defense supplementary letter 1-26-21

January 26, 2021 The Honorable Darlene J. Pereksta, J.S.C. Mercer County Criminal Courthouse 400 South Warren Street, Third Floor Trenton, New Jersey 08650 Re: State of New Jersey v. Andres Mejia Indictment No. 20-10-0306; Case No. 20-3048 Motion to Dismiss Indictment_____________________ Dear Judge Pereksta: Please accept this letter addendum to the defendant’s briefs previously submitted

in support of his motion to dismiss the indictment against him.

Since the defendant submitted his brief and received the State’s response, the

State has provided additional discovery. It should be noted that this discovery was

withheld from the defendant and wasn’t provided until multiple requests were made for

same, despite a clear obligation to disclose this exculpatory evidence. Upon reviewing

this discovery, it became obvious that the defendant was not the only one the State

withheld this critical information from.

As argued in the defendant’s prior submission, the State never told the Grand

Jurors that the report which forms the basis of Count 1 was not the defendant’s original

report in which he turned in. Rather, they led the jurors to believe that the unsworn report

read to them by the sole witness was all he wrote on the subject. Nor did they tell the

grand jurors that the original report had no reference to the purportedly false statement,

MER-20-003048 01/26/2021 4:38:20 PM Pg 1 of 52 Trans ID: CRM202166733

2

or that Sergeant Laird emailed1 the defendant directing specific corrections to be made

to the report that included the purportedly false statement about the neighbor. In other

words, they were never told that the report was never purportedly false until Sgt. Laird

directed the defendant to change it.

Apparently, these were not the only critical omissions here. The State recently

disclosed the sworn affidavit of probable cause prepared by and submitted by Officer

Mejia when he charged Ms. Williams with theft from the person. (see attached). As the

only sworn document prepared by the Officer Mejia in this matter, there is absolutely no

reference to any neighbor, the sole basis of the purported falsehood. It reads:

The victim (Irvin M. Hayes) called 911 from his cellphone and the call went to Ewing PD. Hays told Ewing 911 that there was a “crazy person” at his residence and during the transfer to Lawrence Police by Ewing PD the call was disconnected. Upon arrival at the victim’s residence, Ptl. Dimeglio and I made contact with the victim. He related that his ex-girlfriend, Shamira Williams, stole his phone out of his hand while he was calling the police because she was acting crazy at his house while retrieving personal items. He indicated she snatched the phone out of his hands and hung up on 911. She then ran off with the phone towards Ewing on foot.

The Grand Jurors were never told this sworn document existed in this case.

It is submitted that it was not only incumbent upon the prosecutor to tell the grand

jurors that the report which was the subject of the indictment was directed to be

altered by the Sgt, but that the only sworn document submitted by the Officer Mejia

contained no reference to this allegedly false statement as well.

1 Extremely disconcerting is the fact both the original report and the email from Sgt Laird have been mysteriously deleted from both the server and the backup system, despite a letter to preserve directly served on both Ms. Petrucci and Lawrence PD. (see attached).


3

Additionally, problematic is the fact that the grand jurors were never told that

Officer Mejia was simply going to charge Ms. Williams with a DP theft on a hand

summons, which would not have required her to be arrested, detained and jailed.

As reflected in Sgt. Laird’s report, (see attached) it was Laird who ordered that

Mejia file the indictable charges for theft from the person and place them on a

warrant for her arrest. Had this not occurred, she would not have been in custody

and any police officer would be free to question her without the mandatory Miranda

warnings and electronic recording prerequisites of the interview in the detective

bureau. (See General Order - attached) This omission unfairly painted the

defendant as the ogre who elected to take the word of a murderer without doing

any investigation and throw this poor soon to be murder victim in jail for a trumped

up minor charge.

The newly disclosed discovery similarly withheld critical information from

the grand jurors as it pertains to count 2, his purported failure to investigate. As

this Court is aware, paragraph two of all affidavits of probable cause requires the

affiant to identify the basis of his knowledge for the charges, in other words his

investigation. Here the Officer Mejia wrote:

I am aware of the above facts based upon my interview of the victim and confirmation from Ewing PD that a 911 call by the victim was placed to them, he told them there was a crazy lady at his residence, they then heard a commotion in the background, and the line went dead as they were transferring the call to the LTPD. They tried to reestablish communication with the caller with negative results.

This paragraph, was likewise withheld from the grand jury. When the jurors are

being asked to return an indictment based upon a failure to investigate, they must

be told about the entire investigation. Here, when Officer Mejia arrived at the scene


4

he interviewed the caller, Mr. Hayes. Hayes complained that that Ms. Williams was

acting crazy at his home so he called 911. He further told Mejia that while he was

on the phone with 911, Williams snatched the phone out of his hand and took off.

All of this was corroborated by Mejia as reflected in the affidavit of probable

cause. He reviewed the 911 call. Hayes did in fact complain to 911 about a crazy

lady at the residence. Dispatch confirmed that while on the phone, the call

suddenly went dead after the dispatcher heard a loud commotion2. When Mejia

arrived at the house, the female and the phone were gone. Hayes advised Mejia

that he wanted his phone back and that he wanted a restraining order. It was not

until hours later, after Laird directed the warrants be filed against Williams, that

Williams was located and arrested.

