Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Oraine D. Brown, Petitioner v. New Jersey

No.

IN THE

Supreme Court, U.S.

FILED

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

AUG 1 8 2022

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

Ora'iftg.

BrowA

.— PETITIONER

(Your Name)

vs.

'■S4q4<g. err

/V<2vJ i3g.CSg-V

— RESPONDENT(S)

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

Supgc.oef.oux4 c£ to

AppdWte- Dixhsws

(NAME OF COURT THAT LAST RULED ON'mERITS OF YOUR CASE)

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Rrowt\

Orck\f\z*

(Your Name)

RcW), PrO.

I bB

(Address)

few&rK , Neu Jersey

(City, State, Zip Code)

hU A

(Phone Number)

01 \\M

2300

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

The substantial questions of law and issues that warrants

this Court's intervention:

Can a trial judge postpone a trial on its commencement

(1)

date at the prosecutor's motion for additional discovery without

establishing how the opposing party (defendant) failed to comply

with any discovery rule pursuant to N.J.C.R.

3-7 to' 5-2)

3:13-3 (b) (f)?

(IT

.

New Jersey Court Rule 3:13-3(b)(f)

(f) Continuing Duty to Disclose; Failure to Comply. There shall be a continuing duty to

provide discovery pursuant to this rule. If at any time during the course of the proceedings it is

brought to the attention of the court that a party has failed to comply with this rule or with an

order issued pursuant to this rule, it may order such party to permit the discovery of materials

not previously disclosed, grant a continuance or delay during trial, or prohibit the party from

introducing in evidence the material not disclosed, or it may enter such other order as it deems

appropriate.

(2)

Can

discovery which

is

available

pre-indictment

and

produced in the prosecutor's office be considered new discovery

to

the

prosecutor

on

the

commencement

date

of

a

defendant's

trial? (Appendix - F & Appendix - A page 4)

(3) According to Carbis Sales,

(2007)

"A motion made at

trial

Inc. v. Eisenberg,

397 N.J.

for discovery of a particular

document of which the moving party long since had knowledge and

which

is

in

any

case

unlikely

discoverable

to

evidence

is

obviously so far out of time as to require u denial." So how

'could this discovery motion be granted, when the motion was made

and the Movant party

at trial,

(State / Prosecutor)

long since

had knowledge of this report? (IT 3-7 to 5-2) & (Appendix - F)

(App.

1977),

Div.

judge's

153 N.J.

According to State v. Merlino,

(4)

decision

Super.

12,17

a reviewing court will not overturn a trial

of whether

defendant

a

was- deprived

of

due

ruling was

process on speedy trial grounds unless the judge's

• "clearly

erroneous".

Since

there

is

no

"clearly

erroneous"

standard set forth the defendant would like his case to set that

standard.

(5) Also the defendant would like this court to implement a

more

specific guideline on how a trial judge can continue or

prohibit

discovery

pursuant

to

N.J.C.R.

which

3:13-3(b)(f)

governs the continuation of discovery in New Jersey.

(6)' Does the trial judge have a duty to investigate into a

juror's regret about his or her verdict prior to a defendant's

■ sentencing

hearing?

This

would

be

to

determine

if

any

jury

misconduct occurred' during jury deliberation if the juror never

v. Weiler,

gave a reason for the regret’ pursuant to State

N.J.

Super.

602,

609-12,

512 A.

2d

531

(App.

Div.),

211

certif.

denied, 107 N.J. 37, 526 A. 2d 130 (1980).

(7)

(Appendix - G)

If not should the defendant just depend on sheer luck

that the reason for the juror's

regret might

somehow come to

light?

(8) Last but not least the defendant would like this court

to establish a timeframe for a motion to be made pursuant to

N.J.C.R. 1:16-1.

LIST OF PARTIES

M All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page.

[ ] All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of

all parties to the proceeding in the court whose judgment is the subject of this

petition is as follows:

RELATED CASES

/V 0 A<L

TABLE OF CONTENTS

OPINIONS BELOW

1

• JURISDICTION

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED .

