N.J. Supreme Court Rejects Defendant's Alleged Right to Perjury for Lesser Plea

In State v. Taccetta, the N.J. Supreme Court rejected a defendant's post-conviction relief claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The decision may be found here. Defendant, an alleged member of an organized crime family, faced murder and racketeering charges. His trial counsel advised him -- incorrectly -- that if he was acquitted of the murder charge, he faced a maximum of 20 years imprisonment with just over 8 years of parole ineligibility. Defendant thereafter rejected the State's plea offer, which was 20 years with an 8 year parole disqualifier. He proceeded to trial, was acquitted of murder but convicted of racketeering and other charges. He was sentenced to an aggregate term of life imprisonment with a thirty year parole disqualifier.

On his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Defendant maintained his innocence to the murder charge. He testified that, notwithstanding his innocence, he would have accepted the State's offer. He indicated he would have perjured himself and admitted to aggravated manslaughter to gain the benefit of the plea. The Supreme Court rejected this argument. The Court held simply that a court cannot be complicit in a Defendant's perjury. So it was inappropriate for the post-conviction trial court to have found that Defendant was entitled to perjure himself. He can not be granted relief now, notwithstanding the incorrect advice provided by trial counsel.