This information contained in Subsections 1 and 2 of the Affidavit of Probable

Cause certainly qualifies as exculpatory evidence, which the State is legally obligated as

its duty to present to the Grand Jury. Yet, this highly relevant, exculpatory was not

presented to the Grand Jury for reasons known only to the State. This willful omission

renders the indictment invalid and constitutes prosecutorial misconduct.

As if that isn’t enough, there was a final essential fact in which the State not only

withheld from the Grand Jury but distorted to suggest that Hayes made the cell phone

story up as a cover for his assault to Williams, further exploiting Mejia’s malfeasance.

Ms. Petrucci asked Detective Ferraro whether at the time of Williams arrest did

she have his cellphone in her possession. Ferraro’s response in the cold transcript reads

2 This Court should be aware that the State is now claiming that these 911 dispatch communications are now missing also despite the letter of preservation addressed to Ms. Petrucci in September.


5

“No, not at all.” (GJ 11-10). This Court has an audio of the transcript. It is clear by the

tone of the detective’s voice that the manner in which this question was answered relayed

doubt that Williams ever stole the cell phone in the first place.

However, contained in the newly disclosed discovery is the affidavit of probable

cause in support of Hayes’ murder charge. Contained in same is independent proof that

Williams stole the phone and continued to use it while Hayes was being detained on the

Pennsylvania warrant. (see attached). Here the State elected to tell the Grand Jurors a

half-truth suggesting that Hayes was lying all along and Williams did not steal the phone,

further calling into question the conduct of Mejia. The detective didn’t just answer “no”,

but he added “not at all” as if in disbelief that Mejia would take the word of Hayes over

the word of Williams. Since Ms. Petrucci is prosecuting Mr. Hayes for murder, she too

was well aware that Ms. Williams did have Mr. Hayes’ cell phone, yet made no effort to

correct the half-truth. These grand jurors should not have been left with the misimpression

that Officer Mejia’s police work was so bad that he aided and abetted a false accusation

against Ms. Williams for stealing a cell phone. The State knew it was in fact stolen by

Williams and they had a duty to tell the jurors.

For these reasons and for the reasons set forth in his original brief, the defendant

respectfully requests that Indictment No. 20-10-0306 be dismissed with prejudice.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Robin Kay Lord

Robin Kay Lord, Esq. Attorney ID No. 002031986 c AP Kathleen Petrucci


MCPO/20003048/00000089


COMPLAINT – WARRANT (Court Action)COMPLAINT NUMBER

COURT CODE PREFIX YEAR SEQUENCE NO.

FTA Bail Information Date Bail Set: Amount Bail Set: $__________ by:_____________ Bail Recog. AttachedReleased

on Bail (√)

R.O.R. Committed Default

Committed w/o Bail

Place Committed:

Date Referred to County Prosecutor: ________ Defendant Desires Counsel: Date of First

Appearance: Advised of Rights by______________________ Yes NoProsecuting Attorney Information Defense Counsel Information

Name: Name: State County Municipal Other None Retained Public Def Assigned Waived Other

Original Charge 1) 2) 3)

Amended Charge

Waiver Indt/Jury

Plea/Date of Plea Plea: Date: Plea: Date: Plea: Date:

Adjudication (* see code) Finding Code: Date:

Finding Code: Date:

Finding Code: Date:

Jail Term Jail time credit Susp. Imp Jail time credit Susp. Imp Jail time credit Susp. Imp

Probation Term Susp. Imp Susp. Imp Susp. Imp Cond. Discharge Term

Community Service

D/L Suspension Term

Fines/Costs Fines: Costs: Fines: Costs: Fines: Costs:

VCCB/SNSF VCCB: SNSF: VCCB: SNSF: VCCB: SNSF:

DEDR/Lab Fee DEDR: LAB: DEDR: LAB: DEDR: LAB:

CD Fee/Drug Ed Fnd CD: DAEF: CD: DAEF: CD: DAEF:

DV Surch/Other Fees DV: Other: DV: Other: DV: Other:

Restitution Beneficiary:_______________

* Finding Codes1 – Guilty 2 – Not Guilty 3 – Dismissed – Other 4 – Guilty but Merged 5 – Dismissed-Rule 6 – Dismissed Lack of Prosecution 7 – Dismissed – Pros Motion/Vic Req 8 – Conditional Discharge D – Dismissed- Prosecutor Discretion M – Dismissed- Mediation P - Dismissed-Plea Agreement S – Disposed at Superior W – Dismissed-False ID

Miscellaneous Information, Adjournments, Companion Complaints, Co-Defendants, Case Notes:

COMPLAINT - WARRANT (Court Action)_________________________________________________________ ___________________________ JUDGE’S SIGNATURE DATE Page 2 of NJ/CDR2 1/1/2017

STATE V.

Related Traffic Tickets and Complaints:

2 7

2020

2C:20-2B(2)(D) 2C:33-4A

000341 SHAMIRA M WILLIAMS1107 W

MCPO/20003048/00000090


MCPO/20003048/00000091


MCPO/20003048/00000092


MCPO/20003048/00000093


Affidavit of Probable Cause COMPLAINT NUMBER THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

VS. COURT CODE PREFIX YEAR SEQUENCE NO.

