State v. Gerald Butler: Cumulative Error in the NJ Supreme Court
In this episode of NJ Criminal Podcast, former New Jersey prosecutor and New Jersey Supreme Court Certified Criminal Trial Attorney Meg McCormick Hoerner interviews Assistant Deputy NJ Public Defender Alison Gifford about the New Jersey Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in State v. Gerald W. Butler (A‑47‑24, Feb. 25, 2026). They walk through how a wiretap‑driven investigation, a shared Vineland apartment, and a largely circumstantial CDS case led to convictions at trial, partial relief in the Appellate Division, and ultimately a full reversal on the drug counts by the state’s highest court.
How a Wiretap Case from Millville Reshaped New Jersey Cumulative Error Law
In this episode of NJ Criminal Podcast, former New Jersey prosecutor and New Jersey Supreme Court Certified Criminal Trial Attorney Meg McCormick Hoerner sits down with Assistant Deputy Public Defender Alison Gifford to unpack the New Jersey Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in State v. Gerald W. Butler (A‑47‑24, decided February 25, 2026). This long-form discussion provides an experienced, practitioner-level look at how multiple trial errors—none individually reversible—combined to deprive a defendant of a fair trial under New Jersey law.
Episode Overview: Why Butler Matters
State v. Butler arose from a large-scale investigation into gun violence and narcotics distribution in Millville and Vineland, sometimes referred to as “Operation That’s All Folks.” Wiretaps, a search of a shared apartment, and a vehicle stop eventually led to CDS and weapons charges against Gerald Butler. At trial, the jury acquitted Butler of one weapons count but convicted him on multiple drug charges based largely on circumstantial evidence and a constructive-possession theory.
Years later, the New Jersey Supreme Court reversed Butler’s drug convictions and remanded for a new trial. The Court accepted that no single trial error required reversal on its own, but held that the cumulative effect of: (1) a “Wire” analogy in opening, (2) extra-evidentiary references to gun trafficking and shootings, (3) repeated search‑warrant and “target” language, and (4) Organized Crime Bureau framing, blurred the line between evidence and innuendo.
This episode provides detailed context straight from the attorney who briefed and argued the appeal, and from a host who has tried serious criminal cases in New Jersey courts. Together, Meg and Alison translate a dense Supreme Court opinion into practical guidance for trial lawyers, appellate counsel, and law students.
1. Factual Background: From Wiretap to Supreme Court Review
1.1 The Investigation and Wiretap
The Butler case began around 2016 as part of a broader wiretap investigation into gun-related crime and narcotics trafficking in Millville. During the course of court-authorized intercepts, law enforcement identified communications that led them to focus on an individual they initially knew only by a nickname. Through subsequent investigation, officers associated that nickname with Gerald W. Butler.
As is common in wiretap cases, the State used both intercepts and physical surveillance to develop its theory. A controlled buy and other investigative steps pointed officers to a Vineland apartment they believed was associated with Butler. The apartment, however, was not leased in his name, and several other individuals also used the space.
1.2 The Search, the Apartment, and the Stop
Officers obtained judicial authorization and executed a search at the apartment. Inside, they recovered:
- Second-degree weight quantities of cocaine and heroin;
- Two firearms;
- Evidence suggesting drug distribution, including packaging and related items.
Butler was not present at the residence when the search was executed, and other people were found inside. One firearm was located under a couch where another individual was lying, and a co-defendant later accepted responsibility for the second gun.
The same day, officers stopped a vehicle in which Butler was riding with his girlfriend. Several phones were seized, and text messages were later introduced as alleged corroboration of Butler’s role in drug distribution.
1.3 Indictments, Trial, and Split Verdict
Butler was initially indicted alongside the individuals arrested at the apartment. The State later dismissed his charges from that joint indictment and returned a superseding indictment charging him alone with:
- Possession of CDS with intent to distribute (various counts);
- Conspiracy to distribute CDS;
- Weapons offenses related to the firearms found in the apartment.
At trial, the State’s theory was constructive possession and leadership in a local drug-distribution operation. The defense focused on the shared nature of the apartment, the absence of direct physical evidence tying Butler to specific drugs, the presence of other users of the space, and alternative explanations for ownership of the guns and narcotics.
The jury rendered a split verdict:
- Not guilty on a weapons count connected to a gun found under the couch where another person was lying;
- Guilty on multiple drug charges tied to narcotics found in common areas of the apartment.
On appeal, the Appellate Division later vacated one conspiracy count related to a simple buyer–seller transaction, but otherwise affirmed the convictions before the case reached the Supreme Court.
2. The NJ Supreme Court’s Decision in State v. Butler
2.1 Issues on Certification
The New Jersey Supreme Court granted certification limited to four categories of alleged error:
- The prosecutor’s reference to HBO’s The Wire during opening statement;
- Testimony and argument about gun violence and gun trafficking in Millville, including Operation That’s All Folks;
- References to a court-issued search warrant and labeling Butler as the “target” of that warrant, in light of State v. Cain;
- The cumulative effect of those alleged errors.
Alison Gifford, as appellate counsel, argued that these missteps repeatedly and improperly invited the jury to see Butler as a violent, gang-related, gun-trafficking figure at the center of Millville crime, despite the fact that the record did not support that narrative and those charges were never brought.
2.2 Holding: No Single Reversible Error—But Cumulative Error
The Court’s key conclusion was that none of the challenged actions, standing alone, mandated reversal. The “Wire” analogy by itself did not clearly have the capacity to lead to an unjust result; the background gun-violence testimony, warrant references, and Organized Crime Bureau references also fell short of individually reversible error.
However, taken together, these errors:
- Blurred the line between evidence properly before the jury and emotionally charged narratives about uncharged violence and organized crime;
- Created a serious risk that the verdict, particularly on the CDS counts, rested on improper influence instead of proof beyond a reasonable doubt;
- Were especially problematic in a case where the State’s proof on constructive possession was circumstantial and contested.
On that basis, the Court reversed Butler’s CDS convictions and remanded for a new trial, explicitly grounding its decision in cumulative error rather than in any one decisive mistake.
3. The “Wire” Analogy and Pop Culture in Courtroom Advocacy
3.1 What the Prosecutor Said
In opening statement, the prosecutor told jurors that, “If you’ve ever seen The Wire, you know there is widespread violence, drug dealing, and a hierarchy with someone at the top, and the only way police can reach that person is through a wiretap.” The prosecutor then analogized that fictional scenario to Millville, suggesting that the investigation in this case was similarly aimed at identifying the central figure in local drug and gun activity.
Because Butler was the person on trial, the implication was that he occupied the “top” position, even though the State had not charged him with organized-crime or gang-related offenses.
3.2 Why the Analogy Was Problematic
The Court agreed that this pop-culture reference was improper for several reasons:
- It linked Butler to a narrative of organized violence that went beyond the actual charges;
- It encouraged jurors to assume the existence of uncharged, unproven acts based on their familiarity with a TV show;
- It risked portraying Butler as a “kingpin” figure that the evidence did not substantiate.