.

. . .3

.5

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

lio

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT .

•

CONCLUSION

INDEX TO APPENDICES

Denial of Defendant's Direct Appeal (NJ Appellate

APPENDIX A

Division)' October 12, 2021

Order Denying Motion for Judgment of Acquittal (Trial Court)

APPENDIX B

July 31, 2020

Order Denying Defendant's Certification & Motion for Bail

APPENDIX C

(N-J Supreme Court) March 22, 2022

Order Denying Defendant's Reconsideration Petition

APPENDIX D

Certification (NJ Supreme Court) June 14, 2022

for

APPENDIX E

Order Denying Reconsideration Motion (NJ Appellate Division)

November 24, 2021

APPENDIX F

Fingerprint Report from Essex County Prosecutor s Office

prepared by Expert Witness Grace Marotta April 22, 2019

APPENDIX G

Email From Juror Number Twelve July 22, 2020

Transcript IT January 6, 2020 (Initial Trial); Date when

APPENDIX H

defendant's trial was initially to commence. Also the day that the

initial trial judge erroneously extended the discovery timeline and

postponed trial till the following month.

Transcript 2T February 20, 2020 (Trial);

APPENDIX I

defendant's trial and the date defendant got convicted.

Last

day

of

Transcript 3T July 31, 2020 (Sentencing); Date defendant s

APPENDIX J

hearing

for his motion for judgment of acquittal was held and the

' oral

day defendant was sentenced.

TABLES OF AUTHORITIES CITED

PAGE NUMBER

CASES

to

Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 (1972)

Carbis Sales, Inc v. Eisenberg, 397 N.J.

5, GtUo

Super. 64 (App. Div. 2007)

State v. Cappadona 127 N.J. Super. 555, 558

(p

(App. Div. 1974), certif. den. 65 N.J. 574.

(1974), cert, den.

419 U.S. 1034, 95 S. Ct,

518, 42 L. Ed. 2d 310 (1974) .

State v. Lafera, 42 N.J. 97, 106-107 (1964)

a

State v. Robinson, 229 N.J. 44, 71 (2017)

i<*,n

State v. Scherzer, 301 N.J. Super. 363,437,

/

13

694 A.2d 196 (App.Div.1997), certif. denied,

151 N.J. 466, 700 A.2d 878 (1997) .L.J.A.,

2013 N.J. Super.

State v. Weiler, 211 N.J. Super. 602, 609-12

I

512 A. 2d 130 (1986)

• STATUTES AND RULES

N.J.S.A 2c:20-7A

f

TABLES OF AUTHORITIES CITED (Cont.)

STATUTES AND RULES

PAGE NUMBER

N.J.S.A. 2c:35-10A

N.J.S.A. 2c:39-5(b)

N.J.S.A. 2c:43-6

N.J.C.R. 1:16-1

N.J.C.R. 3:13-3 (b) (1) (I)

N.J.C.R. 3:13-3 (b) (f)

N.J.C.R. 3:18-2

|0,u

H.S

1

i

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment below.

OPINIONS BELOW

[ ] For cases from federal courts:

to

The opinion of the United States court of appeals appears at Appendix

the petition and is

[ ] reported at________ ____________________________ ; or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

The opinion of the United States district court appears at Appendix

the petition and is

[ ] reported- at ______ __________________________ ____ ;or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

EKI For cases from state courts:

The opinion of the highest state court to review the merits appears at

to the petition and is

Appendix

[ ] reported- at________ _____________________________ ^;or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

court

The opinion of the

appears at Appendix _£i to the petition and is

; or,

[ ] reported at

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[X] is unpublished.

1.

to

6*.

JURISDICTION

[ ] For cases from federal courts:

The date on which the United States Court of Appeals decided my case

was------------------------------ .

[ ] No petition for rehearing was timely filed in my case.

[ ] A timely petition for rehearing was denied by the United States Court of

, and a copy of the

Appeals on the following date:___________

order denying rehearing appears at Appendix

{ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted

(date)

(date) on

to and including _

A

in Application No.