Affidavit of Probable Cause

1/1/2017

Signed: _________________________________________ Date: _____________________

Page of

2. I am aware of the facts above because: (Included, but not limited to: your observations,statementsof eyewitnesses, defendant’s admission, etc.)

3. If victim was injured, provide the extent of the injury:

Certification:I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.

08/15/2020

I AM AWARE OF THE ABOVE FACTS BASED UPON MY INTERVIEW OF THE VICTIM ANDCONFIRMATION FROM EWING PD THAT A 911 CALL WAS PLACED BY THE VICTIM TO THEM,HE TOLD THEM THERE WAS A CRAZY LADY AT HIS RESIDENCE, THEY THEN HEARD ACOMMOTION IN THE BACKGROUND, AND THE LINE WENT DEAD AS THEY WERE TRANSFERRINGTHE CALL TO LTPD. THEY TRIED TO REESTABLISH COMMUNICATION WITH THE CALLERWITH NEGATIVE RESULTS.

6 7

2020 000341 SHAMIRA M WILLIAMS1107 W

PTL A MEJIA LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER

This form was supplemented by oral testimony provided to the judicial officer

MCPO/20003048/00000094


MCPO/20003048/00000095


Law Offices

SCIARRA & CATRAMBONE, L.L.C.

A Limited Liability Company Charles J. Sciarra* 1130 Clifton Avenue Jeffrey D. Catrambone* Clifton, New Jersey 07013 Hamilton Office Matthew R. Curran Tel: 973-242-2442 100 Horizon Center Blvd. Fax: 973-242-3118 Hamilton, New Jersey 08691 Deborah Masker Edwards* www.sciarralaw.com 856-888-7066

Christopher A. Gray# Frank C. Cioffi

Of Counsel Cathie Perselay Seidman* New York Office

Alan Serrins^ The Woolworth Building 233 Broadway, Suite #2340 *Admitted NJ & NY Bars New York, NY 10279 ^ Admitted NY Bar 212-384-0202 # Admitted NJ & PA Bars

September 21, 2020

Via Lawyer’s Service & Email [email protected]

Police Chief Brian Caloiaro

2211 Lawrenceville Road

Lawrenceville, New Jersey 08648

Via Lawyer’s Service & Email [email protected]

Lieutenant Timothy Drew, Internal Affairs

2211 Lawrenceville Road

Lawrenceville, New Jersey 0864

Re: Andres Mejia and the Township of Lawrence

Preliminary Notice of Disciplinary Action dated September 17, 2020

State v. Mejia – Complaint Summons 1107 S 2020 000419

Andres Mejia et als. v. Lawrence Township, et als. MER-L-1964-19

Our File No. 20-738

Non-Spoliation of Evidence / Litigation Hold Letter

Dear Police Chief Caloiaro and Lieutenant Drew:

This office represents Officer Andres Mejia (herein “Mejia”) with respect to the above

referenced Complaint Summons 1107 S 2020 000419 and Preliminary Notice of Disciplinary

Action, dated September 17, 2020. Our office also represents Mejia in the above referenced

whistleblower complaint filed against Lawrence Township and Police Chief Brian Caloriao. As

the Township of Lawrence (“Lawrence”) is a public entity, “Lawrence” as referenced herein refers

to, but is not limited to, the Township of Lawrence as well as any of Lawrence’s employees,

elected officials, agents, vendors, professionals, the Chief of Police, police department employees,

and officials.

Please consider this letter as a non-spoliation demand to preserve all evidence from Please



Lieutenant Timothy Drew, Lawrence Township Internal Affairs Department

Re: Re: Andres Mejia and the Township of Lawrence

State v. Mejia, Complaint Summons 1107 S 2020 000419


September 21, 2020 - Page 2

consider this letter as a non-spoliation demand to preserve all evidence from August 15, 2020 to

the present related to Mejia, his employment with the Township of Lawrence, his criminal

Complaint Summons 1107 S 2020 000419, and the Preliminary Notice of Disciplinary Action,

dated September 17, 2020, in Lawrence’s possession, including any electronic or written

communication, including but not limited to e-mails, letters, correspondence, memoranda, notes,

journal entries, social media (Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin, etc.) status updates, “tweets”, text

messages, instant messages, audio or video recordings, phone messages, voicemails, business

documents, personnel files, financial records and notes relating to said records, or any other

documents in general relating to or mentioning the subject matter of my client’s employment by,

or claim against, any of the parties. Should Lawrence intentionally, recklessly, negligently, or

inadvertently destroy, alter, amend, change or adjust any of the above-referenced documents,

sanctions may be sought in this litigation and an additional claim for spoliation may be instituted.

Lawrence’s failure to prevent spoliation of evidence can result in severe sanctions being

imposed by the Court. Furthermore, as you are aware, Lawrence’s obligation to preserve

documents and things for discovery arises in law and equity, independent of an Order of Court or

notice from this office. Thus, please let this letter serve as notice not to destroy, conceal, or alter

any social media, paper or electronic files, or other data generated by and/or stored on the

Lawrence computers and storage media (e.g. Secure Data cards, hard drives, flash drives, “thumb

drives” and/or backup tapes), or any other electronic data, such as voicemail and cellular telephone

text messages, that may be constructed in any manner as potentially discoverable information in

this litigation.