At the same time, the Court emphasized that a single improper analogy in opening—unrepeated in summation—did not alone warrant reversal. In that respect, Butler stands in contrast to other cases, such as State v. Williams, where a dramatic image from The Shining used in summation contributed to reversal in a different context.
3.3 Practical Lesson
The take-away for prosecutors is straightforward: you can be forceful in opening and closing, but attaching a defendant to emotionally charged pop culture, especially violent dramas and horror films, is a high-risk strategy when that narrative goes beyond the actual charges and evidence. For defense counsel, references like this should trigger a prompt objection and, where appropriate, a request for a curative instruction.
4. Background Gun-Violence Testimony and Operation That’s All Folks
4.1 Extra-Evidentiary “Background”
To explain how Butler became a suspect, law enforcement witnesses described Operation That’s All Folks and characterized it as an investigation into gun trafficking and shootings in Millville. The prosecutor later reinforced this in summation by suggesting the case itself was about gun trafficking in the city.
The difficulty was that Butler was not charged with gun trafficking, gang offenses, or specific shooting incidents. His case centered on CDS possession with intent to distribute and related counts tied to the apartment.
4.2 Why the Supreme Court Found This Problematic
The Court accepted that some background is necessary to explain how an investigation develops. However, background testimony must not become a vehicle for implying that the defendant is involved in other serious criminal activity that has not been charged and is not supported by evidence introduced at trial.
In Butler, the repeated emphasis on community shootings, gun trafficking, and the scope of Operation That’s All Folks painted a picture of Butler as a dangerous, violent actor beyond what the CDS evidence itself showed. Combined with other errors, this contributed to the cumulative prejudice.
4.3 Practice Tip
Prosecutors should carefully limit “origin story” testimony to what is necessary to link the investigation to the defendant’s conduct and charged offenses. Defense counsel should be alert to 404(b)-type implications when officers begin describing the broader context of community violence in ways that are only loosely tied to the charges at issue.
5. Search Warrants, “Targets,” and the Legacy of State v. Cain
5.1 The Pretrial Agreement
Before trial, the parties agreed that officers would refer to the apartment search as a “lawful search” rather than repeatedly using the phrase “search warrant.” This agreement reflected concern about the prejudice identified in State v. Cain, where repeated testimony about a judge-approved warrant was found problematic because it implied judicial endorsement of the State’s case.
5.2 What Happened at Trial
Despite that agreement, several witnesses referenced the search as having been conducted pursuant to a warrant. More significantly, officers repeatedly described Butler as the target of that warrant.
The problem was that:
- The apartment was not leased in Butler’s name;
- Multiple individuals used the space;
- The drugs were located in common areas, not in a bedroom or container clearly associated with one person.
In that context, calling Butler the “target” of the warrant suggested there was additional information—never presented to the jury—that convinced a judge Butler, rather than the others, possessed the drugs.
5.3 Cain, Warrant Language, and Prejudice
State v. Cain permits limited mention of a warrant to show officers did not break down doors arbitrarily, but warns against using warrant language to imply that a neutral judge has already validated the merits of the State’s case. The Butler Court viewed the “target” testimony as crossing that line, especially given the circumstantial nature of the CDS evidence.
For trial lawyers, the lesson is clear: if lawfulness of the search is not in dispute, there is usually little benefit—and significant risk—in repeatedly emphasizing that a judge issued a warrant or that the defendant was the “target” of that warrant.
6. Organized Crime Bureau References and Their Role in the Case
Officers identified themselves as members of the Organized Crime Bureau (OCB), mentioning that the bureau focuses on violent crimes and gun trafficking. Defense counsel objected, and the court offered a limiting instruction. As a strategic choice, counsel declined the instruction to avoid reemphasizing the term “organized crime.”
The Supreme Court did not treat the OCB references as a major independent error, but recognized that they reinforced the broader narrative problem: the State’s portrayal of Butler as a figure in organized, violent criminal activity when the actual charges and evidence did not support that characterization.
On their own, the OCB references might not have warranted a reversal. In combination with the “Wire” analogy, gun‑violence background, and search‑warrant framing, they contributed to the cumulative prejudice that ultimately compelled a new trial.
7. Harmless Error vs. Plain Error: Why Objections Still Matter
7.1 Two Standards, Two Outcomes
On appeal, the standard of review often decides the case. In Butler, the difference between harmless error and plain error was critical:
- Harmless error applies when trial counsel objects. The question is whether the error had the capacity to lead to an unjust result.
- Plain error applies when counsel does not object. The error must be clearly capable of producing an unjust result—a significantly higher bar.
Because Butler’s trial attorney objected at least once to each category of disputed testimony and argument, the Supreme Court reviewed those issues under the more defendant‑friendly harmless‑error standard.
7.2 Single Objection Is Enough
The Court expressly confirmed that a single, timely objection can be sufficient to preserve an issue for harmless‑error review, rather than requiring defense counsel to keep objecting every time a theme reappears after the court has ruled.
That clarification matters for trial practice. It recognizes the reality that repeated objections can appear obstructive to juries and acknowledges that once a court has ruled, counsel is not required to disrupt the proceedings again and again simply to preserve the issue.
7.3 Takeaway for Trial Counsel
For defense lawyers, the takeaway is to:
- Object clearly and on the record at least once to each category of problematic testimony or argument;
- Use sidebars where appropriate to limit prejudice in front of the jury;
- Trust that a properly recorded objection will preserve the issue for appellate review, even if further objections might risk alienating jurors.
8. Why the Court Found Cumulative Error in Butler
8.1 The Cumulative Error Framework
Cumulative error doctrine recognizes that multiple, individually harmless errors can combine to deny a defendant a fair trial. New Jersey appellate courts have applied this principle cautiously and sparingly. Butler is significant because the Court explicitly stated that each error, considered alone, did not warrant reversal—yet still reversed based on their combined effect.
8.2 How the Errors Interacted
In Butler, each error pulled in the same direction:
- The “Wire” analogy implied a violent, hierarchical criminal enterprise.
- Background testimony about shootings and gun trafficking framed the case as being about serious violence in Millville.
- Search-warrant and “target” language suggested that a judge had already blessed the State’s theory that Butler, not others, possessed the drugs.
- OCB references reinforced a narrative of organized criminal activity.
At the same time, the underlying CDS case was circumstantial and contested. The apartment was shared; Butler was not the leaseholder; drugs were spread throughout common spaces; and the jury itself distinguished between one gun count (acquitted) and the drug charges (convicted).
In that environment, the Court concluded that the combined narrative effect of these errors created a substantial risk that the verdict on the drug counts rested more on uncharged violence and perceived dangerousness than on evidence satisfying the reasonable‑doubt standard.
