STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JOSE SANTOS (96-09-1980, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-3059-19

Background:

In 1997 a jury convicted Jose Santos of murder, robbery and related offenses; he was sentenced to life plus a consecutive 20-year term with 40 years of parole ineligibility; convictions were previously affirmed on appeal.
In 2009 Santos sought post-conviction DNA testing of hairs and blood-stained gloves; the trial court denied the request in a one-page order without addressing statutory factors; the Appellate Division vacated and remanded for compliance with N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-32a and to determine whether samples existed.
The State located the hair, gloves, victim samples, and the knife and scissors recovered from a dumpster; Santos provided hair and buccal samples for comparison and the NJSP Lab retested in 2016.
Laboratory results: Santos was excluded from most blood samples on the gloves; the victim was the major contributor to the blood on the knife and scissors; Santos’ DNA matched material from the victim’s fingernail clippings (profile rarity reported ~1 in 29.8 billion in the Hispanic population).
Santos moved for a new trial in 2019 based on the DNA results. Trial Judge Waldman denied the motion in a written opinion, concluding the DNA results would not probably change the jury’s verdict; Santos appealed.
The trial record contained Santos’ confession and multiple corroborating facts (location of weapons, mattress moved as described, victim’s pockets turned inside out and money taken, Santos’ fingerprint on bag with weapons, eyewitness placing Santos at the dumpster).

Issues:

Issue	State's Argument	Santos' Argument	Held
Whether post-verdict DNA results constitute newly discovered evidence warranting a new trial	DNA did not exculpate; absence of Santos’ DNA on some items is not probative; fingernail match is inculpatory; overwhelming corroboration means verdict would not likely change	Absence of his DNA on gloves/knife/scissors undermines State’s case; fingernail match can be explained by attempting to resuscitate; confession coerced	Denied. DNA results fail the newly-discovered-evidence test because they would not probably change the jury’s verdict given the confession and strong corroborating evidence

Key Cases Cited

State v. Armour, [citation="446 N.J. Super. 295"] (App. Div. 2016) (post-verdict testing must be weighed against compelling proofs presented by the State)
State v. Szemple, [citation="247 N.J. 82"] (2021) (articulating the three-prong newly-discovered-evidence test)
State v. Nash, [citation="212 N.J. 518"] (2013) (prongs one and three of newly-discovered-evidence test are intertwined)
State v. Ways, [citation="180 N.J. 171"] (2004) (all three prongs must be satisfied to obtain a new trial)
State v. Russo, [citation="333 N.J. Super. 119"] (App. Div. 2000) (new-trial motions rest in the sound discretion of the trial court)
State v. Reldan, [citation="373 N.J. Super. 396"] (App. Div. 2004) (affirming denial of DNA testing where no reasonable probability of changing verdict)
State v. Artis, [citation="36 N.J. 538"] (1962) (standards for appellate review of trial court discretion)