It will be through litigation discovery that we expect to obtain a number of documents and

things, including files stored on Lawrence’s computers, computer storage media and mobile

devices. Electronic documents and the storage media on which they reside contain relevant,

discoverable information beyond that which may be found in printed documents. Therefore, even

where a paper copy exists, all documents in their electronic form, along with information about

those documents contained on the media, must be produced in their native file formats. Paper

printouts are only acceptable for those documents that contain unique information after they were

printed out (such as paper annotations, highlighting, redactions, etc.) or are uniquely contained

with a paper file along with any paper documents for which no corresponding electronic files exist.

Additionally, future discovery requests may demand data from hard disks and backup

media used in Lawrence’s computers and other electronic devices, some of which data is not

readily available to the ordinary computer user, such as “deleted” files and “file fragments.” Even

though a user may “erase” or “delete” a file, a “deleted” file can be as intact on the disk as any

“active” file you would see in a directory listing unless overwritten with new data. Therefore, in

order to avoid spoliation, please be certain to advise Lawrence not to overwrite or reuse any media

of any type (including social media) prior to providing this data to my office. Lawrence should not

pack, compress, purge, or otherwise dispose of files or parts of files unless a true and correct copy

of such files is made.








The electronic data and storage media that may be subject to discovery requests and that

you are obligated to maintain and not alter or destroy include but are not limited to the following:

social media and all digital or analog electronic files, including “deleted” files and file fragments

stored in machine-readable format on magnetic, optical, or other storage media, including the hard

drives or floppy disks used by your computers and their backup media (e.g., other hard drives,

backup tapes, floppy discs, USB storage devices, CD-ROMs, internet servers and/or “clouds”),

whether such files have been reduced to paper printouts or not. More specifically, Lawrence is to

preserve all:

o social media pages and updates;

o From August 15, 2020 through September 16, 2020 provide all entries, modifications,

changes/altercation, supervisor notes, communications with superior officers in the

Lawrence Township Police Department IMC: Report Module System for the following

employees: Sergeant Richard Laird, Badge Number 217, Officer Andres Mejia, Badge

Number 214, Officer Christopher Dimeglio, Badge Number 190, and Detective David

Dalle Pazze, Badge Number 181; Timothy Drew, Badge Number 188;

o From August 15, 2020 provide all Lawrence Township Police Body Worn Camera audios

and video, Watch Guard Camera System, of the following employees: Sergeant Richard

Laird, Badge Number 217, Officer Andres Mejia, Badge Number 214, Officer Christopher

Dimeglio, Badge Number 190, Detective David Dalle Pazze, Badge Number 181;

o From August 15, 2020 provide all Lawrence Township Police Vehicle camera front and

rear, audio and video, of the following employees: Sergeant Richard Laird, Badge Number

217 and Car Number 901, Officer Andres Mejia, Badge Number 214 and Car Number

905, Officer Christopher Dimeglio, Badge Number 190 and Car Number 914, and

Detective David Dalle Pazze, Badge Number 181 and Car Number 907;

o From August 15, 2020 provide a copy of the Lawrence Township Police Department fixed

camera video and audio for Number 1 Booking Area and Cell – M3;

o From August 15, 2020 to the present provide all Lawrence Township Police Department

emails, both sent and received, whether internally or externally, including the personal e-

mails of any police department employee, including but not limited to Sergeant Richard

Laird, Lieutenant Timothy Drew, Officer Christopher Dimeglio, and Detective David

Dalle Pazze, Lieutenant Joseph Lech, and Chief of Police Brian Caloiaro regarding and/or

referencing Irving Hayes, Shamira Williams, and/or Andres Mejia;

o From August 15, 2020 to the present, provide all Lawrence Township Police Department

texts, both sent and received, including personal cell phone texts of any police department

employee, including but not limited to Sergeant Richard Laird, Lieutenant Timothy Drew,








Officer Christopher Dimeglio, and Detective David Dalle Pazze, Lieutenant Joseph Lech,

and Chief of Police Brian Caloiaro regarding and/or referencing Irving Hayes, Shamira

Williams, and/or Andres Mejia;

o From August 15, 2020 to September 16, 2020 provide all Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD)

entries on the Lawrence Township Police Department IMC System of the following

employees: Sergeant Richard Laird, Badge Number 217, Officer Christopher Dimeglio,

Badge Number 190, Detective David Dalle Pazze, Badge Number 181, and Officer Andres

Mejia, Badge Number 214;

o From August 15, 2020 provide all Lawrence Township Police Department radio

transmissions, including dispatch calls via radio or telephone, to and from of the following

employees: Sergeant Richard Laird, Badge Number 217, Officer Christopher Dimeglio,

Badge Number 190, Detective David Dalle Pazze, Badge Number 181, and Officer Andres

Mejia, Badge Number 214;

o Emails, both sent and received, whether internally or externally, including the personal

emails of any party including Sergeant Laird, Lieutenant Timothy Drew, the Chief of