9. Practical Takeaways for New Jersey Prosecutors
From a prosecutorial perspective, Butler provides a clear checklist of what to avoid:
- Avoid dramatized pop‑culture framing. Analogies to crime dramas like The Wire or horror films like The Shining add little and risk a lot when they go beyond the charged conduct.
- Keep background testimony tightly tied to the charges. Describing a broad investigation into community violence or trafficking should not morph into a free‑floating “bad neighborhood, bad people” narrative.
- Be disciplined with search‑warrant references. If lawfulness is not disputed, emphasizing warrants, judges, and “targets” invites arguments that the State is relying on evidence outside the record.
- Prepare officers on trial testimony boundaries. Witness prep should include a detailed walkthrough of what is relevant, what is 404(b) territory, and how to explain the investigation without implying uncharged conduct.
- Respect pretrial stipulations. Agreements on terminology exist for a reason. Departing from them will draw appellate scrutiny, especially when the departure favors the State’s narrative.
10. Practical Takeaways for Defense Lawyers and Appellate Counsel
For defense and public defenders, Butler reinforces several important strategies:
- Object once, early, and clearly. You do not have to object every time the same theme appears, but you do need a clean record that the issue was raised.
- Connect the dots on appeal. When multiple errors contribute to the same type of prejudice, make a cumulative‑error argument that explains how those missteps interact, rather than treating them as isolated complaints.
- Use split verdicts to your advantage. The acquittal on one gun count, contrasted with convictions on the drug counts, allowed appellate counsel to argue that the jury could distinguish when evidence clearly pointed to a third party—but that prejudicial framing may have tipped the scales on more ambiguous charges.
- Educate trial teams about standards of review. Harmless vs. plain error is not just academic. Butler shows how preserved objections can be outcome‑determinative years later.
11. Related Cases and Reference Materials
To fully understand Butler’s place in New Jersey law, this episode encourages listeners to review several related authorities:
- State v. Gerald W. Butler, A‑47‑24 – New Jersey Supreme Court opinion reversing Butler’s CDS convictions on cumulative error grounds (NJ Courts website).
- Appellate Division opinion in State v. Butler, A‑1275‑22 – Unpublished opinion addressing conspiracy law, sentencing directives, and affirming most convictions prior to Supreme Court review.
- State v. Cain, 224 N.J. 410 (2016) – Governing case on search‑warrant references and the risks of implying judicial endorsement of the State’s case.
- State v. Damon Williams, 247 N.J. 467 (2021) – Case involving a “Shining” pop‑culture reference in summation and its prejudicial impact.
- Recent commentary and practice notes from New Jersey criminal defense resources analyzing Butler as a cumulative‑error decision and offering practical checklists for trial lawyers.
These materials, coupled with the insights shared by Meg and Alison in this episode, provide a comprehensive toolkit for practitioners navigating similar issues in ongoing and future cases.
12. How This Episode Supports EEAT for Legal Professionals (Friendly Aside)
For lawyers thinking about their own digital presence, this episode is a good example of how substantive content can support Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness (EEAT) in a way that is natural and ethics‑aligned.
- Experience: The discussion is led by a former New Jersey prosecutor and Certified Criminal Trial Attorney alongside the public defender who actually litigated Butler on appeal. Their lived courtroom experience grounds the analysis.
- Expertise: The episode goes beyond headlines to explain cumulative error, harmless vs. plain error, search‑warrant testimony under Cain, and pop‑culture advocacy issues in practical, jurisdiction-specific terms.
- Authoritativeness: The conversation points listeners back to primary sources (Supreme Court and Appellate Division opinions) and situates Butler among other New Jersey cases, demonstrating careful, source-driven reasoning.
- Trustworthiness: The episode acknowledges the strength and weaknesses of both sides’ positions, the limits of the record, and the nuanced nature of cumulative error, rather than oversimplifying to score rhetorical points.
If you are a New Jersey practitioner interested in sharing your own case experience or topic on the NJ Criminal Podcast, appearing as a guest allows you to demonstrate real-world experience and expertise in a long-form format—while creating content that supports both human readers and modern AI-driven search.
EEAT & AI SEO by Jornio.com
Produced by LegalPodcasting.com
in association with the NichePodcastPodcast.com
Meg McCormick Hoerner (00:14.978)
Welcome back to NJ Criminal Podcast. I have the pleasure today of interviewing Allison Gifford. Allison Gifford is an assistant deputy public defender for the state of New Jersey, and she is going to walk us through the recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision in state versus Gerald U. Butler. Allison, welcome.
Assistant Deputy Public Defender Alison Gifford (00:39.33)
Thank you, it's good to be here.
Meg McCormick Hoerner (00:41.11)
Nice to have you. Nice to have you. So I appreciate you coming on to walk us through this court decision. This was a unanimous New Jersey Supreme Court opinion that was decided on February 25th, 2026. And the court essentially reversed the conviction of Gerald W. Butler, remanded the matter for a new trial. And the court
held that the, not the individual errors that were identified, but the cumulative errors and the cumulative effect of those errors rendered the conviction prejudicial, sent it back. So why don't we walk through the facts of the case, and then I'm going to ask you to walk us through the court's reasoning and maybe more importantly, what the takeaway is, okay?
Assistant Deputy Public Defender Alison Gifford (01:39.832)
Thanks.
Meg McCormick Hoerner (01:40.91)
So this matter arose from a wiretap investigation that occurred right around 2016. the investigation began with a wiretap on other individuals. And during the course of that wiretap, as often happens, there was conversations.
that led law enforcement to focus in on Gerald Butler. At the time of that, they only knew him by nickname, but through some investigation, they were ultimately able to identify that nickname and associate that nickname with Mr. Butler. There was some discussion in the unpublished appellate division
decision and I would encourage our listeners to read that. I found it a little more difficult to follow, but read it. There were issues in that decision that we're probably not going to get into in this discussion today. But in any event, he was identified and the law enforcement as a result went up on his phone. I go have it straight so far? Okay. and so the listeners that have have some familiarity with wiretaps.
I can guess at what happened next. Ultimately, the state made the decision to hit the residence where they believed Mr. Butler to be living. They had, I guess at some point made a controlled buy, but when they executed the search warrant at this particular residence in Vineland, he was not there. There were several other people there that were charged and
ultimately had cases brought against them and resolved before Mr. Butler's trial. But he was not there. There was second degree weight, cocaine and heroin, along with two firearms in that particular residence.
