Partial Victory in Conviction Appeal

TRENTON – In October 2018, three individuals were indicted for the first-degree drug-induced death of Lower Township resident Eric Nolan, 35, son of Cape May County Sheriff Robert Nolan. 
One of those indicted, Lauren M. Dorff, was convicted and sentenced in January 2020 to eight years,with no early release.
Dorff appealed her guilty plea conviction, arguing that the lower court should have suppressed two statements she made to police on two separate interrogations. 
The appeals court July 20 affirmed the lower court ruling, with respect to one of the statements, and decided for the defendant in the other. The case was then remanded back to the trial court for resolution.
Background
Eric Nolan July 21, 2018, was found dead in his North Cape May residencedue to an overdose. Three individuals, one man and two women, were charged with supplying him with the drugs that led to his death. 
Dorff, then 31 and a Villas resident, was one of the women charged. Dorff and Nolan had what was described by the court as an “on-off relationship.” The court also noted that Dorff and Nolan “shared a child together.” 
Dorff was interrogated by detectives from the Lower Township Police Department and the Cape May County Prosecutor’s Office. 
In a July 22, 2018, interrogation, Dorff stated she obtained money from Nolan, but received the funds as a loan and with no intention of supplying him  drugs. She claimed she was not involved with his death.
Dorff Aug. 10, 2018, was interrogated again at the county Prosecutor’s Office. During the interrogation, Dorff admitted she sold Nolan a controlled substance prior to his overdose. 
In her appeal, she claimed the admission of guilt came only after detectives ignored her request to speak with an attorney. 
Decision
The Appellate Court upheld the lower court’s decision to admit the July 22 statement. The August statement was one the Appellate Court had a greater problem with. 
During the interrogation, transcripts showed Dorff indicated she would like the advice of counsel. One detective told her she did not need an attorney if she had done nothing wrong. The Appellate Court found the detectives “impermissibly burdened the right to counsel,” and Dorff’s Miranda rights were violated. 
The court also noted “significant disparities” between the transcript of the Aug. 10 interrogation video recording and the transcript presented at the original trial court suppression hearing. 
The Appellate Court decision states that under New Jersey law, questioning cannot continue after a request for counsel. It also notes that several of Dorff’s references were an invocation of her right to counsel. 
Stating that New Jersey requires “scrupulous compliance with Miranda,” the decision adds “there is no good-faith exception to Miranda.”
The fact that the Miranda violation occurred during “an early stage” of the second interrogation “triggered the suppression remedy for all admissions made thereafter.”
For this reason, the Appellate Court reversed the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress her Aug. 10 statements. 
It is up to the trial court to institute “proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
To contact Vince Conti, email vconti@cmcherald.com.