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1254(1).

|X1 For cases from state courts:

The date on which the highest state court decided my case was

A copy of that decision appears at Appendix--------CKl A timely petition for rehearing was thereafter denied on the following date:

\M ,'ZcmT and a copy of the order denying rehearing

n

appears at Appendix

[ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted

(date) on_____________ (date) in

to and including —,—

Application No. —LA

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1257(a).

T_.

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INCLUDED

1. 6th Amendment; Rights of the accused.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by

an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which

district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause

of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process

for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

2.

14th Amendment

All persons bom or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,

are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or

enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

3. N.J.S.A. 2c:20-7a Receiving Stolen Property

A person is guilty of theft if he knowingly receives (or brings, into this State) movable

property of another knowing that it has been stolen, or believing that it has probably been stolen.

4. N.J.S.A. 2c:35-10a Possession, use or being under the influence, or failure to make

lawful disposition

a. It is unlawful for any person, knowingly or purposely, to obtain, or to possess, actually or

constructively, a controlled dangerous substance or controlled substance analog, unless the

substance was obtained directly, or pursuant to a valid prescription or order from a practitioner,

while acting in the course of his professional practice, or except as otherwise authorized by

P.L.1970, c.226 (C.24:21-l et seq.).

5. N.J.S.A. 2c:39-5(b) Unlawful possession of weapons

b. Handguns. (1) Any person who knowingly has in his possession any handgun, including

any antique handgun, without first having obtained a permit to carry the same as provided m

N.J.S.2C:58-4, is guilty of a crime of the second degree. (2) If the handgun is in the nature of an

air gun, spring gun or pistol or other weapon of a similar nature in which the propelling force is a

spring elastic band, carbon dioxide, compressed or other gas or vapor, air or compressed air, or

is ignited by compressed air, and ejecting a bullet or missile smaller than three-eighths of an inch

in diameter, with sufficient force to injure a person it is a crime of the third degree.

6. N.J.S.A. 2c:43-6 Sentence of imprisonment for crime; ordinary terms; mandatory

terms.

3

a. Except as otherwise provided, a person who has been convicted of a crime may be sentenced

to imprisonment, as follows:

(1) In the case of a crime of the first degree, for a specific term of years which shall be

fixed by the court and shall be between 10 years and 20 years;

(2) In the case of a crime of the second degree, for a specific term of years which shall be

fixed by the court and shall be between five years and 10 years;

(3) In the case of a crime of the third degree, for a specific term of years which shall be

fixed by the court and shall be between three years and five years,

(4) In the case of a crime of the fourth degree, for a specific term which shall be fixed by

the court and shall not exceed 18 months.

4

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The defendant, Oraine Brown, was arrested on April 20, 2019,

in the township of Irvington, New Jersey, for unlawful

possession of a firearm without a permit, in the 2nd degree,

N.J.S.A. 2c:39-5(b), receiving stolen property, in the 3rd

degree, N.J.S.A. 2c:20-7A, and possession of CDS (Marijuana),

disorderly persons, N.J.S.A. 2c:35-10A.

On June 17, 2019, defendant was indicted on ‘two counts; 2nd

degree unlawful possession of athandgun, N.J.S.A. 2c:39-5 (b),

and 3rd degree receiving stolen property, N.J.S.A. 2c:20-7A.

. On January 6, 2020, the defendant's trial was supposed

to commence but it got postponed to the following month.

(IT 3-7

to 5-2) . The reason it got postponed was because the prosecutor

motioned that she needed additional discovery even though all

discovery was previously made final during a pre-trial hearing

on October 29, 2019.

(IT 3-7 to 4-2). This motion was granted by

the initial trial judge even though the defendant objected by

commenting the prosecutor had several opportunities prior to

this date and grand jury to obtain this discovery, and that

discovery was previously made final,

(IT 4-5 to 5-2). The

additional discovery motioned for was a fingerprint examination

report that was produced on April 22, 2019, in the prosecutor's

office.

(Appendix-F). According to Carbis Sales, Inc. v.

S.