Meg McCormick Hoerner (03:53.036)
That same day that the search warrant was executed, it's my understanding that Mr. Butler was in fact stopped in a vehicle that he had been observed or believed to have been in previously. He was with his girlfriend. There were some phones in that vehicle that were seized. The law enforcement searched those phones and got some corroborating or what they believed to be was corroborating evidence as to Mr. Butler's involvement.
in the CDS, controlled dangerous substance, that was found in the residence where they had executed the search warrant earlier that day. He was originally indicted along with everybody who was in that particular residence. And then at some point in the time, the state made a decision to dismiss the charges against him in that indictment and supersede the indictment and just charge him in his own indictment. I have to presume that's because of
statements that were made by co-defendants implicating him that the state wanted to use at trial. I'm not necessarily going to get into strategy of state and defense attorney because I don't know all the details and none of us know the details of the investigation. But do I have basically kind of a rough sketch of the facts as they pertain to this case?
Assistant Deputy Public Defender Alison Gifford (05:16.234)
Yes, that was very well put.
Meg McCormick Hoerner (05:18.422)
Okay, ultimately he is tried and when he is tried, the state presents an opening statement and in its opening statement makes some references to the TV show, The Wire. And through the course of the trial, there are obviously law enforcement that testify.
they make reference to the court authorized search warrant despite some pretrial motions where I guess it was agreed that the term search warrant would not be used and instead the state would refer to lawful search. And that's basically pursuant to I think it's state became 2016 case. I actually tried a wiretap case prior to 2016, thankfully.
And so, you know, I think, and we'll get into this, but I think the question I would always have would be the concern of the state that the jury is sitting there thinking, well, what do mean the police just went in and searched somebody's house? So, you know, we'll get into that in a couple of minutes, but ultimately because of state B. Kane, it's not that a state can't refer to search warrant, but it has to be.
just enough to let the jury know that this was a lawful search and repeated references to search warrant can be problematic. In addition, there was law enforcement officers that were part of a particular unit, the Organized Crime Bureau. And so they introduced themselves in that fashion, the OCD. Ultimately, I don't know that the New Jersey Supreme Court was really concerned about that.
but there was references that the New Jersey Supreme Court found problematic throughout the trial to gun violence and really the reasoning for the initial investigation. Again, those initial wiretaps that were obtained, which the defendant denied being a part of. And there's some discussion, and I'll let you talk about it, some things that the defense attorney objected to.
Meg McCormick Hoerner (07:46.498)
some things that he didn't object to, and I'm going to let you explain why it's important. And then we can talk about those strategic decisions and how they can impact appellate review. And then ultimately, at the end of the day, co-defendants testifying, some of which was helpful, some of which really wasn't helpful, I think, to the state, which also
we can put on the shelf for a couple of minutes, but leads to trial strategy and how to handle these kinds of things. But when the New Jersey Supreme Court looked at these separate issues, found that individually, references to pop culture, you know, although in State v. Williams, where the prosecutor referred to the Shining, and that conviction was overturned, although
not in and of itself enough to reverse. The reference to the search warrant, not in and of itself enough to reverse, references this type of investigation, not necessarily in and of itself enough to reverse. But when you get through the entire, towards the very end of this 39-page opinion, the New Jersey Supreme Court said, you know what? Cumulatively, the effect was prejudicial. They decided
to reverse and remand for a new trial. And I'll just say at the outset, I was surprised. And the reason I was surprised, of course, with all due respect to the unanimous decision of New Jersey Supreme Court, my concern would be clarity. That when they say that each of these things were not in and of themselves enough to reverse, but cumulatively, it was reversible.
What is a prosecutor to do? The prosecutor who has the proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the highest burden in the law, a burden they should have. But what is a prosecutor to do? So with that backdrop, I'm going to turn it over to you because you handled this again at the appellate level, unpublished decision, all the way up through this New Jersey Supreme Court decision, which occurred almost 10 years after the alleged crimes.
Assistant Deputy Public Defender Alison Gifford (10:10.754)
Yes, that's right. And I think that the cumulative nature of the opinion is something pretty unique. We don't see a lot of cumulative error cases come out of the New Jersey Supreme Court. But I think, and I'll break down each error individually, but I think what really made this case a good case for cumulative error is that each of these errors kind of did the same thing. They all made it seem like there was evidence.
outside of the record, outside of what the jury was hearing, that Mr. Butler was some sort of violent, gun wielding, drug dealing, gang involved criminal. And that's not what the actual evidence that was put before the jury showed. And so I think I'll get into each of the errors, but I think that's when each of the individual errors ended up having the same type of prejudicial impact on the jury's deliberations. I think that's why
the court ultimately came out on cumulative error here. And I also think to, for it to serve as a bit of a cautionary opinion to prosecutors to, you know, it's the, it's the most basic principle, right? Stick to the evidence, stick to the evidence of the charged, of the charged offenses. And that's what the jury's decision has to be based on in order for the trial to be fair. So I guess starting with the wire reference, think the context that the wire was invoked in is
is pretty important because it wasn't just, this case, there was a wiretap. If you've ever seen the show, The Wire, there's also a wiretap in this case. But the framing was, if you've ever seen the show, The Wire, you know that there is widespread violence, drug dealing. It's hierarchical. There's someone at the top. And the only way that the police can get to that person at the top is through a wiretap. Likewise, in this case, there was widespread violence, trafficking, drug dealing in Millville.
And in order to find out who is at the center of it, the police had to get on a wire. And so the implication there, impermissibly for the jury, is that like the wire, putting the picture of, you painting the picture of the wire in their head, that's similar to what's happening in Millville. And who's the person on trial? It's Mr. Butler. He must be the person who is at the center of all of this violence and gun and drug activity in Millville. Again, that's not what the evidence showed. It's not what the...
Assistant Deputy Public Defender Alison Gifford (12:34.262)
offenses even were. were mostly drug offenses. were a couple weapons offenses, but there was not any sort of organized crime or gang-related offenses that Mr. Butler was on trial for.
Meg McCormick Hoerner (12:46.318)
Can I ask you one question? Is it arguable that those references were really probably referring to the original wiretap that was started?
Assistant Deputy Public Defender Alison Gifford (13:00.834)
That may have been the prosecutor's intent, but I think the issue is that it opened the door to the possibility that the jury would conclude that the person at the center of the wires of a crime in Millville is Mr. Butler.
Meg McCormick Hoerner (13:15.662)
Right. Yeah, and I think you're right. It comes down to there's a lot of information that doesn't go before a jury. And that's probably also, and we can talk about this more, but instructional for law enforcement in terms of the way that the investigation is conducted and how they testify. Because I'm sure there's facts contained in whether there's a communication data warrant leading to a wire.
information and a search warrant that's never going to go before a jury. And so that was one thing that I was thinking of when I was reading the pieces of the opening that were included in the opinion. The opening though is not evidence, right? And isn't a jury instructed before the opening statements what you're about to hear, the comments from counsel are not evidence? Was that argued by the state on
Assistant Deputy Public Defender Alison Gifford (14:13.482)
Yeah, that's almost always argued in any opening or summation prosecutorial misconduct argument that we raise is that while the jury got the argument that the jury got the instruction that arguments are not evidence. And the truth is that sometimes what the prosecutor says in opening and summation is just too prejudicial to overcome that instruction. And the court here did reiterate that openings are supposed to be a preview of the evidence. And so they're not in and of themselves evidence. But when the prosecutor strays from
what is going to be presented at trial, that in and of itself can have a real impact on the jury. The jury gets these instructions, but the jury isn't prevented from speculating about what maybe the prosecutor knows, what other evidence there was out there that they're not hearing. And the risk is that when the state previews something that's then not introduced to the jury is that the state actually has more information of the defendant's guilt than is actually presented to the jury.
