New Jersey Supreme Court Decision – Criminal Law (Discovery Rules and Privilege)

On March 5, 2024, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided State v. Isaiah J. Knight (A-39-22), 256 N.J. 404 (2024), which held that affidavits constituting physical evidence of the crimes of witness tampering and kidnapping are subject to reciprocal discovery under New Jersey’s discovery rules, Rule 3:13-3(b)(2)(B) and (D). The Court addressed the question of whether the State could compel defense counsel to turn over two affidavits connected to witness tampering and kidnapping for which the defendant Isaiah J. Knight and others were charged.

Facts and Procedural History of the New Jersey Discovery Rules Case

The case stems from the June 1, 2021, fatal shooting of a man in Newark. Two men, Zay and DJ Neptune, witnessed the shooting. Both witnesses identified Knight as the shooter in sworn statements and later selected Knight’s photograph from a photo array. However, Zay was allegedly later forced by three individuals, including two masked men armed with guns, to recant his prior sworn statements by copying and signing a prepared affidavit stating that he had lied in identifying defendant Knight under duress from detectives.

The following day, Zay went to the Prosecutor’s Office and gave a second sworn statement describing the prior evening’s events, and identified defendant Knight’s sister and cousin as two of the perpetrators. They were subsequently charged with witness tampering. The grand jury returned a superseding indictment adding charges of conspiracy to commit witness tampering and kidnapping against Knight.

The State filed a motion to compel discovery of the document Zay was allegedly forced to write, believing that Knight’s co-conspirators had given it to his counsel. In support of the motion the State also submitted a certification alleging that the other witness, DJ Neptune, may also have been forced to transcribe a similar recantation and that defense counsel might possess that document as well. The trial court granted the State’s motion. The Appellate Division affirmed.

Discovery of Physical Evidence Under New Jersey Discovery Rules

The New Jersey Supreme Court granted defendant Knight’s motion for leave to appeal on the question of whether the State can obtain from defense counsel an affidavit that constitute physical evidence of a crime under New Jersey’s reciprocal discovery rule. Rule 3:13-3(b)(2)(B) and (D) require defendants to provide the State with relevant documents, witness statements and reports or records in their possession. The Supreme Court held that because the affidavits were not created by defense counsel, nor was it part of defense counsel’s investigation, it constituted physical evidence of a crime. Therefore, the Court held that the affidavits were subject to discovery under the New Jersey discovery rules.

New Jersey Discovery Rules and Attorney-Client Privilege

Defendant Knight argued that the affidavits were not subject to disclosure under New Jersey’s discovery rules and that, even if they were, disclosure would violate the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Knight argued that a defendant must only disclose materials that the defense intends to use at trial, and the compelled production of the affidavits would violate his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. The defense relied on State v. Mingo, 77 N.J. 576 (1978) and State v. Williams, 80 N.J. 472 (1979), and argued that turning over potentially inculpatory material would infringe on his right to a thorough defense. The Supreme Court distinguished this factually distinct case from Mingo and Williams. The Court found the affidavits in this case were the result of a kidnapping and witness intimidation plot for which Knight and two other individuals had been criminally charged. The affidavits were physical evidence of a crime and not the product of the defense investigation or attorney work product, and therefore did not fall within the exception to the discovery obligations in Rule 3:13-3(d).

Fifth Amendment and New Jersey Discovery Rules

Knight also argued that producing the affidavits would violate his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The Court rejected this argument, holding that the Fifth Amendment privilege is personal to the defendant and does not extend to documents provided by third parties, such as co-conspirators. Since the affidavits were created by third parties and provided to defense counsel, compelling its production did not violate Knight’s Fifth Amendment rights.

Key Takeaways from the New Jersey Discovery Rules Decision

The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s ruling, holding that the affidavits were physical evidence of a crime and therefore subject to discovery under Rule 3:13-3(b)(2)(B) and (D). Disclosure of the affidavits would not violate Knight’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. The case underscores the application of New Jersey discovery rules in cases involving witness tampering and highlights the limits of constitutional privileges when defense counsel is not involved in generating the evidence.

Criminal law is complicated and constantly changing. If you are facing criminal charges, you should immediately contact our team of experienced former prosecutors to schedule a free case review with one of our expert criminal defense attorneys. A complete understanding of criminal law by your attorney is crucial to your defense. Your rights and freedoms are in jeopardy, and you owe it to yourself to act. We are available to provide immediate assistance and further counsel on your case at 862-315-7929.

No aspect of this attorney advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.