Eisenberg, 397 N.J.

(2007) "A motion made at trial for discovery

of a particular document of which the moving party long since

had knowledge and which is in any case unlikely to discoverable

evidence is obviously so far out of time as to require a

denial."

This case got transferred to another judge on February 11th,

2020, where a jury trial commenced before Judge Mayra V.

Tarantino, J.S.C. , the new trial judge within the Essex County

Superior Court of New Jersey. Defendant was convicted by a jury

oh February 20, 2020, for the sole count of 2nd degree unlawful

possession of a firearm without a permit, N.J■S.A. 2c: 3-9-5 (b) .

Within 10 days after the defendant was convicted on February 27,

2020, he filed a motion for a judgment of acquittal pursuant to

N.J.C.R. 3:18-2. Within this motion the defendant alleges that

the initial trial judge & the prosecutor violated his 6th

amendment right to a speedy trial by causing an.undue delay in

prosecution. State V. Cappadona specifies that four factors

should be considered in determining whether or not an indictment

should be dismissed for delay in prosecution, namely (1) length

of the delay,

(2) the reason for the delay,

(3) ..the defendant's

assertion of his right, and (4) the prejudice to the defendant

resulting from the delay. Within defendant's motion he states

that the reason was to allow the State to gain an unfair

U

advantage at trial, -that he objected the prosecutor's motion for

additional discovery which demonstrates he asserted his right,

and it was prejudice towards the defendant because it allowed

even more additional discovery to be admitted than initially

motioned for.

New Jersey Court Rule 3:18-2. Motion after discharge of jury

If the jury returns a verdict of guilty or is discharged without having, returned a verdict, a motion

for judgment of acquittal may be made, even if not earlier made pursuant to R. 3:18-1 or it may be

renewed within 10 days after the jury is discharged or within such further time as the court fixes during

such motion may set aside a verdict of guilty and order the entry of a

the 10-day period. The court on

judgment of acquittal and may so order if no verdict has been returned.

On July 22, 2020, juror number 12 from the defendant's trial

sent an email to the New Jersey Superior Court stating that he

reason.

has come to regret his verdict without giving any

(Appendix - G)

Defendant's hearing for his motion for a judgment of

acquittal was conducted on July 31, 2020, where the trial judge

also addressed the email sent by juror number 12. During oral

argument the defendant commented the State was privy to this

fingerprinting report well prior to'the January 6th trial date,

all discovery was made final before this trial date was set,

this adjournment allowed the State to admit even more discovery

than motioned for, and that the State did not meet any of the

requirements set by N.J.C.R. 3:13-3(b) (f) to continue discovery

which governs the continuation of discovery in New Jersey.

T

(3T

4-14 to 5-10; 6-8 to 11; 7-7 to 8-5).

New Jersey Court Rule 3:13-3(b)(f)

(f) Continuing Duty to Disclose; Failure to Comply. There shall be a continuing duty to

provide discovery pursuant to this rule. If at any time during the course of the proceedings it is

brought to the attention of the court that a party has failed to comply with this rule or with an

order issued pursuant to this rule, it may order such party to permit the discovery of materials

not previously disclosed, grant a continuance or delay during trial, or prohibit the party from

introducing in evidence the material not disclosed, or it may enter such other order as it deems

appropriate.

After oral argument the trial judge addressed defendant s

motion by commenting the U.S. Supreme Court established four

factors for courts to consider in determining whether

defendant's rights to a speedy trial has been violated which are

the length of delay, the reason for delay, the defendant's

assertion of his right and prejudice to the defendant.

(3T 9-3

to 12) . In regards to the 1st factor the judge commented no undue

delay in bringing this matter to trial under typical Essex

County trial calendar, as for the 2nd factor that no indication

in the record that the State used adjournments to gain a

tactical advantage, regarding the 3^d factor the court said that

nowhere in the record did the defendant assert his right to a

speedy trial prior to this motion, and lastly that no prejudice

free on bail and

was suffered by the defendant because he was

- the discovery was beneficial because it showed .no fingerprints

(3T 9-18 to 10-24). Ultimately the

where present on the handgun,

trial judge denied this motion-.