Police Brian Caloiaro, the employees of the Township of Lawrence, police department

employees, investigative staff, officials, agents or professionals if his/her personal email

has been used to communicate about Mejia, his criminal matter, the Preliminary Notice of

Disciplinary Action, and his current lawsuit against the Township of Lawrence and the

Lawrence Township Police Department;

o all word-processed files, including drafts and revisions;

o all presentation data or slide shows produced by presentation software such as Microsoft

Powerpoint;

o all graphs, charts and such other data produced by project management software such as

Microsoft Project;

o all data generated by calendaring, task management, and personal information management

(CIM) software, such as Microsoft Outlook or Lotus Notes;

o all data created with or otherwise accessible by smartphones (including but not limited to

iPhone, Android devices, Google devices and Blackberry devices), tablets such as iPads or

Windows tablets, personal data assistants (PDAs), such as PalmPilots, or other Windows

CE-based or Pocket PC devices;

o all data created or otherwise accessible by mobile devices including but not limited to tablet

devices such as Apple iPad, Samsung Galaxy and Google Nexus; and








o all data created with the use of document management software.

We trust that you shall expeditiously convey this demand and copy of this letter to the

Mayor, the Lawrence Township Council, and the rest of Lawrence’s employees, elected officials,

agents, vendors and professionals, including the firm of Armando Riccio and employees in order

that Lawrence may fully comply with the obligations and expectations set forth above and by law.

I thank you for your attention and courtesies.

Very truly yours,

Sciarra & Catrambone, L.L.C.

By: Charles J. Sciarra /s/ Charles J. Sciarra

CJS/dme

cc: Detective Michael Ferraro (Via Lawyer’s Service)

Client


Law Offices

SCIARRA & CATRAMBONE, L.L.C.

A Limited Liability Company Charles J. Sciarra* 1130 Clifton Avenue Jeffrey D. Catrambone* Clifton, New Jersey 07013 Mount Laurel Office Matthew R. Curran Telephone: 973-242-2442 Briggs Professional Campus Christopher A. Gray# Fax: 973-242-3118 2057 Briggs Road, Suite 201 www.sciarralaw.com Mount Laurel, NJ 08054

Tel. 856-888-7066 Of Counsel Deborah Masker Edwards*

Cathie Perselay Seidman* Alan Serrins+ Associate Frank C. Cioffi *Admitted NJ & NY Bars + Admitted NY Bar # Admitted NJ & PA Bars

September 28, 2020

Via Email ([email protected])

Assistant Prosecutor Kathleen Petrucci

Mercer County Prosecutor’s Office

209 S. Broad Street

#3

Trenton, New Jersey 08608

Re: State v. Officer Andres Mejia

Complaint Summons 1107-S-2020-000419

Our File No. 20-713

Dear Assistant Prosecutor Petrucci:

As your office is aware the undersigned’s firm represents Officer Mejia in the above

referenced matter. Pursuant to our Notice of Appearance in this matter, please accept this as a

continued request that all discovery with regard to the above mentioned matter be forwarded to

this office. This demand shall include but not be limited to the following:

1. From August 15, 2020 through August 16, 2020 provide all entries, modifications,

changes/altercation, supervisor notes, communications with superior officers in the Lawrence

Township Police Department IMC: Report Module System for the following employees: Sergeant

Richard Laird, Badge Number 217, Officer Andres Mejia, Badge Number 214, Officer Christopher

Dimeglio, Badge Number 190, and Detective David Dalle Pazze, Badge Number 181;

2. Copy of the Ewing Township Police 911 call at 6:50-7:00 hours on August 15, 2020 from Irving

Hayes.

3. Copy of all calls from the Ewing Township Police Department related to the Ewing Township

Police 911 Call at 6:50-7:00 am on August 15, 2020 from Irving Hayes or anyone else regarding

a “crazy women hurting herself.”

4. From August 15, 2020 provide all Lawrence Township Police Body Worn Camera audios and

video, Watch Guard Camera System, of the following employees: Sergeant Richard Laird, Badge


Discovery Request


Number 217, Officer Andres Mejia, Badge Number 214, Officer Christopher Dimeglio, Badge

Number 190, Detective David Dalle Pazze, Badge Number 181.

5. From August 15, 2020 provide all Lawrence Township Police Vehicle camera front and rear audio

and video, Watch Guard Camera System, of the following employees: Sergeant Richard Laird,

Badge Number 217 and Car Number 901, Officer Andres Mejia, Badge Number 214 and Car

Number 905, Officer Christopher Dimeglio, Badge Number 190 and Car Number 914, and

Detective David Dalle Pazze, Badge Number 181 and Car Number 907.

6. From August 15, 2020 provide a copy of the Lawrence Township Police Department fixed camera

video and audio for Number 1 Booking Area and Cell – M3.

7. From August 15, 2020 to the present provide all Lawrence Township Police Department emails,

both sent and received, whether internally or externally, including the personal e-mails of any

police department employee, including but not limited to Sergeant Richard Laird, Lieutenant

Timothy Drew, Officer Christopher Dimeglio, and Detective David Dalle Pazze, regarding and/or

referencing Irving Hayes, Shamira Williams, and/or Andres Mejia.

