State v. Trantino

• Decision Date: 14 June 1965
• Docket Number: No. A--146,A--146
• Citation: 211 A.2d 193,45 N.J. 37
• Parties: The STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Thomas TRANTINO, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

Page 37

45 N.J. 37

211 A.2d 193

The STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Thomas TRANTINO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. A--146.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Argued May 18, 1965.

Decided June 14, 1965.

Albert S. Gross, Hackensack, for appellant (Albert S. Gross and Herbert Koransky, Hackensack, attorneys).

Ronald J. Picinich, Asst. Pros. for respondent (Guy W. Calissi, Bergen County Pros., attorney).

The opinion of the court was delivered

PER CURIAM.

We recently affirmed a judgment imposing a death sentence upon defendant. State v. Trantino, 44 N.J. 358, 209 A.2d 117 (1965). While the appeal was pending, defendant moved before the trial court for a new trial and we directed that the motion be pursued notwithstanding the pendency of the appeal. After hearing, the trial court entered an order denying the motion for a new trial, and the appeal from that order is now before us.

The sole question is whether because of pretrial publicity defendant was denied a fair trial in violation of the Federal and State Constitutions. The issue should have been advanced at the latest at the time of the selection of the jury since all of the matters relied upon were then fully known. In fact, before trial defendant moved for a change of venue but withdrew the motion with a statement by experienced counsel that he was confident an unbiased jury could be drawn. Although, as we have said, the issue in strictness should have been raised before conviction, the trial court decided the motion on its merits and so do we.

The case attracted considerable publicity. Two police officers were ruthlessly slain. The suspects were identified immediately and they having fled, an alarm was broadcast for their apprehension. One of them, Falco, was killed a few days later when he resisted arrest. Defendant, Trantino, surrendered to New York police. He fought extradition, and those proceedings too were publicized.

Defendant relies primarily upon two news items under date of August 27, 1963. One account reports an interview with the county prosecutor, in which the prosecutor stated that Trantino and Falco were wanted for the murders. The other story attributes to a local police officer the details of a statement purportedly taken from Patricia MacPhail in which she said Trantino told her he had killed the officers.

Insofar as the prosecutor disclosed that Trantino and Falco were wanted for the killings, the prosecutor did not go beyond the limits on pretrial releases we set in State v. Van Duyne, 43 N.J. 369, 204 A.2d 841 (1964), cert. denied 380 U.S. 987, 85 S.Ct. 1359, 14 L.Ed.2d 279 (1965), for obviously the public interest permits a broadcast for suspects who apparently are in flight. Insofar as the prosecutor's statements revealed in detail the alleged actions of Trantino and Falco in perpetrating the crimes, the prosecutor's statements did go further than the occasion required. So also with respect to the disclosure of the content of the MacPhail statement. No criticism of either officer is here intended since the events antedated Van Duyne. And we add at once that these statements contained nothing whatever that was inadmissible at trial, and further that their content coincided in all essentials with the evidence that was admitted at trial. The prosecutor's account in fact attributed to Falco a larger measure of activity than appeared in the trial testimony, and of course to that extent the discrepancy, if anyone recalled the news item in question, would have favored Trantino.

The issue before us is not whether the statements made by the public officers fell within or without Van Duyne. Rather the question is whether those statements in fact denied defendant's right to a fair trial. Van Duyne seeks to protect and defend that right by preventing official statements which might impair it, but upon the motion here made there must appear a likelihood that the verdict was tainted by a prejudice born of pretrial publicity.

We see no evidence of prejudice. The murder occurred on August 26, 1963. The case was not brought to trial until February 3, 1964, thus allowing ample time for whatever feelings the killings generated to subside and detailed recollections to fade. Each prospective juror was questioned in absence of the jury panel, and upon acceptance each juror was immediately sequestered. Thus no member of the panel heard the Voir dire examination of another. Twenty-one of the 115 jurors examined expressed a belief Trantino was guilty, and of course they were excused, but 14 jurors were chosen who swore they were free of prejudgment or prejudice, and we see no reason to doubt the honesty of their responses. Indeed the defense used but 13 of its 20 peremptory challenges. Further, the Voir dire examinations of the jurors did not suggest to the defense the need for a motion for a continuance or for a change of venue. And we repeat that the pretrial disclosures contained nothing that was inadmissible and nothing inculpatory that was not proved at the trial. In these circumstances we see nothing to support the motion for a new trial. The trial court correctly denied it.

Neither Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 81 S.Ct. 1639, 6 L.Ed.2d 751 (1961), nor Rideau v. State of Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723, 83 S.Ct. 1417, 10 L.Ed.2d 663 (1...