*

(3T 16-23 to 25) .

(Appendix - B)

In regards to the email sent by juror number 12, the trial

judge

claimed defendant never made

a motion pursuant to this

email.

(31 17-I8 to 18-13) . The trial judge also claimed "change

of heart is insufficient for a court to investigate the thought

a verdict."

processes which induce a particular to join in

Although the defendant never made a motion pursuant

18-9 to 12)

to

this

(3T

email,

9

days

isn't

motion pursuant to N.J.C.R.

adequate

enough

time

to

file

a

1:16-1 which would allow the trial

judge to interview this juror. Also the trial judge cannot claim

the juror had a change of heart because the juror never gave a

reason for his regret.

New Jersey Court Rule 1:16-1. Interviewing jurors subsequent to trial

Except by leave of court granted on good cause shown, no attorney or party shall directly, or

through any investigator or other person acting for the attorney, interview, examine, or

question any grand or petit juror with respect to any matter relating to the case.

The

defendant's

September 28,

2021,

appellate

attorney

to dismiss the

briefs

submitted

on

indictment or grant a new

trial. This appeal concerned whether a 6th amendment speedy trial

violation occurred when the discovery timeline was

extended

to

benefit

the

State

at

trial

causing

erroneously

a

delay

in

prosecution and should a post -conviction voir dire be conducted

in regards to the email sent by juror number 12 regretting his

verdict

in

this

case prior

to

defendant's

sentencing without

this appeal was denied by

giving a reason. On October 12, 2021,

• the Appellate

sentence.

Division which affirmed

the

conviction

and

the

(Appendix - A)

The Appellate Division analyzed the speedy trial violation

utilizing the four -Barker factors.

First stating that a 34 -day

trial postponement was not undue delay where the State sought

the adjournment to provide defendant new discovery. Also stating

as defendant "was not subject

no prejudice in the short delay,

to' pre-trial incarceration, and was free to handle his personal

affairs".

Finally,

the

contained

evidence

beneficial

to

defendant,

recovered

on

the

fingerprints

were

Division affirmed that

speedy trial.)

judges

the

noted

defendant

that

the

new

discovery

as

it

showed

(The

Appellate

handgun.

asserted his

right

no

to

a

(Appendix - A pages 4-5)

Response: This was not new discovery because this report was produced on

April 22, 2019, within the prosecutor’s office two days after the defendant was

arrested. (Appendix - F). The last pre-trial conference for this case was on October

29, 2019, so the prosecutor had 6 months to obtain this report which was produced

in the Essex County Prosecutor’s office, (Appendix - F), where the prosecutor works.

Even though the delay was only 34 days both the Court and the prosecutor knew

that would be sufficient enough time to allow an expert witness to testify and make

this expert report permissible for trial. .(IT 3-7 to 4-19). According to N.J.C.R . 3:133(b)(1)© an expert report and expert witness’s name must be furnished 30 days

tcv

before trial which both the prosecutor and the Court knew. (IT 3-7 to 4-19).

Defendant was free on bail to handle his personal affairs but that isn t the only

consideration under this factor. The courts need to minimize anxiety and concern of

the accused, and limit the possibility that the defense will be impaired. On January

6,2020 the initial trial date, defendant was fully ready to resolve this case but this

unwarranted delay sent defendant’s anxiety to a peak which was reflected on the

record when he questioned the Court about any more possible delays. (IT 5-25 to 68). Although defendant’s fingerprints were not present on the weapon at hand, the

expert witness was able to testify that fingerprints are difficult to extract from

handguns and the particular handgun involved in this case. (2T 22-14 to 24-23)

New Jersey Court Rule 3:13-3(b)(l)(l)

names and addresses of each person whom the prosecutor exp'ects to call to trial as an

expert witness, the expert's qualifications, the subject matter on which the expert is expected

to testify, a copy of the report, if any, of such expert witness, or if no report is prepared, a

statement of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and a summary of

' the grounds for each opinion. Except as otherwise provided in R. 3:10-3, if this information is

not furnished.30 days in advance of trial, the expert witness may, upon application by the

defendant, be barred from testifying at trial.

