State v. Duquene Pierre(072859), 127 A.3d 1260

Background

In March 1994 a drive-by shooting in Elizabeth, NJ killed one man and wounded another; several associates of Duquene Pierre were implicated. Pierre was arrested after police found a South Carolina speeding ticket in his car dated March 19, 1994 (11:34 p.m.), ~4 hours before the March 20 shooting.
Pierre asserted an alibi that he and a codefendant were driving to Florida; trial counsel introduced the SC speeding ticket and a single page of the girlfriend Yashonda Reid’s phone bill (a collect call from SC at 12:32 a.m. March 20) and called Reid, but did not call other Florida relatives, Kirby or Astrid Pierre, or introduce the remainder of the phone records.
The State argued that Pierre’s brother Kirby, not Pierre, received the SC ticket and made the calls from Florida; only one eyewitness (ten months later) placed Pierre at the scene; other identifications implicated codefendants more strongly.
Pierre was convicted of murder and related offenses and sentenced to 60 years (35 years parole ineligibility). He sought post-conviction relief (PCR) claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to investigate and present alibi witnesses and additional phone records.
After multiple evidentiary hearings and appellate review, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that trial counsel’s combined failures (not interviewing/calling Kirby and Astrid, not introducing the full phone records, and not developing Florida-witness testimony) fell below professional standards and prejudiced the defense, warranting a new trial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel’s omission of additional alibi witnesses and records constituted deficient performance	State argued counsel made a reasonable strategic choice to rely on the objective ticket and avoid potentially inconsistent relative testimony	Pierre argued counsel failed to investigate/call key witnesses (Kirby, Astrid, Florida relatives) and omitted phone records that would bolster the alibi	Court: Counsel’s choice to center the defense on the ticket was reasonable, but counsel was deficient for not developing/rebutting the State’s Kirby theory (failing to interview/call Kirby/Astrid and not introducing full phone records)
Whether counsel’s deficiencies prejudiced the defense (Strickland prejudice prong)	State argued evidence against the alibi was strong and additional witnesses/records would not likely change outcome	Pierre argued the State’s case against him was weak and a developed alibi would have created reasonable doubt	Court: Prejudice shown — given sparse, equivocal evidence implicating Pierre and the inconclusive attack on the ticket, a fully developed alibi likely would have produced a different result
Proper deference to PCR factfinding and credibility assessments	State urged appellate deference to PCR court’s credibility findings that relatives were unreliable	Pierre emphasized trial record gaps and that PCR evidentiary development undermined State’s theory	Court: Afforded deference to factual findings where supported, but reviewed legal application de novo and found PCR court’s legal conclusion (no ineffective assistance) erroneous given the record
Remedy — whether conviction should be vacated and remanded for new trial	State argued errors were not prejudicial so no new trial necessary	Pierre sought vacation of conviction and new trial	Court: Reversed Appellate Division, vacated conviction, and remanded for new trial due to Sixth Amendment ineffective assistance violation

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance: deficient performance + prejudice)
State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 (1987) (New Jersey adoption of Strickland standard)
State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451 (1992) (PCR as New Jersey’s analogue to federal habeas and standards for PCR relief)
State v. Nash, 212 N.J. 518 (2013) (deference to PCR court credibility findings; standard of review for PCR factual findings)