8. From August 15, 2020 to the present, provide all Lawrence Township Police Department texts,

both sent and received, including personal cell phone texts of any police department employee,

including but not limited to Sergeant Richard Laird, Lieutenant Timothy Drew, Officer

Christopher Dimeglio, and Detective David Dalle Pazze, regarding and/or referencing Irving

Hayes, Shamira Williams, and/or Andres Mejia.

9. From August 15, 2020 provide all Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) entries on the Lawrence

Township Police Department IMC System of the following employees: Sergeant Richard Laird,

Badge Number 217, Officer Christopher Dimeglio, Badge Number 190, Detective David Dalle

Pazze, Badge Number 181, and Officer Andres Mejia, Badge Number 214.

10. All Personnel Records, including any employment applications, workmen’s compensation claims,

time sheets, attendance records, commendations, as well as any other documents contained within

the above mentioned officer’s personnel file.

11. Disciplinary Records, including verbal discipline, written discipline, as well as all records

regarding any suspensions for the above mentioned officer at any time during his employment.

12. The above named officer’s entire internal affairs file for any and all disciplines whether sustained,

unfounded, not sustained or administratively terminated.

13. The performance evaluations of the above named officer for the past 5 years.

14. All statements including oral, written, videotaped, or audio taped as well as any transcripts of any

statements made by the above mentioned officer, other officers, or by any witness or other

individual with regard to the above mentioned matter.

15. All notes or records of any oral statement given by the subject officer or any witness to the alleged


Discovery Request


incident along with the time, place and witnesses to any of those statements.

16. All reports including incident reports, accident reports, police reports, information reports, made

by the above mentioned officer or by any other officer, witness, or individual with regard to the

above mentioned matter.

17. All interviews, including oral, written, videotaped, or audio taped, of the above mentioned officer

or any other officer or witness with regard to the above mentioned matter. This demand shall

include any transcripts made of any interviews conducted.

18. All photographs and/or videos of the scene, injuries, witnesses, accident, officer, or any other

photographs and/or videos taken that in any way relate to the above mentioned matter including

mobile video recorder data equipped in the police vehicle.

19. All handbooks, policies, rules and regulations, and standard operating procedures given to the

above mentioned officer which describe in any way the conduct allegedly violated by the above

mentioned officer, describe any and all disciplinary procedures, or any other handbooks that in

any way relate to the operating procedures of the unit.

20. Copies of all ordinances and/or resolutions adopting the handbooks, policies, rules and regulations,

and standard operating procedures of the department.

21. Copies of any ordinance or resolution designating an “Appropriate Authority” as required to by

statute.

22. Copies of all correspondence, e-mails, and notes of conversations between the police department

and the County Prosecutor’s office relating to the above captioned case.

23. Copies of all notes taken by investigators during the course of the investigation.

24. Copy of the entire file transferred from the prosecutor’s office to the administrative agency if

applicable.

25. The name, address, and contact information for the complainant in the matter.

26. The statement, written complaint, notes, or document of how the complaint was received, when it

was received and who received the complaint.

27. The date any administrative investigation began, the charging authority was advised, and the

investigation concluded.

28. The disposition of the administrative investigation, if any, as required by the NJ Attorney

General’s Guidelines for internal affairs.

29. The internal affairs investigative report.

30. The training records of the investigating officers, including any training in internal affairs.


Discovery Request


31. The training records of the accused officer and any officer witnesses.

32. A list of all officers and civilians who were witnesses to the incident or part of the investigation

and a summary of their involvement in the case.

33. The name, address, contact information and summary of testimony of all witnesses that the State

intends to call to testify at the trial.

34. A list of all documents that the State intends to use as exhibits at the trial.

35. The name, curriculum vitae, and report of any expert that the State intends to use at the trial.

36. Anything else contained within the Internal Affairs file or the State Investigative file for the above

mentioned officer or regarding the above mentioned matter.

Please provide this discovery within ten (10) days of receipt of this letter. This is a

continuing request pursuant to the New Jersey Court Rules.

Should you have any questions with regard to the above, please feel free to contact the

undersigned.

Very truly yours,

Sciarra & Catrambone, L.L.C.

By: Charles J. Sciarra /s/ Charles J. Sciarra, Esq.

CJS/d

cc: Client


Lawrence Township Police DepartmentInternal Affairs Investiqation RePort

Internal Affairs Case No.: SI2020-28

Subiect Officer: Officer Andres Mejia

lnvestiqation:

On August 15, 2020 at approximately 0724 hours, Ptl. Mejia #2:t4 and Ptl. DiMeglio #190 respondedto a disturbance at :~8 J Russel Smith Rd. Lawrence NJ 08648. Dispatch broadcasted that the 9-:~-1 calloriginally went to Ewing PD and the caller related to them that a party on scene was acting "crazy."Sometime after Ptl. Mejia arrived on scene, he transmitted via radio that it was a domesticdisturbance. While I was enroute, Ptl. Mejia transmitted that he was in the parking lot of Capital Plazain Ewing due to the male party walking away. Ptl. DiMeglio then called me to state that he wanted towarn me that the male involved is being very uncooperative. He will not stop to speak with patrol andwas continuing to walk away. The call was brief and I replied that I was just a moment away fromarrival.

