State v. Stein
360 A.2d 347, 70 N.J. 369, 1976 N.J. LEXIS 204 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A confession is inadmissible if obtained after prosecutors impermissibly interfere with the attorney-client relationship by inducing counsel to leave and then using threats and promises to secure the confession. Furthermore, a co-conspirator's criminal liability for substantive offenses committed by others is limited to acts that are a reasonably foreseeable, natural, or probable consequence of the original unlawful agreement.
Facts:
- Defendant Stein, a lawyer, suggested to an underworld figure, Pontani, that the home of Dr. Gordon was a suitable target for a burglary because large amounts of cash were kept there, with Stein expecting to share in the proceeds.
- Approximately one year later, two men, Testa and Stasio, committed an armed robbery at the Gordon home.
- While attempting to flee from police, Testa and Stasio abducted members of the Gordon family, injured two police officers in a car crash, and were subsequently arrested.
- Suspecting Stein's involvement, police devised a sting operation where an undercover officer, posing as a friend of Testa, contacted Pontani.
- The undercover officer demanded money from Pontani and his 'lawyer friend' (Stein) for a fictitious plan to help Testa make bail and flee the country.
- Stein subsequently gave Pontani $5,000 in cash to facilitate the fictitious escape plan.
- When Stein was asked to come to the prosecutor's office for questioning, he retained an attorney, George Pelletieri, who accompanied him.
Procedural Posture:
- Stein was charged by indictment with conspiracy to steal, armed robbery, various assaults, kidnapping, and obstruction of justice.
- The Law Division (trial court) denied Stein's pretrial motion to suppress statements he made to the prosecutor's office.
- After a non-jury trial, the Law Division found Stein guilty on all counts.
- Stein, as appellant, appealed to the Appellate Division. The court affirmed the convictions for conspiracy and armed robbery but reversed the convictions for assault, kidnapping, and obstruction of justice, though it modified the latter to a conviction for attempted obstruction of justice.
- The Supreme Court of New Jersey granted certification to both Stein (petitioner) and the State (cross-petitioner).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a prosecutor's action of engineering the removal of a suspect's counsel from an interrogation and then using a combination of psychological pressure, threats, and promises of leniency to elicit a confession violate the suspect's right to counsel, rendering the confession involuntary and inadmissible?
Opinions:
Majority - Conford, P. J. A. D.
Yes. A prosecutor's actions of engineering the removal of a suspect's counsel and then using psychological pressure violate the suspect's right to counsel, rendering the resulting confession involuntary and inadmissible. The State impermissibly interfered with Stein's right to counsel when Assistant Prosecutor Altman induced Stein's attorney, Pelletieri, to leave the room. The State's justification—protecting Stein from Pelletieri's potential conflicts of interest—was improper, as the State is an adversary and cannot advise a suspect on legal representation, particularly when the goal is to secure a confession. After Pelletieri left, Altman subjected Stein to a 'double effect' of heightened anxiety through threats of physical danger from criminals and promises of leniency, stating Stein would 'certainly not have to worry about being deprived of [his] freedom.' This combination of pressure and deprivation of counsel overbore Stein's will, meaning his subsequent confession was not a voluntary waiver of his constitutional rights and must be suppressed. On the co-conspirator liability issue, a conspirator is liable for acts that are a 'reasonably foreseen as a necessary or natural consequence of the unlawful agreement.' The armed robbery and the initial assault on Mrs. Gordon were foreseeable consequences of a plot to steal cash from a home. However, the subsequent kidnappings and assaults on police during the escape were not, so Stein is not liable for them. Finally, the obstruction of justice charges must be dismissed on entrapment grounds because the government instigated the crime, and there was no evidence that Stein was predisposed to commit obstruction of justice, a crime distinct from the original conspiracy.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reinforces the sanctity of the attorney-client relationship during interrogations, setting a clear boundary against prosecutorial tactics designed to isolate a suspect from legal counsel. By invalidating a confession obtained through such methods, the court sends a strong message that the right to counsel cannot be circumvented by psychological manipulation. The ruling also refines the doctrine of co-conspirator liability in New Jersey, moving away from broad vicarious liability and anchoring it to a standard of reasonable foreseeability, which requires a closer causal link between the original conspiracy and subsequent crimes. Finally, the case provides a sophisticated application of the entrapment defense, emphasizing that a defendant's predisposition must be specific to the type of crime instigated by the government.
