PCR and Withheld Evidence (Part 3)

by | Oct 9, 2021 | Blog, Criminal Law, Monmouth County, New Jersey, Ocean County

Justice Albin continued in relevant part: Certain evidence was never presented at trial. First, a six-page report prepared by Lieutenant Charles Redd of the Hudson County Prosecutor’s Office provided a narrative of the homicide investigation and Thomas’s importance to that investigation. The Redd Report revealed that investigators found in the victims’ car a pager number listed to “Rabb.” When that number was called, however, it was Thomas who responded to the page. As a result, Thomas was interviewed. Before his arrival at the Prosecutor’s Office, Thomas made an anonymous telephone call to Jersey City Police Communications and claimed that Rabb and LaCue were responsible for the killings. During the interview, he told investigators that “he did not know the victims” or LaCue and that he was with his girlfriend, Arlene Forrester, and her sister, Hazel Forrester, at the time of the shootings.

Thomas eventually conceded that he was not truthful when he denied knowing LaCue, and some of his statements about Hazel and Arlene were inconsistent. After Thomas left the interview, the police received another anonymous telephone call, stating that Hannah had confessed to killing the victims, not only to Thomas but also to the caller and Hazel Forrester. Afterwards, Hazel and Arlene were interviewed by the police, and Arlene admitted that she was the anonymous caller. Because the defense did not call Lieutenant Redd as a witness, the jury never learned that Salazar and Flores had Thomas’s pager number in their possession when they were murdered, nor did they hear that LaCue had left a message on Thomas’s pager, asking to speak with him, the day after the murders. The jury also did not hear the testimony of Thomas’s mother, Mary Jones, who had information that not only inferentially implicated her son in the murders, but also provided a motive for her son to frame Hannah.

The failure to subpoena Mary Jones as a witness will be a central issue when the trial attorney for the defense testifies at a post-conviction relief hearing. If s/he cannot demonstrate that the decision to not subpoena Jones was grounded in a reasonable trial strategy decision, one of the two required for granting post-conviction relief will be satisfied.

Excellent rating
Based on 288 reviews
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred is the best! He is extremely professional and kept constant contact so I was always in the loop. My charges got dismissed and I couldn't be happier. Would highly recommend!
Ryan T
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred is knowledgeable and he has great working relationships with the courts. He HONESTLY is seeking the best deal for you he is not all about the money!! Thanks Fred you saved me BIG TIME!!
Casey B
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred is fast, attentive and excels at what he does. He provides reasonable and professional advice when your are dealing with complex and stressful legal situations. He is straight to the point and does not wast time. I would use him again and definitely recommend.
1093Nj
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
The Best To Ever Do It :)
Sergio A
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Great guy got me out of a lot of legal trouble highly recommended.
Frank S
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred was incredibly helpful during a very stressful time. Even during a pandemic he was fast at responding to any and all questions or problems that I had. He went above and beyond to make sure that I was happy with my results and that my case was being handled properly all the way through. Highly recommend this office!
Toni V
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred Sisto is an excellent attorney who works diligently and thoroughly to support, advise, and guide you through your legal difficulties. He is down-to-earth, advises you well, and his cost is comparable and well-worth it based on the service and expertise that he provides. Fred was able to get me the best possible outcome for my situation based on the possibilities and he was direct and honest with me throughout the process. John McDonnell
John M
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Many thanks to Fred for the posts of where the DWI checkpoints will be held and for the advise to take an Uber when planning a night out!!
Michael K
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Mr. Sisto was not only a knowledgeable and excellent lawyer, he was compassionate and understanding during this difficult time. I found Mr. Sisto to always be available and he services were affordable and effective. You will not find a better lawyer.
Joseph S
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Worst Attorney I have ever encountered he will WASTE your time and steal your MONEY. Don't RECOMMEND!
Patric W