I (Sgt. Laird #217) then arrived on scene and met with Ptl. Mejia #214 who was stopped, in the parkinglot of the Capital Plaza in Ewing. I pulled up next to him and he related that the male (later identifiedas Irvin. Hayes) reported that his girlfriend arrived at his residence, and during the course of anargument stole his cell phone from his hand. The male was purported to be the victim of the theft butwas unwilling to cooperate and continued to walk away from Tiffany Woods, stating that he wantedto locate the female and get his phone back. Ptl. Mejia stated that the male party did not want policeassistance and related he would not stop to speak with the officers. I only briefly observed the malenear a store front before he turned the corner of the business near Olden Ave. and walked out ofsight.

I told Ptl. Mejia that we need to send Trenton PD to her address to locate the female as well asstandby due to the male stating his intent to go there to retrieve his phone. My reasoninl~ for this is Idid not want the male to arrive at her residence and possibly cause another disturbance. Ptl. Mejiagave the impression that the male did not want any police assistance with the theft of the phone andwas unwilling to stop and cooperate. Being that it was presented by Ptl. Mejia that the male partywas a victim, I did not believe there was justification to force him to stop and detain him for thepurpose of gathering information from a victim, as it was clear he was unwilling to stop andcooperate with the officers on scene. Ptl. Mejia did not brief me of any other offense at this pointother than the theft of the cell phone.

I then proceeded to check on Princeton Ave. for the female (later identified as Shamira Williams) incase she was doubling back to Tiffany Woods. I then ran the male’s NJDL that was located in theparties field of the CAD. Same showed he had an active NCIC Hit from PA. Ithen sent a chat messagethrough the CAD to Ptl. Mejia asking if he had checked the parties for warrants, which is standardprotocol for dealing with domestic disturbances. Being that I located the NCtC Hit and Ptl. Mejia.never

Sgt Richard Laird #217 1 9/01/2020

MCPO/20003048/00000023


Lawrence Township Police DepartmentInternal Affairs Investigation Rep,ort

mentioned any warrants when he briefed me about the call, I assumed he did not check the personsfor warrants, as he should have.

Dispatch was asked to check both parties for warrants and given the recently learned NCIC hit,I instructed Ptl. Mejia to try and locate the male. I too began to canvass the area of where he was lastseen. Ptl. Mejia flagged me down on Princeton Ave. in Ewing and stated he located the male in theparking lot of the Family Dollar located at the intersection of Olden Ave. and Princeton Ave. in Ewing.We entered the parking lot together and made contact with the male. Same was subsequently takeninto custody for the NCIC warrant by Ptl. Mejia and I. Ptl. Mejia then placed the male into his patrolvehicle and transported the male to HQ for processing.After the male was processed and logged into a cell, I came into LTPD to check on the status of PtLMejia’s progress with the complaints and the reporting. I approached Ptl. Mejia who was in the patrolarea, seated at a computer desk, and he related that Det. DallePazze was going to write the warrantarrest report for the male and complete the Fugitive from Justice ECDR complaint.

Ptl. Mejia also stated that he was only going to write an offense report for a DP theft and was goingto advise the male of complaint signing procedures. During this conversation he then provided moredetails about the incident, to which he did not provide previously when he briefed me on scene. Ptl.Mejia related that the female involved was known to act erratically and described her as "crazy." Healso stated that her vehicle had recently been impounded due to being struck by gunfire in anincident that occurred in Trenton and that her residence is known to house multiple other personswith possible mental health or behavioral issues.

During this briefing, Ptl. Mejia also stated the female was reported to have been causing a very louddisturbance at the male’s residence. Specifically, he stated that the female was reported to havebeen intentionally banging her head and face on the front door of the male’s house in an attempt toinjure herself. He also stated that her self-injurious behavior was "witnessed by a neighbor." I repliedthat having an independent witness was a great piece of evidence in this case, as she could haveeasily claimed the injuries were from the male. This was the first time that Ptl. Mejia had told meabout the self-injurious behavior and it was also the first time he had mentioned that the event waswitnessed by an independent party.

We then had a discussion about the offenses he should charge. I asked why he did not feel that a 3rdDegree Theft from Person would apply for her stealing the phone out of the male’s hand. He repliedthat the phone was valued at less than ~200 and so it was only a DP Offense. I then had to show himin the charging manual that a theft from person was a 3rd Degree charge that he should be filing, Ithen asked about what he planned to charge for the female creating a disturbance and injuringherself at the male’s residence. He appeared to be under the impression that such behavior was notan offense he should charge for. I countered, that if she arrived at the residence early in the morning,caused a loud fight that drew attention from neighbors who witnessed her injuring herself, asreported to me by Ptl. Mejia, and she stole the male’s phone, that this would qualify as DVHarassment. I then instructed Ptl. Mejia to begin working on the complaints for the female.


MCPO/20003048/00000024


Lawrence Township Police DepartmentInternal Affairs Investiqation Report

Due to the above circumstances, I found that a warrant complaint would be more appropriate, ratherthan a summons. The circumstances surrounding this decision are the following: There was a DVOffense for Harassment, the female was reported to be dangerous to herself (witness described self-injurious behavior), she fled the scene likely knowing the police were responding, her location wasunknown and attempts to locate her so far yielded negative results as well as she was accused of a ¯3rd degree crime~ I believed she met the criteria for a warrant complaint as opposed to a summonscomplaint.

