A New Jersey man who spent more than 20 years in prison on a double murder conviction before being released for lack of evidence won't be eligible for compensation unless he can actually prove he was innocent, a state appeals court has ruled.
A three-judge Appellate Division panel in Kamienski v. New Jersey ruled Wednesday in a case of first impression that a habeas corpus ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in plaintiff Paul Kamienski's favor was insufficient evidence to show that he was eligible for compensation under the state's Mistaken Imprisonment Act.
Appellate Division Judge Marianne Espinosa, joined by Judges Carmen Messano and Michael Guadagno, overturned a ruling by Mercer County Superior Court Judge Darlene Pereksta to award Kamienski $343,000 in compensation and $90,230 in counsel fees on summary judgment.
"There was an insufficient basis upon which to award summary judgment to plaintiff," Espinosa said.
Kamienski, a former funeral home director from Passaic, had a history of drug abuse, according to the decision. He and two other men were convicted in 1988 of killing a husband and wife in a cocaine deal that turned violent in Toms River. The murdered couple, Henry and Barbara DeTournay, were found tied to cement blocks at the bottom of Barnegat Bay, the court said.
After years of state and federal appeals, the Third Circuit ruled that the facts did not support allegations that Kamienski participated in the killings, even though he did participate in the botched drug deal, the decision said. The drug-sale conviction was not challenged.
"We believe that no reasonable juror could conclude that the evidence admitted against Kamienski at his trial established that he was guilty of murder or felony murder beyond a reasonable doubt," Judge Theodore McKee wrote for the Third Circuit panel.
Pereksta relied on the Third Circuit's ruling in determining that Kamienski should be awarded compensation and counsel fees under the act.
In the appeals court's reversal, Espinosa said the Third Circuit's ruling amounted to a finding of Kamienski's "legal innocence" but not "actual innocence" which could leave him ineligible for recovery under the act. The state has been arguing that the Third Circuit ruling did not equate to "clear and convincing evidence" of Kamienski's innocence, which is a standard required under the act for compensation.
The appeals court ruling means, in essence, that a trial is needed to determine whether Kamienski was, in fact, complicit in the DeTournay murders. If that trial determines he was innocent, the appeals court said, Kamienski may then be eligible for compensation.