STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JAMAL SPEIGHTS (14-01-0046, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-3661-19

Background:

Jamal Speights was charged with two counts of second-degree robbery and one count of fourth-degree unlawful possession of a prescription legend drug; convicted of one robbery count and acquitted on the drug charge; sentenced to 8 years subject to NERA.
At the scene officers observed Speights allegedly pocketing a victim's wallet and dropping an orange pill bottle; officers chased and arrested him and recovered a wallet, cash, and a cell phone from his possession during arrest processing; those items were later returned to the victim and not preserved as evidence.
Trial raised issues about the police returning the victim's wallet and phone (potential spoliation), an allegedly inattentive juror (juror no. 5), and Speights’ decision not to testify after consulting counsel and the court.
Speights filed a pro se PCR petition claiming ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel for (a) failing to seek a spoliation/adverse-inference instruction, (b) failing to question juror no. 5 further, and (c) preventing him from testifying; appellate counsel likewise was alleged ineffective for not raising these issues on direct appeal.
The PCR court denied the spoliation/adverse-inference and juror-attentiveness claims without an evidentiary hearing, found a prima facie claim regarding the right to testify and ordered a limited hearing; after a hearing the judge found Speights not credible, concluded he knowingly waived his right to testify, and denied relief; the Appellate Division affirmed.

Issues:

Issue	State's Argument	Speights' Argument	Held
1. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for advising Speights not to testify	Counsel exercised sound strategy; judge properly questioned waiver on record	Counsel failed to prepare/advice him and effectively denied his right to testify	Denied—court found credible record that Speights knowingly and voluntarily waived and counsel was not ineffective
2. Whether police spoliation (wallet/phone) required adverse-inference instruction	No bad faith; items were inventoried and returned to victim; no constitutional violation	Return/loss deprived Speights of potentially exculpatory evidence and counsel should have requested adverse-inference charge	Denied—no bad faith, no prejudice, counsel reasonably litigated preservation issues at trial
3. Whether juror no. 5’s alleged dozing warranted new voir dire or mistrial	Trial judge thoroughly questioned juror outside presence of panel; juror said he heard everything	Juror appeared asleep during summation and charge, prejudicing trial	Denied—judge conducted appropriate inquiry, juror denied missing instructions, no abuse of discretion
4. Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising above issues on direct appeal	Appellate counsel need only raise issues with reasonable likelihood of success; these claims lacked merit on appeal	Appellate counsel should have raised spoliation, juror, and denial-of-testimony claims	Denied—claims lacked merit or were more properly pursued in PCR; no prejudice shown from appellate omissions

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 (applying Strickland standard in New Jersey)
State v. Bey, 161 N.J. 233 (defendant’s right to testify and counsel’s duty to advise)
State v. Dabas, 215 N.J. 114 (discussion of adverse-inference/spoliation instruction)
State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451 (PCR procedure and when issues belong in PCR vs. direct appeal)