STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. D.J.D. (06-04-0370, CUMBERLAND COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED), A-0295-20

Background

Defendant (D.J.D.) was convicted of multiple counts of sexual assault and child endangerment for abusing three boys over ~3 years beginning when they were about 6–9; convictions were supported by testimony of the three victims and other witnesses.
Detective Sergeant Jasmin Calderon interviewed two boys who initially denied abuse; a third child disclosed in 2005, after which the other two provided detailed admissions.
At trial Calderon testified extensively about child-interview methods (Finding Words, RATAC) and Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS), including statistical evidence about non-disclosure; defense did not object and elicited some of Calderon’s testimony.
On direct appeal (D.D. I) and in defendant’s first PCR petition (D.D. II), the Appellate Division affirmed convictions and rejected challenges to Calderon’s testimony and to trial counsel’s failure to call experts.
In July 2019 defendant filed a second PCR petition relying on State v. J.L.G. (2018), which limits admissible CSAAS evidence; he argued the new rule entitled him to relief and that his petition was timely under the PCR rules.
The PCR court denied the second petition, concluding J.L.G.’s retroactivity (as applied in State v. G.E.P.) did not extend to cases like defendant’s that exhausted direct review before J.L.G.; the Appellate Division affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant's second PCR timely and invokes a new, retroactive rule (J.L.G.) under Rule 3:22-4	Petition is untimely for pipeline retroactivity: defendant exhausted direct review in 2014, before J.L.G. (2018)	J.L.G. announced a new constitutional rule made retroactive; petition filed within one year of when rights were recognized	Denied — defendant’s case outside pipeline retroactivity; petition fails timeliness/retroactivity requirement
Whether CSAAS testimony at trial requires a new trial under J.L.G.	Trial issues were previously raised/adjudicated; Calderon’s testimony did not deprive defendant of a fair trial given overwhelming evidence	CSAAS testimony (and statistical evidence) was improper under J.L.G. and likely affected the verdict	Denied — claim barred by prior adjudication and no reasonable likelihood of unfair trial
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to call expert witnesses to rebut CSAAS	Prior PCR rejected ineffectiveness; defense had planned experts and elicited similar testimony through Calderon	Counsel was ineffective and prejudice requires relief	Denied — previously adjudicated and insufficient to establish prejudice
Whether procedural doctrines (e.g., Rule 3:22-5, Nieder/Arthur) bar reconsideration	Prior adjudications are conclusive; issues not raised below are forfeited	New rule J.L.G. creates exception allowing collateral review	Denied — procedural bars apply; J.L.G. retroactivity does not overcome them in this case

Key Cases Cited

State v. J.L.G., 234 N.J. 265 (2018) (New Jersey Supreme Court rule limiting admissible CSAAS expert testimony to delayed disclosure)
State v. G.E.P., 458 N.J. Super. 436 (App. Div. 2019) (granted pipeline retroactivity to J.L.G. under limited circumstances)
State v. Goodwin, 173 N.J. 583 (2002) (post-conviction relief analogous to federal habeas corpus)
State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451 (1992) (discussing habeas-like role of PCR proceedings)
State v. Nash, 212 N.J. 518 (2013) (PCR as a defendant’s last chance to challenge verdict fairness)
Nieder v. Royal Indem. Ins. Co., 62 N.J. 229 (1973) (issues not raised below ordinarily not considered on appeal)
State v. Arthur, 184 N.J. 307 (2005) (applying procedural default doctrines to PCR appeals)