Meg McCormick Hoerner (15:09.036)
Right. The other fact that I think important for our discussion is that the jury found Mr. Butler not guilty of the weapon that was found in the residence, but they did find him guilty for the possession with intent to distribute the drugs that were found within the residence. So there was some back and forth between you and the justices about that. If the jury was able to distinguish
hey, search warrants executed. There's several people, a bunch of people in a residence. The quote unquote target is not there. And the state is saying, okay, this is a constructive possession case. Look at all these facts that we have presented that show that those items were his. The jury was able to parse out and say, yeah, the drugs were, the gun wasn't. So I think that...
hurt your argument, didn't it?
Assistant Deputy Public Defender Alison Gifford (16:09.582)
Yeah, it hurt my argument and I have at argument and in the opinion even, and I have always reiterated argument since argument is that there was a really strong third party guilt argument for the gun. There was, it was found under a couch where another person was lying down where when the, when the police entered the apartment. So defense counsel had a really strong argument that wasn't Mr. Butler's gun. was under the couch where someone else was sleeping.
The drugs on the other hand are all over the apartment. They're in kitchen cabinets, they're in closets. there's a...
Meg McCormick Hoerner (16:41.642)
and the second gun, one of the codefendants accepted responsibility for.
Assistant Deputy Public Defender Alison Gifford (16:45.018)
ownership of. So all of these errors that could that you know made it seem like Mr. Butler was at the head of some sort of gang drug dealing drugs and guns even if they acquitted him of the guns they said that belonged to this third party but all of these errors that made it seem like he's using this apartment as his headquarters to drug deal I'm gonna convict him of that and they could said I'm
Assistant Deputy Public Defender Alison Gifford (17:11.746)
you know, these errors tip the scales in favor of thinking that he was attached to these drugs because there was no other third clear third party. They had to decide who possessed with intent to distribute these drugs. It could be any number of people in the apartment. And well, because we are hearing that Mr. Butler is at the helm of this thing, it's him as opposed to the gun that was more cleanly.
Meg McCormick Hoerner (17:32.462)
He was not on the lease
Assistant Deputy Public Defender Alison Gifford (17:34.634)
No, he was not on the lease. was not his apartment. There were a number of people who used the apartment. So the, and as defense counsel argued, you know, there's not enough evidence connecting him to these drugs. And so the jury had to decide, we're hearing there's a number of people who's the person who's actually possessing these and the errors all kind of tip the scales in favor of it being Mr. Butler. Whereas the gun was more cleanly connected to someone else.
Meg McCormick Hoerner (17:59.586)
So your argument was that the facts that were presented should have resulted in not guilty.
Assistant Deputy Public Defender Alison Gifford (18:05.58)
The facts presented without, yes, without the That it was so, the case was so circumstantial that without the errors, painting a picture for the jury that Mr. Butler was kind of like a wire-esque figure at running a drug dealing operation as part of a gang, something like that, that they could have acquitted him of the drug offenses as well.
Meg McCormick Hoerner (18:07.831)
the prejudicial.
Meg McCormick Hoerner (18:28.588)
But and the opinion says that, you know, this reference by itself did not clearly have the capacity to lead to an unjust result and does not in and of itself warrant reversal. Now, I don't any prosecutor is probably going to refer to pop culture in their opening statement after this opinion, but nevertheless, that was what the court decided. So I'll let you move on to the next.
Assistant Deputy Public Defender Alison Gifford (18:53.932)
the next year. And I think you're right that probably the takeaway is like, stay, stay away from pop culture. can't really, it can do more harm than good. It's really, shouldn't be necessary. And of course, not every reference is going to warrant reversal. This one even on its own, I guess wouldn't, but it's this, any piece of pop culture that could potentially link, have a negative connotation for the defendant, just don't do it.
Really, any pop culture reference shouldn't be necessary to prove a case, but you can imagine there are ones that are less harmful than something like The Wire or The Shining, which necessarily involve people committing pretty heinous acts.
Meg McCormick Hoerner (19:34.868)
The was, in State v. Williams, was the shining reference in the opening or the closing? Okay. And the reason I ask is because I wonder if the decision would have been different in this case if the reference to the wire had been in the prosecutor's closing as opposed to the opening. And I say that because there were amicus briefs filed by attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, as well as the Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey. And I think I'm...
Did I read it in the unpublished appellate division opinion about facts that one of those attorneys presented how juries kind of make up their mind right after the opening?
Assistant Deputy Public Defender Alison Gifford (20:20.682)
The ACLU included a lot of data about that and how powerful things are. I don't know if it would have been different. I think, I can't remember now if it was the appellate or the Supreme Court opinion that made a note to say this, the wire reference wasn't reiterated in closing. So I think that weighed against it being reversible in and of itself. If it had been, I think there's a good chance that the case would have come out the other way. Of course, I'm not on the Supreme Court. But I think the fact that it was just in one.
probably, and just in the opening, influenced the court's decision to hold it was one of many reversible errors, but not reversible in and of itself.
Meg McCormick Hoerner (20:57.962)
Yeah. I wonder if the justices felt that the evidence didn't support the jury's decision.
Tom Ritter (21:07.726)
Quick pause in the conversation for a minute. If you're a lawyer or you run a small firm and you're listening to this thinking, have no idea how AI, Google summaries or EEAT are treating my firm right now. Or you don't know what the ABA's best practices for EEAT even refers to? Meg and I are doing something very specific for listeners of the New Jersey Criminal Podcast.
When I'm not producing legal podcasts, I work with a company called Jornio and all we do is look at how AI and search engines decide which lawyers get treated as the authority in criminal, family, or injury matters where local jurisdictional savvy matters. This is how small firms can outplay big budget billboard firms.
in the new AI environment at the top of Google. So here's the offer. You can claim a walkthrough and a custom EEAT AI optimization playbook designed for your firm. Meg and I will join you on a 20 to 30 minute call. We will have reviewed and audited your website, your Google profile, your reviews and your online footprint.
and show you where AI is already inclined to trust you as the authority and where you're diluting your authority. Based on that analysis, Jornio will then create a fully tailored content cluster around one high-value case type in your geography. That's a long-form AI-friendly article plus supporting social posts you can plug into LinkedIn, Google Business, X, Instagram, and your other channels.
