The man argued that he did not knowingly waive his rights against self-incrimination.
CAMDEN -- A man who received a 13-year sentence for sexual assault charges against two girls will get a new trial after the New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division reversed his conviction Monday, according to court documents.
The defendant -- who was identified only by the initials F.S.S. -- was successful in his appeal which argued that a statement he made to a prosecutor's investigators was made without a knowing waiver of his right against self-incrimination and should be suppressed.
The defendant was accused of 18 counts of sexual offenses against two girls, both family relations, according to the Appellate Division's decision.
In June 2010, two investigators from the Camden County Prosecutor's Office came to the defendant's home and said they needed to speak with him. The decision said the investigators told him he was not under arrest but drove him without handcuffs in their vehicle to the prosecutor's office.
After asking him questions about his identification, living arrangements and employment, the investigators told him "we want to talk to you about what's going on in your family," according to the decision.
He answered "okay," and they started advising him of his rights to remain silent and to have an attorney.
The decision includes the transcribed interview between investigators and the defendant. After he was read his rights, the defendant was asked if he would like to waive those rights and answer questions.
The defendant asked "what that mean?" and the investigator answered "would you like to speak to us or not?" The defendant agreed to speak and the interview got under way.
ALSO: Families of murder victims hold out hope for Pope Francis meeting
In his appeal, the defendant argued that he did not understand and did not give a knowing waiver of his rights.
The trial judge initially concluded that there was no need to inform the defendant of his rights because he was not in custody at the time of the questioning.
The Appellate Division disagreed.
The decision explains that "custodial interrogation occurs when a law enforcement officer initiates questioning after a person has been taken into police custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way." It goes on to show some circumstances that would lead the defendant to believe he was not free to go.
"Defendant was never told that he was free to leave or that he could refuse to accompany the investigators to the office," the decision said. "Moreover, defendant was transported to the office in the investigators' vehicle, and ... there was no practical way for defendant to leave."
The Appellate division believed that by having his belongings searched prior to the interview and not being allowed to answer two phone calls while it was in progress, a reasonable person would conclude that he was not free to leave at any time.
The Appellate Division also thought that the investigator's response to the defendant's question about the waiver could have left him with the impression that the waiver itself was unimportant formality and that it was unnecessary to understand it.
The decision to deny the suppression of the defendant's statements was reversed, and the Appellate Divison remanded the case to the Law Division for further hearing.
Alex Young may be reached at ayoung@njadvancemedia.com. Follow him on Twitter @AlexYoungSJT. Find the South Jersey Times on Facebook.
