Opinion ID: 1482099
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: intra-office memorandum

Text: To: FILE From: PROSECUTOR ROBERT W. GLUCK Date: February 20, 1998 Re: STATE V. THOMAHL S. COOK On February 18, 1998 around mid-day I received a call from Public Defender Tom Scully. He asked me if the Public Defender's Office represents Thomahl Cook on the charges he was being held on (trespass out of Sayreville). I told him that the charges were a disorderly persons so I didn't think they would have represented him. He asked if we intended to charge Cook with the murder of Katrina Suhan. At the time we were not and I told him. He asked me to call him when and if we were going to charge him. I said okay. We charged him later that night at about 9:00 p.m. The Appellate Division affirmed defendant's conviction in an unpublished opinion, remanding only for correction of a sentencing error. [4] In respect of the prosecutor's memorandum expanding the record, the court observed that no attorney-client relationship had come into existence at the time the public defender telephoned the prosecutor. Accordingly, the court concluded that there had been no violation of Reed, supra, in the prosecutor's handling of the public defender's inquiry. The panel further held that the failure of law enforcement to record a suspect's statement by electronic means is a factor to be weighed when determining the statement's reliability, but standing alone does not present a violation of defendant's due process rights. Finally, the Appellate Division concluded that the trial court did not err in prohibiting defendant from presenting evidence in respect of the Noga murder. We granted defendant's petition for certification, 175 N.J. 548, 816 A. 2d 1050 (2003).