New Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division Decision – Post-Conviction Relief in New Jersey

On November 8, 2024, the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division issued its decision in State v. Stephanie Hand (Docket No. A-2580-22). The case explored the retroactive application of the State v. Jackson decision, which expanded defendants’ Sixth Amendment rights in cross-examinations. The court ruled that the Jackson decision does not apply retroactively to cases finalized on direct appeal before its issuance, affirming the denial of Hand’s petition for post-conviction relief in New Jersey.

The Case Background: Post-Conviction Relief in New Jersey

In 2014, Stephanie Hand, a licensed attorney, was indicted for her role in a mortgage fraud scheme involving fabricated real estate transactions. Acting as the closing agent, she falsified HUD statements to secure fraudulent loans, while her co-defendants used stolen identities to pose as straw purchasers. Though Hand denied knowledge of the scheme, her co-defendants testified otherwise, asserting her involvement. The jury convicted Hand of second-degree conspiracy, money laundering, and theft by deception.

On appeal, Hand argued that the trial court improperly limited her ability to cross-examine a co-defendant about his maximum sentencing exposure, violating her Sixth Amendment rights. Despite these arguments, her convictions were largely upheld, except for money laundering, which was reversed on other grounds. She later filed a petition for post-conviction relief in New Jersey following the issuance of State v. Jackson.

The Sixth Amendment and Retroactive Application of Judicial Decisions

Hand’s petition for post-conviction relief in New Jersey centered on the retroactive application of the Jackson decision, which allowed unrestricted cross-examination about a cooperating witness’s sentencing exposure. Hand argued that the trial court’s restrictions violated her confrontation rights under the Sixth Amendment. The Appellate Division, however, determined that Jackson created a new rule and that its retroactive application was not warranted for cases already finalized on appeal.

Appellate Division’s Analysis: The Purpose of the Rule

The court emphasized that the purpose of Jackson was to enhance the truth-finding process, ensuring jurors could better assess a witness’s credibility. However, it concluded that the prior rule permitting limited cross-examination did not substantially impair trial accuracy. Hand’s cross-examination of the cooperating witness had already revealed critical details about the plea agreement, allowing the jury to consider potential biases.

Reliance on the Old Rule and Impact on Justice Administration

The Appellate Division noted that the old rule, allowing limits on cross-examination about sentencing exposure, had been a long-standing practice. A fully retroactive application of Jackson could disrupt numerous convictions, creating uncertainty in cases involving cooperating witnesses. Balancing these considerations, the court determined that retroactivity was inappropriate for finalized cases like Hand’s.

Conclusion: Key Takeaways on Post-Conviction Relief in New Jersey

The decision in State v. Hand underscores that new legal principles, like those established in State v. Jackson, may not always apply retroactively. Defendants pursuing post-conviction relief in New Jersey must demonstrate how a new rule substantially affects the fairness of their trial under prior standards. The ruling affirms the importance of preserving the stability of the justice system while balancing individual rights.

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.