Call Now For Help

732.580.1237

Defendant May Have Conviction Overturned

22
Dec
2010

by in Criminal Appeals, Criminal Defense

In this recent appeal, the defendant’s trial attorney failed to state why he was not moving to sever defendant’s trial from that of his codefendant. This omission has already won the defendant an evidentiary hearing and could possibly lead to the reversal of his conviction.

State v. Ruel Russell, unpublished opinion, App. Div. Docket No. A-3249-08T4 (October 8, 2010) – Denial of PCR reversed, case remanded for evidentiary hearing.

“[Defendant] argues that his trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to move for a severance, failed to consult an expert toxicology witness, and conceded guilt on all but one charge without his consent…. Having duly made the argument concerning his trial attorney’s failure to seek a severance – the reason for that omission not having been disclosed during trial – the judge should have permitted an evidentiary hearing so that defendant’s trial attorney’s reasons for failing to seek a severance could have been developed. Certainly, the contention that defendant’s position at trial was at odds with Scott’s is suggested by the evidence adduced at trial. At that time, Scott asserted the defense of duress and testified that defendant threatened his and his family’s wellbeing if he refused to cooperate in committing the crimes…. Second, defendant contends that his trial attorney was ineffective because he failed to consult an expert about whether the elemental mercury was lethal…. The State’s expert, Andrews, opined without objection that elemental mercury is a toxic, poisonous substance that is lethal and can be absorbed into the skin…. Andrews was the only expert to testify about the lethality of the elemental mercury in the syringes. In seeking post-conviction relief, defendant provided an expert report, which opined that the contents of the syringes were not lethal. Certainly, it would have been more advantageous to defendant to have called such an expert at trial to contradict Andrews’ opinions rather than to attempt to rebut Andrews’ opinions through cross-examination…. Third, defendant contends that his trial counsel was ineffective because counsel conceded guilt to the lesser charges without defendant’s consent…. And in his closing statement he said, ‘In regards to what happened in Asbury Park, I’m going to confine myself to the charge of attempted murder.’ On remand, counsel should explain why guilt was conceded on the lesser charges and whether defendant consented to this trial strategy. Without an evidentiary hearing, we are unable to determine why counsel conceded the lesser charges or whether defendant consented.”

LOCATIONS

*ALL LOCATIONS BY APPOINTMENT ONLY*

CALL NOW FOR HELP

732.580.1237

CONNECT WITH US

*No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey | Rating Methodology | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
The information contained in on this website is for general information purposes only. The information is provided by The Law Offices of Anthony J. Vecchio and while we endeavor to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to The Law Offices of Anthony J. Vecchio or the information, products, or services contained on www.anthonyvecchiolaw.com for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.
The results of verdicts and settlements mentioned herein are not typical. Case results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each case. Case results do not guarantee or predict a similar result in any future case.

Site by Consultwebs.com: Law Firm Website Designers / Criminal Defense/DWI Lawyer Marketing.