A Jersey City man who caused a fatal crash that killed his best friend in 2017 will have a new trial after court proceedings in 2019 ended in a mistrial after his blood sample was mixed up with someone else’s, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled.
By John Heinis/Hudson County View
Stephen Zadroga, 35, was driving on November 16th, 2017, when two cars collided head-on in Jersey City’s Paterson Plank Road, allegedly driving while intoxicated at a speed between 85 and 88 miles per hour three seconds before the crash.
While he faced charges that included death by auto, the nurse who drew his blood after the accident testified that the blood sample that had a 0.376 blood alcohol content did not belong to Zadroga, but someone who had died seven months prior to the accident.
“The court found that although the State’s handling of the blood evidence constituted bad faith and inexcusable neglect, allowing defendant to be retried on the counts unrelated to intoxication would not violate his rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause,” Justice Rachel Wainer Apter wrote in today’s opinion.
“Both because defendant consented to the trial’s termination and because there was a manifest necessity to terminate the trial. The Appellate Division affirmed on manifest necessity grounds.”
The appellate court’s April 2022 decision called for a retrial solely based on proving reckless driving and that opinion was upheld on Wednesday.
“Because the State’s ‘inexcusable conduct’ directly impacted the three counts of the indictment that were ‘predicated upon a finding of the Defendant’s BAC level,’ the trial court dismissed counts three, four, and five with prejudice,” the Supreme Court wrote.
“However, because defendant had not been ‘subjected to the quantum of oppression, harassment, or egregious deprivation necessary to warrant a dismissal’ of counts one and two with prejudice, the trial court denied defendant’s motion for reconsideration as to those two counts.”
In August 2019, Peter Willis, counsel for Zadroga, made the argument that the “reckless conduct” with the way the blood sample was handled warranted the full dismissal of the case, but to no avail.
“Prohibiting the State from putting forth any evidence or argument that defendant was intoxicated acknowledges the harm the State caused defendant by grossly mishandling the blood evidence,” the state’s highest court concluded.
“And allowing the State to present the charges of aggravated manslaughter and death by auto to a new grand jury, without evidence of intoxication, recognizes that a human being died in this crash.”
As a result, the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