As the complaints were being completed, Ewing PD was contacted to try and locate the female at anaddress in their jurisdiction, as the first location checked for the female yielded negative results.Ewing PD subsequently located the female and took her into custody for the warrant issued by Ptl.Mejia. Ptl. Mejia then drove to the scene of the arrest in Ewing and took custody of the female. Hethen proceeded to transport her from Ewing to HQ for processing. Due to a heavy call volume thatday, I do not believe I had any further contact with Ptl. Mejia for the remainder of the shift.

After processing, Ptl. Mejia and Det. DallePazze #181 transported both the male and female, inseparate vehicles to MCCC. While at MCCC, Det. DallePazze called me to advise that the female wasbeing rejected by the jail intake nurse. He stated that originally the female was screened by the firstnurse and was accepted for intake. However, a corrections officer asked another nurse for a secondopinion, to which the second opinion was to have her screened at a hospital prior to entry, due tofacial injuries. Det DallePazze briefed me on the injuries, as I had not seen the female, nor did Ptl.Mejia advise me about any injuries. Det. DallePazze related that she had a bump on her head but itdid not appear to be anything significant. In my past experiences with MCCC I know that the medicalscreening can be overly cautious with any injuries to the head or face and even minor complaintssuch as redness for minor swelling has resulted in MCCC refusing a prisoner. With that in mind,nothing appeared to be out of the ordinary for this prisoner transport. I then instructed Det.DallePazze to transport the female to CHS-Hopewell with Ptl. Mejia for clearance. Det. DallePazzealso related that Ptl. Mejia had complained to him that he had not been given an opportunity for alunch break. Det. DallePazze volunteered to forego his lunch and remained the prisoner guard at thehospital, so that .Ptl. Mejia could take his break. The female was transported from MCCC andremained at CHS-Hopewell at the end of my shift at 1800 hours. She was subsequently cleared forincarceration at a later time and transported back to MCCC and accepted into the facility.

I believe it was on or about the following day, Sun’lay Aug 16th, 2020 that I read Ptl. Mejia’s reportthat he submitted for review, which documented the above incident. After reading the narrative, Irecalled that Ptl. Mejia had stated to me that the disturbance was witnessed by an independentneighbor who saw the self-injurious behavior, but that information was not entered into thenarrative, nor was a witness added to the witness tab. I double checked that I did not miss-read thenarrative and confirmed that it was not documented in the report. Being that a witness to such anevent is a crucial piece of evidence and needs to be documented, I returned the report electronicallyto Ptl. Mejia. In the notes field, I asked that Ptl. Mejia add the information about the witness hepreviously told me about, who had observed the incident. This single electronic note is the onlycommunication Ptl .Mejia and I had about addint~ the witness information into the report. I had notspoken to Ptl. Mejia either in person or via any other forms of communication about this request.


MCPO/20003048/00000025


Lawrence Township Police DePartmentInternal Affairs Investi_qation Report

When Ptl.. Mejia resubmitted the report after reading my note for correction, he had added a shortentry" to the report. On or about 08/16/2020, Ptl. Mejia added the following to the narrative whichwas not present when the report was first submitted: "A neighbor of Hayes was outside upon myarrival, she indicated that there was a woman at Hayes house causing a scene this morning, bangingher head on his door. I could not get her information as Hayes was walking away from me and Ifollowed him." I read this revised report on or about 08/19/2020. Given the circumstances that themale did in fact walk away and was not cooperating, I found Ptl. Mejia’s statement to be a veryplausible explanation as to why the witness information was not added to the witness tab and thatthe narrative explaining same was an oversight when the report was first submitted. I then approvedthe report and submitted it for final review.

On the morning of Friday 08/28/2020, directly after roll call, Lt. Lech asked me to meet with him in hi~s.office. During this meeting, he explained that a review of the above incident yielded discrepanciesabout the witness that Ptl. Mejia referred to in his report. More specifically, video evidence of theencounter in Tiffany Woods did not support the statement that a witness had communicated with Ptl.Mejia about the female’.s actions. He asked that I make contact with Ptl. DiMeglio who was also onscene to try and validate the presence of an independent witness. He also asked that I write thisreport documenting my knowledge of the incident.

I then called Ptl. DiMeglio and stated that I was trying to assist with the investigation into the abovecase, as it was now connected to a homicide. I asked if he remembered it, to which he said he did. Ithen asked if he observed any witnesses in the vicinity that would have seen the female’s erraticbehavior. He replied that the only person he saw upon arrival was the above male. He stated that hedid not see anyone else outside or in the immediate area and stated the neighborhood was "quiet."After this phone call I have not had any further communication with Ptl. DiMeglio about thepossibility of a witness being present. I immediately briefed Lt. Lech that Ptl. DiMeglio reported not tohave observed any witnesses as reported by Ptl. Mejia.

S~t I~ichat~J Laird #217


MCPO/20003048/00000026


MCPO/20003048/00000104


MCPO/20003048/00000105


defense supplementary letter 1-26-21

Documents