As to the second issue, whether a post-conviction voir dire

should be conducted in regards to the email sent by juror number

12, the Appellate Division stated; The.email, at best,

represents an unspecified expression of regret, assuming the

author of the email.is actually juror number twelve. Its

contents allege no ".event or occurrence injected into the

deliberation in which the capacity for prejudice inheres."

(Appendix - A page 6)

vt

Response: According to State v. LaFera, It may appear odd to recognize a

ground for the validation of a verdict while denying a litigant a chance to find

out whether such an event perchance did occur. The fate of a defendant is

thus made to depend upon sheer luck that the wrongful event somehow

comes to light. The weight of the criticism is appreciated, but when

contending values clash in their demands, a balance must be struck, and the

balance struck is not shown to be a poor one because in some unknowable

cases there may be an injustice. Overall the instances of invalidating

. misbehavior are exceedingly few. State v. Lafera, 42 N.J. 97,. 106-107 (1964).

Although the email sent by juror number 12 did not state or allege any

juror misconduct or introduction of extraneous factors into the jury’s considerations

the unknown reason may have lead to an unjust result in this case. (Appendix - G).

The defendant’s fate should not be left to 'sheer luck that the. reason for the regret

might somehow come to fight.

The thrust of the New Jersey and federal cases on mid-trial allegations of

jury misconduct is that the trial judge must make a probing inquiry into the

possible prejudice caused by any jury irregularity, relying on his or her own

objective evaluation of the potential for prejudice rather than, on the jurors

subjective evaluation of their own impartiality. See State v. Weiler, 211 N.J. Super.

602, 609-12, 512 A. 2d 130 (1986). Although the trial judge has discretion in the way

to investigate allegations of jury misconduct, an adequate inquiry on the record is

necessary for the purposes of appellate review. State v. Scherzer, 301 N.J. Super.

i O

363. The trial judge never investigated into juror number 12’s regret even though

the alleged cause could be due to jury misconduct.

According to State v. Weiler. the trial judge must make a probe inquiry

into the possible prejudice caused by any jury irregularity and according to

State v. Scherzer. it must be made on the record. It is irregular for a juror to

email the court months after a conviction regretting his verdict and

requesting information about the defendant. (Appendix - G). The trial judge

still had a duty to investigate into juror number 12’s reason for regretting his

verdict just to verify that no jury misconduct occurred during this trial. This

is to ensure that defendant’s 14th amendment due process rights are not

being violated.

Defendant filed a pro-se motion for reconsideration on

October 25, 2021, in regards to the Appellate Division's denial

of his direct appeal pursuant to N.J.C.R. 2:11-6. This

reconsideration motion addressed all the reasons given by the

Appellate Division for denying his direct appeal. On November

24, 2021, defendant's motion for reconsideration.was denied by

the Appellate Division without stating its reason therefore.

(Appendix - E)

New Jersey Court Rule 2:11-6. Motion for reconsideration

(a)

Service; Filing; Contents; Argument. Within ten

days after entry of judgment or order, unless such time is

enlarged by

court

order,

a party ' may

apply

for

\3.

reconsideration by serving two copies of a motion on

counsel for each of the opposing parties and filing nine

copies thereof with the Supreme Court, or five copies

thereof with the Appellate Division, as- appropriate. One

filed copy shall be signed by counsel. The motion shall not

exceed 25 pages and shall contain a brief statement and

argument of the ground relied upon and a certificate of

counsel that it is submitted in good faith and not for

purposes of delay, The motion shall have annexed thereto a

copy of the opinion or order that is the subject thereof.

An answer shall be filed only if requested by the court,

and within ten days after such request or -.within such other

time as the court fixes therein. The motion will not be

argued orally.

