South Brunswick Man's Murder, Manslaughter Convictions Overturned

The state Supreme Court overturned a South Brunswick man’s murder and manslaughter convictions in the slaying of his parents, ruling that he is entitled to a new trial on those charges because his right to remain silent was violated.

The court upheld Michael Maltese’s conviction on other charges, including theft and fraudulent use of his mother’s bank card.

Maltese, who is now 26-years-old, confessed to police in 2008 that he killed his parents, Michael and Kathleen, but that confession came after he took a polygraph test, was told he failed, and then repeatedly asked to speak with his uncle, “whom he considered ‘better than a freaking attorney’ before answering any further questions,’’ the court said.

“We conclude that defendant, Michael Maltese, asserted his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent before any admissions were made,” the court said in its 7-0 decision. “Because defendant’s surreptitiously recorded statement to his uncle occurred after officers violated defendant’s right to remain silent that statement is inadmissible. We further conclude that defendant’s following statement to law enforcement officers was the fruit of the unconstitutionally obtained statement to defendant’s uncle, and must also be suppressed.”

At trial, Maltese was found guilty of the murder of his mother, manslaughter of his father and other offenses. He was sentenced to 64 years in prison.

The trial court judge had suppressed Maltese’s statement to his uncle, but allowed prosecutors to admit the statement the defendant gave to police after the conversation.

The Appellate Division agreed with that ruling.

But in the ruling issued Monday, the state’s highest court disagreed.

The justices found that Maltese’s statement to police was also inadmissible because it was given after his right to remain silent had been violated.

The court said the statement to the uncle was properly suppressed because:

• “Defendant here indicated that he wanted to speak with a family member to obtain advice before proceeding with questioning.’’
• Maltese “unequivocally asserted more than ten times that he wanted to speak to his uncle.”
• He specifically said he wanted to talk to him about “what to do.”
• “The interrogation nonetheless continued when police engaged defendant’s uncle to assist them in the investigation.”
• He “confessed as a direct result of the false promise” that the camera would be shut off during his conversation with his uncle.

The state’s highest court said Maltese’s statement to police after that conversation should have also been suppressed because of several reasons. Among them:

• the break in questioning was less than seven minutes long when Maltese gave police that statement
• those officers “immediately gave a clear indication that they knew defendant confessed to his uncle that he killed his parents.”

But the court said, if Maltese testifies at re-trial, then the state can use his statement during cross-examination.

In that statement, Maltese told police he strangled his parents on Oct. 8, 2008, following a fight with his father. Then, he said, he buried their bodies in the woods behind Friendship Park, the decision said.

He said his girlfriend helped dispose of the bodies.

Police found the parents’ bodies in the shallow grave.

When that case is sent back to the lower court, the trial court judge must also determine whether police would have found the bodies through normal police procedures, had they not received that second statement from Maltese.

“On remand, a determination must be made whether the physical evidence discovered directly because of defendant’s statements -- the victims’ remains -- should also be suppressed pursuant to the exclusionary rule,’’ the court said.

Maltese’s girlfriend, Nicole Taylor, who is now 25-years-old, is serving a ten-year prison term for her role in the case.