There's no obligation beyond showing up and being candid about what you actually do and where you really want to win cases. The whole point is to align your online story with your actual experience, expertise, authoritativeness, and trustworthiness, or EEAT. So when someone types their fear into Google or an AI tool, your firm is the one that makes sense to surface. If that sounds useful, go to jorneo.com.
Tom (23:44.544)
and ask to schedule an EEAT AI walkthrough with Meg and Tom. We'll review your firm, walk you through a custom playbook, and you'll walk away with that content cluster as a working example you can publish and build on. Links below, anywhere this video is posted. Now back to the show.
Assistant Deputy Public Defender Alison Gifford (24:12.078)
I mean, I've argued the whole time that the evidence here was very circums- insufficient. so I don't think we would have gotten a cumul- we wouldn't have gotten a cumulative error reversal if there was a super strong case against Mr. Butler. So it was really the combination of a case being based on circumstantial evidence and then a series of errors, which could have made the jury tie Mr. Butler to the drugs that were found in the apartment that I think created the outcome that we got in this.
Peace.
Meg McCormick Hoerner (24:44.248)
So why don't you move on to what the court describes as extra evidentiary references. Talk to me about that.
Assistant Deputy Public Defender Alison Gifford (24:53.454)
So there were a number of officers who testified about the background of the investigation that led to Mr. Butler's arrest. And in providing that background information, there was discussion of this investigation called Operation That's All Folks. it was about the investigation was into gun trafficking and violence in the city of Millville. And then again, in summation, the prosecutor said, you know that this case is about gun trafficking in Millville. And so...
This was not a, again, this was not a gun trafficking case. This was not, there was no gang related crimes. was no violent crimes. There was no shooting. was none of those facts that were evidence against Mr. Butler. And so the background about the size and scope and scale and violence of the investigation, again, just asked the jury to speculate about Mr. Butler's involvement in those types of activities, which
the evidence against him to naturally support.
Meg McCormick Hoerner (25:53.612)
Yeah, I'm curious of one thing. And again, I can't remember which opinion I read this in, the ability of the state to go up on Mr. Butler's phone was because of communication about the purchase of a firearm in the original wiretap, right? Did that come before the jury?
Assistant Deputy Public Defender Alison Gifford (26:18.882)
That did. And I think in and of itself, that could have, but that in, there was a lot of quoted language that, so I that text in and of itself that maybe the jury could have speculated had to do with a gun.
Meg McCormick Hoerner (26:32.088)
But there was no other evidence. What you're saying is there was no other evidence that came out during the course of the trial that would have shown that you were in the business of buying or guns.
Assistant Deputy Public Defender Alison Gifford (26:40.832)
No, no. And so again, of course, officers can testify about how someone becomes a suspect, but they need to be really careful when they're doing that to not implicate the defendant in criminal activity beyond what the actual evidence permits. And so as I've said, that builds off of the wire error. It builds off of what I'll talk about as a search warrant error. But ultimately, I think the takeaway here for officers, for prosecutors, for defense attorneys in terms of what to object to is that if
the testimony about the background of an investigation starts to have these, what we call in New Jersey, four B implications, kind of other crimes implications. He's a bad guy. So maybe you're gonna just convict him because you think he's a bad guy. He's involved in other criminal activity. That is when, you know, defense attorneys should object. That's when, you know, the kind of thing that state, I would think prosecutors would want to prep their witnesses not to say before trial. And we saw, again, in this case,
Meg McCormick Hoerner (27:17.623)
He's a bad guy.
Assistant Deputy Public Defender Alison Gifford (27:39.084)
As with all the other errors set in and of itself, probably not sufficient, but with everything else, deprive Butler of a fair time.
Meg McCormick Hoerner (27:46.826)
Okay. And it was discussed separately in the opinion, but it's a similar argument to the references to search warrant. So talk to me about that, state v. Cain and what a prosecutor and state's witness can and can't testify about when they're dealing with drug offenses.
Assistant Deputy Public Defender Alison Gifford (28:09.422)
Yep. So, Kane is this 2016 case, as you talked about, and Kane essentially stands for the proposition that while the state can put on evidence that a search warrant was issued to show that officers didn't act arbitrarily, because I think you referenced this at the beginning of the podcast, if the jury just hears the officers busted open the door to someone's house, they're going to start thinking what happened here.
Meg McCormick Hoerner (28:36.835)
Right.
Assistant Deputy Public Defender Alison Gifford (28:37.728)
The fact that A, that the officers didn't act arbitrarily, that's where a reference to a search warrant would be appropriate. But repeated references to a search warrant, particularly in Kane, it was that a judicial officer had approved the search warrant, is inviting the jury to think that there, a bunch of evidence went before a warrant issuing judge who looked at that evidence and said, ooh, I believe the state's case. I'm going to approve this search warrant.
kind of ties back into these other areas that I'm talking about, it both.
Meg McCormick Hoerner (29:11.95)
He doesn't really know the nuanced differences between the probable cause that's required to get the search warrant versus the reasonable doubt standard at trial. Is that it?
Assistant Deputy Public Defender Alison Gifford (29:20.27)
You know, that hasn't been explicitly said in the court's opinions, but I think that hearing that a judicial officer approved a search warrant invites the jury to think that, so there is someone out there that believes that a judicial officer believes the state's case, whether it's to what degree they're thinking about the information that goes before a judge and what it means, I think probably depends on the jury, depends on what's at trial, but there's that risk of...
just repeated references to the search warrant bolstering the state's case and suggesting that there is someone out there who's approved the state's version of events. The issue in this case that they didn't actually talk too much about in the Supreme Court opinion, though they did a bit, was that first off, they do acknowledge, is that there was no dispute that this was a legal search. So all the parties agreed beforehand, just call it a lawful search. The search warrant doesn't need to be
brought up because it does have some prejudicial implications and we're not disputing that the officers acted properly in executing the search.
Meg McCormick Hoerner (30:26.606)
So this was not a situation where a defense attorney is trying to get some, you know, already litigated suppression issues before a jury to raise doubt. This was a situation where they had discussed it ahead of time.
Assistant Deputy Public Defender Alison Gifford (30:39.714)
And I think that bothered the court that there was an agreement to call it a lawful search. And then still, it was elicited multiple times that the search was executed pursuant to a search warrant. And the really big issue that I highlighted in the brief and an argument is that there was repeated testimony that Mr. Butler was the target of that search warrant. And so as I mentioned before, there were multiple people who were living in this apartment. It was not even leased to Mr. Butler.
The question is, well, the drugs are found in random places throughout the apartment. Who do these actually belong to? There's not direct evidence linking Mr. Butler to these drugs. So the fact that he's the target, the jury didn't hear any other evidence about why he would be the specific target as opposed to all of these other people. Aside from the fact that he's, maybe some of the text messages suggest that he's involved in some sort of drug dealing activity, but him as opposed to all the other people who live in the apartment, why? And so hearing that
Meg McCormick Hoerner (31:33.656)
Do you think between Kane and this opinion, a prosecutor shouldn't elicit testimony that a defendant was a target?
