State v. Lixandra Hernandez and Jose Sanchez(075444), 139 A.3d 46

Background

Defendants Hernandez and Sanchez are charged with multiple cocaine-distribution offenses based primarily on three recorded controlled buys by a cooperating witness (the Witness).
The Witness had a broad cooperation/plea agreement with the State tied to substantial sentence reductions contingent on "productive" cooperation and "successful prosecutions" in multiple unrelated investigations.
Between the controlled buys and defendants’ arrest, the Witness cooperated in numerous other drug/gang investigations; some of those investigations remain non-public or unresolved.
Defense sought extensive discovery from the State’s files in those unrelated matters (statements, interview summaries, recordings, investigative reports, emails, privilege log).
Trial court (and Appellate Division) ordered disclosure of many documents from the unrelated files (with redactions and a protective order); State appealed.
New Jersey Supreme Court reversed: defendants are not entitled to unfettered discovery of unrelated investigatory files merely because the same cooperating witness participated across cases; only specified materials must be produced now.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Scope of Rule 3:13-3(b) — may defense obtain unrelated-case files because same cooperating witness appeared?	State: Rule does not authorize rummaging through unrelated case files lacking relevance; producing them is an unprecedented fishing expedition and endangers informant safety.	Defendants: Open-file doctrine and Brady permit broad inspection; unrelated files likely contain impeachment/exculpatory material (benefits, inconsistent statements, prior false accusations).	Reversed disclosure. Rule 3:13-3(b) is broad but does not permit unfocused searches of unrelated files; only cooperation agreements and known material false statements are required now.
Impeachment via prior statements — may defense use specific prior inconsistent statements from other cases to impeach credibility?	State: Many prior statements are irrelevant or inadmissible under N.J.R.E. 608; disclosure not required absent specific showing.	Defendants: Prior statements from other matters likely reveal inconsistencies and bias; defense needs to search to find impeachment.	Held: Specific-instance evidence of untruthfulness (other than convictions) is generally inadmissible under N.J.R.E. 608; generalized, speculative searches are not authorized.
Refreshing recollection / N.J.R.E. 612 — must State produce potentially usable writings from other investigations to refresh witness memory?	State: Vague requests not sufficient; production must be tied to threshold relevance or specific need.	Defendants: Records may be needed to refresh Witness’s recollection and should be produced.	Held: Unsupported, vague requests do not meet relevance threshold; no open-ended right to unrelated materials for Rule 612 purposes.
Informant’s privilege / witness safety — does safety risk allow the State to withhold identity or related documents?	State: Informant privilege and safety concerns justify refusing disclosure of identifying materials in unrelated investigations.	Defendants: Identity largely known in this prosecution and other cases; redactions and protective order mitigate risk.	Held: Informant privilege applies; disclosure of Witness identity in unrelated files is not necessary at this stage and risk of harm favors nondisclosure absent a concrete showing of need.

Key Cases Cited

Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (government must disclose deals and promises that could affect witness credibility)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (due process requires disclosure of material favorable evidence)
Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (informant privilege balancing test)
State v. Carter, 69 N.J. 420 (disclosure of material affecting witness credibility)
State v. Guenther, 181 N.J. 129 (limitations on proving untruthfulness by specific instances of conduct)
State v. Scoles, 214 N.J. 236 (describing New Jersey’s open-file discovery approach)
State ex rel. A.B., 219 N.J. 542 (trial courts may order discovery beyond rules when necessary for fairness)