STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. RYAN KEOGH, CINDY KEOGH AND DAVID KEOGH (19-05-0288, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-1623-20

Background

On Jan. 9, 2019 Terrence Coulanges was shot and killed at the Keoghs' residence; Ryan Keogh is indicted for murder and related offenses; his parents Cindy and David are indicted for hindering, false swearing, and endangering an injured victim.
All three gave statements to police the night of the shooting describing their actions and prior interactions with the victim; the State alleges many of those statements are false.
Independent evidence (neighbor video, cell‑phone geolocation, call logs) contradicts parts of the Keoghs’ timelines and suggests coordinated post‑shooting movement and communications.
The State originally obtained severance: Ryan’s trial was separated from his parents’ because the parents’ statements cross‑referenced Ryan and could not be redacted without prejudice (Bruton concern).
A successor judge granted defendants’ motion to rejoin trials after defendants waived Bruton objections and agreed they might stipulate to admission of certain statements; the State opposed rejoining, citing prejudice and a “reverse Bruton” strategy.
On appeal the Appellate Division reversed the rejoin order, finding the second judge failed to explain why he could cure the prior judge’s Bruton‑based concerns with instructions/evidentiary rulings and did not adequately weigh the State’s claimed prejudice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether successor judge abused discretion by rejoining trials over State's objection	Rejoining permits defendants to use each other's out‑of‑court statements to improperly bolster Ryan's self‑defense and prejudices the prosecution	Defendants waived Bruton and prefer judicial economy; jury instructions/evidentiary rulings can cure spillover	Reversed: judge abused discretion by rejoining without explaining why prior severance was incorrect or why instructions/evidentiary rulings would suffice
Effect of defendants' Bruton waiver on joinder question	Waiver does not eliminate the State's right to seek severance where joinder would prejudice prosecution	Waiver removes constitutional bar to joint trial and makes judicial economy decisive	Waiver is not dispositive; courts must still protect the State from prejudice and carefully assess admissibility and spillover risks
Whether completeness rule (N.J.R.E. 106) allows defendants to import exculpatory parts of co‑defendants' statements	State: completeness will not permit introduction of extraneous exculpatory hearsay that unduly bolsters a co‑defendant	Defendants: completeness and stipulations will permit necessary context	Court: completeness may be limited here; the judge should require party proffers before altering severance to assess actual risk of misuse
Standard for successor judge reconsidering interlocutory severance order	State: successor must identify error or changed circumstances justifying reversal	Defendants: successor owed no deference and could revisit earlier ruling	Court: successor owes respect but not deference; must explain how prior ruling erred or how the record changed before reversing

Key Cases Cited

Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (confession of non‑testifying co‑defendant that inculpates another is inadmissible)
State v. Young, 46 N.J. 152 (1965) (trial court should sever when effective redaction of a co‑defendant's statement is not feasible)
State v. Buonadonna, 122 N.J. 22 (1991) (defendant may waive Bruton‑based severance for tactical reasons)
Lombardi v. Masso, 207 N.J. 517 (2011) (successor judge should identify error or changed circumstances when reversing a prior interlocutory order)
State v. Brown, 118 N.J. 595 (1990) (joint trials generally promote efficiency and assessment of relative culpability)
Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (1987) (discusses limiting instructions and joint‑trial concerns)
United States v. Rubin, 609 F.2d 51 (2d Cir. 1979) (no automatic right to joint trial; government may object to joinder when prejudiced)
State v. Corsi, 86 N.J. 172 (1981) (discusses severance and other remedies to avoid Bruton problems)
State v. Lozada, 257 N.J. Super. 260 (App. Div. 1992) (explains rule of completeness factors for admitting additional portions of a statement)