256 A.3d 1035
N.J.2021Background
- June 7, 1993 double homicide of Angel Salazar and Luis Flores; William LaCue (co-defendant) pleaded guilty and testified implicating Wilbert Hannah as a shooter. Forensic testimony raised timing/angle questions about who fired which shots.
- Investigative (Redd) Report—disclosed in discovery but not used at trial—recorded that a pager number found on a bloody scrap in a victim’s pocket reached Maurice Thomas when called.
- Mary Jones (Thomas’s mother) gave out-of-jury (Rule 104) testimony recounting multiple statements by Thomas that tended to implicate him and suggested a motive to frame Hannah; that testimony was excluded at trial after defense counsel argued only the co-conspirator exception (N.J.R.E. 803(b)(5)), not the statement-against-interest rule (N.J.R.E. 803(c)(25)).
- Prosecutor repeatedly told the jury there was “not a scintilla” linking Thomas to the murders; defense counsel did not object or present the Redd Report or rely on 803(c)(25).
- After many rounds of direct appeal and four PCR proceedings over roughly 14 years, the New Jersey Supreme Court held defense counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to introduce the Redd Report and to invoke 803(c)(25), vacated Hannah’s convictions, and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Hannah) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Redd Report/pager information was newly discovered or was in counsel’s file | The report was disclosed; defense could have found the connection earlier; evidence wouldn’t change outcome | The Redd Report was newly revealed to Hannah in 2007 and would have materially supported third-party guilt | Court accepted prior PCR finding that counsel likely had the report but treated the core claim as ineffective assistance rather than newly discovered evidence; reviewed prejudice analysis |
| Admissibility of Thomas’s mother’s testimony under N.J.R.E. 803(c)(25) (statement-against-interest) | The statements were not both inculpatory of Thomas and exculpatory of Hannah and included hearsay layers; thus inadmissible | The statements were against Thomas’s penal interest and admissible to show third-party guilt; 803(c)(25) does not require the declarant to be the accused | Court held 803(c)(25) permits admission of statements against penal interest by a non-defendant and that Jones’s testimony consisted of admissible statements against Thomas’s interest |
| Whether trial counsel’s failure to use the Redd Report or invoke 803(c)(25) was constitutionally deficient | Failure was strategic or harmless because the Redd Report also contained inculpatory material and State’s case was strong | Counsel’s omission was not reasonable strategy; omission deprived Hannah of the opportunity to present a complete third‑party‑guilt defense | Court held counsel’s performance was objectively deficient and not a plausible strategic choice given importance to the defense |
| Prejudice/fundamental injustice and procedural bars to PCR relief | Relief is barred or unwarranted because evidence does not undermine strong verdict and procedural rules should preserve finality | Denial of the evidence and counsel’s failures produced a fundamental injustice by preventing presentation of a full defense | Court found prejudice under Strickland/Fritz — reasonable probability of a different outcome; procedural bars do not prevent relief for fundamental injustice; conviction vacated and new trial remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance standard)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecution’s duty to disclose favorable evidence)
- State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 (applying Strickland under New Jersey Constitution)
- State v. Nash, 212 N.J. 518 (PCR fundamental-injustice analysis)
- State v. Carter, 85 N.J. 300 (newly discovered evidence standard)
- State v. Cope, 224 N.J. 530 (right to present third-party-guilt evidence)
- State v. Pierre, 223 N.J. 560 (evaluating prejudice and counsel performance)
- State v. White, 158 N.J. 230 (statements against penal interest admissibility)