New Jersey’s Supreme Court tossed a man’s murder conviction after ruling a search that underpinned an armed robbery charge subject to the same plea agreement was illegal, but the court stopped short of extending the ruling to all defendants in the same position.
The justices ruled Jamar Myers, who was convicted for his role in a string of robberies targeting pharmacies and convenience stores — including one that turned fatal — must be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea because the state’s loss of incriminating evidence would have changed the parties’ bargaining positions in advance of his guilty plea.
The unanimous decision rejects prosecutors’ argument that tossing Myers’ murder conviction would prejudice them because they may not be able to marshal all the evidence they had against him in 2016 for a new trial in 2026.
“We are sympathetic to the State’s argument on prejudice. But in the specific circumstances of this case, we hold that defendant must be permitted to withdraw his felony murder guilty plea.’” Justice Rachel Wainer Apter wrote.
Myers was arrested in 2011 when, following a robbery at a Hamilton 7-Eleven, local police stopped a car occupied by him and two co-defendants.
A search of the vehicle turned up cash, a handgun, and clothing that matched that worn by assailants, including at a Trenton pharmacy robbery where a pharmacist was fatally shot while trying to disarm a robber a week earlier.
An officer had pulled the three over because he thought it was suspicious they they didn’t react to a spotlight used to illuminate the inside of their vehicle. Though the car had been reported stolen, the officer was unaware of that fact until after the traffic stop began.
The Supreme Court previously ruled that search was illegal, finding the officer who initiated it had no information about the suspects at the time of the stop aside from their sex and race.
The faulty search allowed Myers to withdraw his guilty plea for that 7-Eleven robbery, but because he had entered into single plea to resolve charges from multiple robberies, his other convictions spawned by that plea must be tossed as well, the court found.
Judges should encourage parties, when presiding over plea agreements that cover multiple indictments, to clarify their intentions on the record to avoid similar pitfalls, the high court said.
The Office of the Public Defender, which represented Myers, praised the decision and lauded the court for asking its criminal practice committee and Judge Michael Blee, the judiciary’s acting administrative director, to consider whether to make changes to plea forms.
The office encouraged the officials to consider adding a section clearly explaining the effect a successful appeal could have on a combined plea agreements.
“Providing that clarity at the outset would help ensure that all parties understand the potential impact of an appeal,” said Assistant Public Defender Alison Gifford.
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism
that is degrading to another person. Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness
accounts, the history behind an article.
(0) comments
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.