Assistant Deputy Public Defender Alison Gifford (31:42.936)
I think unless it's really, really clear as to why the defendant is the target based on the evidence that's put before the jury.
Meg McCormick Hoerner (31:49.986)
or the defendant has acknowledged that through her.
Assistant Deputy Public Defender Alison Gifford (31:52.206)
Yeah, that probably safe to stay away from from that kind of testimony. And yeah, I think unless it's disputed that the search is lawful, just call it a lawful search as opposed to talking about the search warrant.
Meg McCormick Hoerner (32:08.82)
And there was, I'll let you finish the last section, but I don't want to forget to ask you, and I don't have it handy, things that the defense attorney objected to versus the things that the defense attorney strategically decided not to object to and how that impacts. So I'm going to turn that back over to you for that.
Assistant Deputy Public Defender Alison Gifford (32:33.742)
The last error was the, you had mentioned it in the beginning, the discussion of the organized crime bureau and how the officers work for the organized crime bureau. And I had argued that like these all, all these other errors made it seem like Mr. Butler was involved in organized crime, which makes him seem like a criminal more than beyond what the evidence would suggest. so the court did not find that argument particularly compelling, but did find again, cumulative error, all the other three errors together, warranted reversal.
In terms of the objections, the attorney objected to almost everything here. Objected to the wire, an opening, objected to the officer's testimony about the investigation being in response to shootings that were happening in Millville, objected to the search warrant before trial, and that was why everyone agreed for there to be a lawful search.
did object to organize the use of organized crime bureau, but was offered a limiting instruction on the use of organized crime bureau and strategically decided I don't want to draw more attention to that than is necessary. But in terms of looking at all of these objections and in their different forms, the court reviewed all the errors under the harmless error standard, which means that the found that these errors were objected to below by defense counsel.
And something that's really, I think, helpful in the opinion more for, I guess, appellate attorneys, but for trying, I mean, of course.
Meg McCormick Hoerner (34:04.078)
Just explain just for our listeners who may not be familiar with the distinction between harmless error, plain error, all that.
Assistant Deputy Public Defender Alison Gifford (34:11.214)
So if a trial attorney objects to an error at trial, it's reviewed under what's called the harmless error standard. And essentially, if a trial attorney makes an objection, it means it's easier to get reversal on appeal. It means that the court is reviewing it under a more favorable standard. So while there just needs to be some possibility that the error could have led to an unjust result under the harmless error standard, if there is not an objection, then on appeal, we need to prove that the error was clearly capable of proving of
of producing an unjust result. It's just a tougher standard to meet. so anytime errors are objected to below, it means that we've got a better shot on appeal because the court is going to be reviewing the error under a more favorable standard. here, every...
Meg McCormick Hoerner (34:54.348)
for defense attorneys to hear because I I personally, when I was a prosecutor or defense attorney, I hardly ever objected. And the reason was, was I never wanted to appear to be like an obstructionist to the jury.
But I think it's important for defense attorneys who feel that way to know that it is important to preserve your objections during the course of the trial, even if it's at sidebar.
Assistant Deputy Public Defender Alison Gifford (35:20.534)
Yeah, absolutely. And sidebar is a sufficient way to object. And also what the court said that was really helpful is that a sole objection on an issue is sufficient for harmless error review. A sole objection may preserve the issue for review. So if the same error keeps popping up and you object once, sometimes we've seen on appeal, appellate courts say, well, they should have kept objecting, which...
I've always found kind of ridiculous because like you say, it's disruptive to the trial if your objections already have been overruled, it's just gonna keep being overruled. so...
Meg McCormick Hoerner (35:53.144)
So you searched the whole transcript for the word objection.
Assistant Deputy Public Defender Alison Gifford (35:57.186)
Yeah, the trial attorney did a great job objecting in this case. For example, the trial attorney objected to references to the investigation being about shootings and violence, but didn't renew that objection in summation when the prosecutor said, this, you know, this is about, the court didn't distinguish between those. The court essentially found one objection on each of these.
Meg McCormick Hoerner (36:17.752)
this case.
Assistant Deputy Public Defender Alison Gifford (36:26.966)
about the search warrant, one objection about the background of investigation being about shootings and violence, one objection about the wire. These things are sufficient to preserve it for harmless error review. And so, yeah, my takeaway for trial attorneys would be object. And for appellate attorneys would be, don't let appellate courts tell you that the trial attorney needed to keep on objecting in order for to be reviewed under harmless error.
Meg McCormick Hoerner (36:51.928)
Okay, got it. And so that was it. Ultimately, again, as we started, the court concluded its opinion by saying each of these identifiable errors
taken it individually were not enough, but cumulatively they were. And what was the case that they relied on for that type of, what is the controlling opinion for cumulative error? Is it Barney?
Assistant Deputy Public Defender Alison Gifford (37:23.726)
It may have been Bernie, because there's not really one controlling case on cumulative error. When we were writing briefs, were citing to different ones all the time. So I don't even think that they, I mean, they did quote to Bernie, cite to Bernie in appellate court may reverse judgment based on cumulative error, but they didn't really analogize this to any other case, because you can't really do that in the context of harmless evidence.
cumulative error directly. Obviously, you can analogize in terms of, know, cumulatively, the errors in this case warranted reversal likewise they do here, but it really is pretty fact specific. But I think there is a quote about in the cumulative error section where the court says, the state's framing of the case blurred the lines between facts properly before the jury and emotional undertones of uncharged violence, which created a real risk that the verdict was tainted by improper influence.
And I think that sentence really just shows how all of the errors had that same prejudicial effect of taking the jury outside the evidence and creating emotional undertones of uncharged violence. And so I would encourage attorneys on appeal to look for, look how multiple errors work together to have a similar prejudicial.
prejudicial impact on the jury. It's not always going to be as clean in this case where it was almost like the same exact prejudicial impact that each error had. But I think that being able to tie together the ways in which different errors could have impacted the jury's verdict and cite to Butler because it's a really helpful cumulative error case because it shows that you don't need to have. We see a lot in cumulative error opinions. We don't need to decide whether this error on its own would have warranted reversal because we decide the cumulative error warranted reversal.
But this is like the first one I've seen in a long time. We are saying explicitly, each one individually didn't warrant reversal, but together they do. And so I think that's helpful to be able to make that argument on appeal, that you don't need to convince the appellate court that at least one of the errors could have.
Meg McCormick Hoerner (39:35.87)
Yeah. And again, I mean, it's, it's, we've said this already. mean, the prosecutor bears the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on each and every element of all of the crimes charged. And that's such a high burden. And so I can imagine some prosecutors reading this and thinking that, you know, it's stripping their ability to forcefully argue a case. But I think what you're saying is that the
the court is saying, you know, just stick to the facts that went before the jury when you're making your forceful arguments.