On December 10th, 2021, defendant filed a notice of petition

for

certification

with

the

New

Jersey

Supreme

This

Court.

petition for' certification was a reliance type letter petition

which relied on the briefs and motions filed with the Appellate

Division

during

defendant's

direct

appeal

as‘

the

substantial

questions of law and issues warranting the New Jersey Supreme

Court's

intervention.

certification was

On

March

denied by the

22,

2022,

Supreme

without stating its reason therefore.

this

Court

petition

of New

for

Jersey

(AppendixC)

On April 8th, 2022, defendant filed a reconsideration

petition for certification with the New Jersey Supreme Court

pursuant to N.J.C.R. 2:11-6. This reconsideration petition for

certification stated the specific substantial questions of law

and issues warranting the New Jersey Supreme Court's

intervention. On June 14, 2022, this reconsideration petition

for certification was denied by the New Jersey Supreme Court

\4.

without stating its-reason therefore. (Appendix*'- D) . This

petition follows.

\ <C

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

In regards to the 6th amendment speedy trial violation

that this defendant alleges:

When the initial trial judge on January 6^ 2020, theinitially scheduled commencement date for defendant's trial,

granted the prosecutor's motion to continue discovery this so

far departed frdm the accepted and usual course of judicial

proceedings. Continuing discovery is only permissible when a

party finds out that an opposing party has failed to comply with

their discovery obligations. In this case the defendant complied

with all his discovery obligations, so his right-to a speedy

trial should not be violated because the opposing party (State)

motioned for additional discovery which was in their possession

especially when defendant objected this motion...

The New Jersey Supreme Court denied a moving party's motion

made at trial for discovery of a document which this party long

since had knowledge of according to Carbis Sales Inc v_^_

Eisenberg. So why would the Appellate Division of New Jersey

divert from this decision in defendant's case when the issue is

exactly the same.

The prosecutor, initial trial judge, and the Appellate

Division claim that this was new discovery. According to State

lu.

v. Robinson, 229 N.J. 44, 71 (2017) "discovery materials in the

possession of the police are deemed to be in the possession of

the prosecutor". So a discovery material in the possession of

the Essex County Prosecutor's Office must be deemed in the

possession of defendant's prosecutor whom works at the Essex

County Prosecutor's office. This discovery material that was

motioned for was prepared within the Essex County Prosecutor s

office two days after the defendant was arrested. Just because

the prosecutor is too lazy, incompetent, or failed to be •

diligent in obtaining all discovery materials in her possession

in a timely fashion doesn't mean the trial judge can bail her

out so that the State can gain an advantage at the expense of a

defendant's right to a speedy trial, This court must determine

what is considered new discovery after discovery is made final,

since a trial judge's the Appellate Division don't know, and the

New Jersey Supreme Court ran away from that responsibility by

claiming this issue has no merit.

As to whether a post - conviction voir dire should be

conducted in regards to juror number twelve's email:

According to the highest court in defendant's state (New

Jersey Supreme Court) the trial judge must make a probing

inquiry into-the possible prejudice caused by any jury

irregularity. This court should enforce this trial judge and all

trial judges to comply with their duties.

The defendant understands that no party can directly or

indirectly interview any juror subsequent to trial except by

leave of court granted on good cause shown which is the accepted

and usual course of judicial proceedings. Courts should be able

to relax or strike the good cause portion of this rule in

This case should meet that

number twelve had an

which could be a

result of jury misconduct or some other illicit act.

Also the trial judge deliberately didn't give the defendant

enough time to produce a motion pursuant to this email, The

state of New Jersey has yet to set a timeframe that a motion

should be made to interview a juror subsequent to trial. This

■ court should invalidate misbehavior in trial judges if other

courts fail too and set a timeframe that these types of motions

should be made or instruct the' State of New Jersey too.

Finally the court could still interview this juror without

reversing defendant's conviction. If the juror claimed anything

that wouldn't be sufficient enough to overturn the conviction

during this interview then the conviction would still stand and

this hearing would be harmless. The purpose of the judicial

system is to achieve justice so without this post-conviction

;

voir dire this court may be validating an injustice.

\<v

CONCLUSION

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

C9—•

Date: _

(2—"

siiUai

Oh