's closing argument: reading/invoking K.L.'s Bashir conversation (not admitted into evidence) and characterization of witness motivations | State contended argument was a permissible inference about witness credibility and inconsistencies | Defense contended prosecutor improperly urged the jury to accept out-of-court Bashir remarks as truth contrary to court ruling; court failed to give limiting instruction | Court found prosecutor improperly urged the jury to accept the Bashir remarks as true and the court failed to give a limiting instruction; error contributed to reversal |
| Jury read-back: court stated it read "entire" testimony though re-cross portion was omitted and declined to retrieve backup recording or secure stipulation | State agreed the read-back was complete per official reporter and did not press retrieval | Defense argued omission materially deprived jury of impeachment/clarifying evidence (T.J.'s fear was of police, not street retaliation) | Court held trial court abused discretion by failing to procure or stipulate to the omitted re-cross or obtain backup recording and by misinforming the jury the record was complete; error contributed to reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977) (set forth suggestiveness/reliability framework for photographic identifications)
- Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968) (early identification standards informing Manson)
- United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967) (right to pretrial identification hearing)
- State v. Madison, 109 N.J. 223 (1988) (New Jersey adoption of Manson factors and guidance on taint hearings)
- State v. Gross, 121 N.J. 1 (1990) (factors for assessing reliability of prior inconsistent statements and admission as substantive evidence)
- State v. Delgado, 188 N.J. 48 (2006) (supervisory rule requiring police to preserve identification dialogue and summaries when feasible)
- State v. Henderson, 208 N.J. 208 (2011) (reformed New Jersey framework for eyewitness ID admissibility; applied prospectively)
- State v. Michaels, 136 N.J. 299 (1994) (Wade hearing required when identification is crucial and threshold suggestiveness shown)
- State v. Weaver, 219 N.J. 131 (2014) (cumulative-error doctrine supports reversal when aggregated errors deny a fair trial)
- State v. Orecchio, 16 N.J. 125 (1954) (historical articulation of aggregate-error reversal principle)
Outcome: convictions reversed and remanded for a new trial; trial court on remand must hold an evidentiary hearing on T.J.'s identifications, determine admissibility and taint, and correct prior procedural errors.