George T. Rodgers, aka Gary Adams, aka Jeffrey Reid, aka Jim Johnson v. New Jersey

Detective Josh Pavlov of the Bordentown Township Police Dept, applied for and obtained a search warrant for the home of the defendant’s father under false swearing under oath. A motion to suppress evidence was held and denied to which the defense was unaware of crucial perjured evidence. During the trial it was revealed that the detective lied under oath in connection with obtaining the search warrant, would the court consider revisiting the motion to suppress in light of the newly discovered evidence?

In Erlinger, the Supreme Court held that when the Gov. Wants an extended term Under 18 U.S.C. 924(e) (1) and the Courts prior decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) require a jury to decide whether the predicate offenses took X place on different occasions. In this case before the court a judge- not a jury- decided the predicate offenses were committed at different times. Taking all the factors in this I brief inconsideration and pursuant to Erlingler and Apprendi, does the defendants extended term under N.J.S.A 2C: 44-3 become invalidated?

Lieutenant Shaune E. Lafferty #6002 and Det. Pavlov #3271 of the Bordentown Police Department executed a search of the defendants (father) home, the defense contends that U.S. currency was stolen and evidence was manufactured during the search.

Based upon the foregoing allegation, the defense compelled the prosecution to produce the body worn camera footage utilized in the search of 12 Jarvis Place. Prosecutor Julian Harris put forth a slew of reasons as to why he could not produce the requested B WC (See defendants brief for slew of reasons).