State Of New Jersey V. Osher Eisemann: Case Pertaining to Motions for a New Trial Based on Newly Discovered Evidence and Brady Violations
Docket No. A-0186-22 & A-0187-22
Decided May 26, 2023
Submitted by New Jersey Criminal Lawyer, Jeffrey Hark
In a recent unpublished opinion, the Appellate Court of New Jersey decided the State’s motion for leave to appeal the order granting defendant a new trial.
The basis of defendant’s charges stemmed from his role as Executive Director of the School for Children with Hidden Intelligence (SCHI) and President of the Board of Trustees of Services for Hidden Intelligence, LLC., SCHI’s fundraising organization. In May 2015, defendant purchased two cashier’s checks using funds from the school’s bank account totaling $230,000. A $30,000 check, which was not the subject of defendant’s convictions, made payable to defendant was deposited in his personal checking account shared with his wife and a second check in the amount of $200,000 was issued in mid-March to GZYD, a company owned by Jonathan Rubin, which made loans to individuals in the Lakewood community.
At trial, a financial crimes investigator testified that an “admin” account had recorded withdrawal of the disputed funds in QuickBooks. The investigator did not discuss a document known as Exhibit F, which the State created a year before trial and did not produce in discovery. Exhibit F was the other half of an audit trail which showed that the user “rochel” had entered the return of the $200,000. The jury found defendant guilty of second-degree financial facilitation of criminal activity (money laundering) and second-degree misconduct by a corporate official and was sentenced to two consecutive thirty-day jail terms and two consecutive one-year probationary terms. Defendant appealed his conviction and the State appealed defendant’s sentence.
The Appellate Court affirmed defendant’s conviction but remanded for resentencing before a different judge because the trial judge did not comply with NJ sentencing guidelines. Before resentencing, defendant filed a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, a statement by Rochel Janowski, one of the foundation’s bookkeepers, concerning the school’s QuickBooks account entry she made that formed the basis of his conviction. After the State successfully moved to have the trial judge recuse himself from considering the new trial motion, a different judge granted defendant a new trial based on the newly discovered evidence and because of the Brady violation for failing to disclose Exhibit F prior to trial. The State appealed.
On appeal, the State contended that the court should not have granted defendant a new trial based on the newly discovered evidence presented because the identity of defendant’s bookkeeper is not newly discovered evidence and the State had no obligation to disclose the identity of defendant’s bookkeeper and information in his own records. Ultimately, the Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling, finding that the motion judge did not abuse his discretion in granting defendant a new trial. The court articulated that there was no finding that Janowski’s certification was “sketchy” or “highly suspect,” nor was there any reason to question her credibility, especially given the only evidence of money laundering was Fredrick’s interpretation of her QuickBooks entry. Additionally, because Janowski never participated in defendant’s defense and was not a hostile witness. With regard to the Brady violation, the court opined that there is no basis to disagree with the motion judge that the State committed a Brady violation because it denied defendant his constitutional right to a fair trial in not disclosing Exhibit F.
At Hark & Hark, we are experienced attorneys who represent clients in Superior Court for issues like the previously discussed case pertaining motions for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence and Brady violations. We work hard to ensure that our clients receive exceptional representation in order for them to receive the most favorable outcome in their case as a result.
We offer payment plan options to clients financially incapable of providing full payment upfront. If you are facing a similar situation to that of the defendant in this case, please call us to discuss the matter. At Hark & Hark, we represent clients for any case in any county in New Jersey including Atlantic County, Bergen County, Burlington County, Camden County, Cape May County, Cumberland County, Essex County, Gloucester County, Hudson County, Hunterdon County, Mercer County, Middlesex County, Monmouth County, Morris County, Ocean County, Passaic County, Salem County, Somerset County, Sussex County, Union County, and Warren County and any town including Audubon, Gloucester City, Oaklyn, Audubon Park, Gloucester Township, Pennsauken, Barrington, Haddon Heights, Pine Hill, Bellmawr, Haddon Township, Pine Valley, Berlin Borough, Haddonfield, Runnemede, Berlin Township, Hi-Nella, Somerdale, Brooklawn, Laurel Springs, Stratford, Camden, Lawnside, Voorhees, Cherry Hill, Lindenwold, Waterford, Chesilhurst, Magnolia, Winslow, Clementon, Merchantville, Woodlynne, Collingswood, Mt. Ephraim, and Gibbsboro.