Assistant Deputy Public Defender Alison Gifford (40:13.132)
Absolutely. We see forceful arguments all the time made by prosecutors in summation and we're told on appeal that that's not misconduct. They're allowed to be forceful as long as they are sticking to the evidence.
Meg McCormick Hoerner (40:24.246)
Right. I think the opinion they say that here, that a prosecutor can be forceful in their granted leeway to do so. You know, I think also it's important, as I said in the beginning, for the testifying law enforcement to really be prepped on what they can say about their investigation. And that's another probably takeaway.
for prosecutors to really sit down, you know. And I think the other issue is a prosecutor is given a, sometimes a case and maybe, and I don't know if this was the case in this particular situation, but they are not always involved in the underlying investigation. And so sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't, but it is important for law enforcement to be trained, I think.
in all of the things that are not going to go before a jury when they're conducting an investigation. Does that make sense?
Assistant Deputy Public Defender Alison Gifford (41:31.146)
Absolutely. think that's one of the major takeaways here.
Meg McCormick Hoerner (41:34.08)
Yeah, and so...
Meg McCormick Hoerner (41:38.688)
I mean, this case would have been a whole different case if Mr. Butler was in the residence probably when the search warrant was executed. And I don't know why they hit the house and he wasn't there, but that's, it is what it is kind of a thing. The prosecutor is stuck to some extent with the facts of the case that's before them and have to make decisions about whether or not
the state believes certain conduct to have occurred or be occurring, make a decision when presenting a case and when negotiating cases as to what the facts actually show. I would you agree with that to some extent?
Assistant Deputy Public Defender Alison Gifford (42:24.044)
Yeah, no, I agree with that. I think when they're
When it comes across like the prosecutor is making statements or eliciting testimony to fill gaps in the case, that's not going to go over well on appeal.
Meg McCormick Hoerner (42:40.142)
Right, Ultimately, that's right. Right. So ultimately, that's what happened or that's what the court is saying happened here. Okay. Just a couple things and anything else about the New Jersey Supreme Court opinion that you wanted to touch upon?
Assistant Deputy Public Defender Alison Gifford (42:58.07)
No, I think we touched upon it all. I think the cumulative error takeaway is really the big takeaway here. OK.
Meg McCormick Hoerner (43:04.04)
You know, there were a couple things and I did read the unpublished appellate division opinion. Just a couple things I wanted to comment on. Am I correct that?
The appellate division affirmed all but one of the counts. There was a count that the jury found Mr. Butler guilty of, and I didn't print the indictment, but it related to...
what was believed to be a sale of narcotics by him to an individual, Mr. Phillips, I believe, who had testified at trial. Mr. Phillips was the buyer and alleged buyer and Mr. Butler was the alleged seller. And Mr. Butler was charged with a third degree conspiracy to distribute. I mean, that's been...
My recollection is that's an old case that says that.
Assistant Deputy Public Defender Alison Gifford (44:09.302)
from like fire right
Meg McCormick Hoerner (44:11.522)
You can't conspire with someone that you're selling to to distribute. So even though the jury found Mr. Butler guilty of that charge, the appellate division dismissed that. Is that right?
Assistant Deputy Public Defender Alison Gifford (44:26.798)
That's exactly right. found insufficient evidence of conspiracy to commit to distribute because it was just there was no more than evidence of a sale between a buyer and a seller and that in of itself is insufficient for conspiracy.
Meg McCormick Hoerner (44:39.534)
All right. So, I mean, that wouldn't have really impacted probably the ultimate sentencing because it was a third degree. The other thing that the appellate division had sent the sentencing back for, or sent it back for re-sentencing rather, related to an attorney general directive from 2014, you know, which I kind of was glazing over, but can you just briefly explain that? And so he had gotten a
a sentence that included a step of half. And so the Appellate Division had sent it back because it felt that the prosecutor of the state hadn't complied with this AG directive. And it was pending resentencing when the petition for cert was filed. So he was never resentenced. Am I right?
Assistant Deputy Public Defender Alison Gifford (45:28.238)
No, he was resentenced. got to that to the five year step. attorney eliminates mandatory minimums for certain offenses. Mr. Butler's offense drug offenses, Mr. Butler's being one of them, unless certain showings are made. And so it was a pretty straightforward reduction from the seven and a half year parole step to a five year parole step. That happened while the
Meg McCormick Hoerner (45:29.709)
was recent.
Meg McCormick Hoerner (45:33.686)
I realize he was re-sentenced.
Assistant Deputy Public Defender Alison Gifford (45:57.4)
pending before the Supreme Court. So he had already gotten a slight reduction in his parole eligibility term, but nothing so big as getting reversal of his conviction. he was really eagerly waiving the decision here as well.
Meg McCormick Hoerner (46:13.208)
got it. Okay. Well, it's a big decision. I appreciate you taking the time to explain it to us. I would encourage everyone to read the New Jersey Supreme Court opinion, read the appellate division opinion if you're interested. And I think it's really important to watch the argument. I thought you did a great job. know, both you and the state were really
put to the test by the justices, but it was a really good insight as to where they were going and the things that they thought were important as were ultimately reflected in the opinion.
Assistant Deputy Public Defender Alison Gifford (46:56.374)
I think that's right.
Meg McCormick Hoerner (46:58.624)
Alison Gifford, thank you so much for joining me. Let's stay in touch. And if there's anything you ever want to talk about and come back on, we'd love to have you.
Assistant Deputy Public Defender Alison Gifford (47:07.342)
Thank you, it was nice talking to you, man.
Tom Ritter (47:08.546)
That's it for today's episode of the New Jersey Criminal Podcast. If you found this conversation helpful, make sure you don't miss future conversations with Jersey judges, prosecutors, public defenders, and trial lawyers. You can subscribe to the NJ Criminal Podcast on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, YouTube, or wherever you listen. Just search NJ Criminal Podcast and hit follow so new episodes land automatically.
And if you're a lawyer, investigator, or expert with real true crime or criminal defense experience in New Jersey, and you'd like to bring that story to the show, we'd love to hear from you. Being a guest or guest host is a simple way to experience the benefits of EEAT and SEO related to podcasting, long form audio, show notes, and highlight clips that touch on your experience, expertise, authoritativeness, and trustworthiness.
without having to launch and manage your own podcast. And if today's discussion raised questions about how your firm shows up in AI and search, that's where Jornio comes in. When we're not producing the podcast, we work with law firms through Jornio.com to run a custom firm audit and walk through of your online footprint. We'll build an EEAT driven AI strategy playbook tailored to your practice and your jurisdiction.
and will deliver a usable, optimized content cluster you can actually publish, articles and social posts just for participating in a Jornio audit and walkthrough.
go to journeo.com and book a call. Or go to the NJ Criminal Podcast, reach out to Megari and mention Jornio. And thanks for listening. We'll see you on the next episode.
