In a massive blow to the state’s embattled Office of Public Integrity and Accountability, a Superior Court Judge today dismissed an indictment of a prominent Lakewood rabbi and ended a nearly decade-long prosecution.
Judge Joseph Paone threw out the case against Osher Eisemann, saying the New Jersey Attorney General’s office failed to make their case that Eisemann had committed a crime. The dismissal came after the state rested and the jury was excused.
The decision cannot be appealed.
“It took seven years, but Rabbi Eisemann was fully and finally vindicated. This is yet another instance of gross overreach by OPIA. It is far past time for Matt Platkin to take a hard look at OPIA and the meritless cases it regularly brings. If Platkin continues to ignore the problem, the Legislature should hold immediate hearings.” said Lee Vartan, Eisemann’s attorney. “Incredibly, the two prosecutors who brought this case, (Jeffrey) Manis and (Frank) Valdinoto, are OPIA supervisors. And this comes after (John) Nicodemo’s gross Brady violation.
Paone said that state had the burden of “proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt and that a defendant has no obligation and that if the State fails to prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, then you have a duty to acquit the defendant, to find him not guilty.”
“I reviewed the evidence in this case and I made a determination that there was insufficient evidence to convict the defendant, and I entered an acquittal on both counts,” stated Paone.
Eisemann was first convicted of money laundering and corporate misconduct in 2019, but in 2022, Paone vacated the conviction and set a new trial after determining that the state had information that would have exonerated Eisemann that the state did not share the information with the rabbi’s attorney.
Prosecutors indicted Eisemann in 2017 on money laundering and corporate misconduct charges in 2019, but Paone vacated the conviction and set a new trial after determining that Deputy Attorney General John Nicodemo had information that would have exonerated Eisemann that the state did not share the information with the rabbi’s attorney.|
Paone’s decision to dismiss the first case was appealed to the appellate division and then to the New Jersey Supreme Court without success.
Assemblyman Avi Schnall (D-Lakewood) expressed outrage over how prosecutors have gone after Eisemann.
“It’s been nine years of persecution based on an agenda of politics and egos,” Schnall said. “The community is thrilled that we can finally at this point.”
But Schnall wants to know what prevents this from happening again.
“They went after someone with insufficient evidence,” the lawmaker told the New Jersey Globe. “This scenario can play itself out in the future. What are we doing to prevent this from happening again?”
State Sen. Joseph Cryan (D-Union), a longtime OPIA critic, said he was happy for Eisemann but angered by the state’s behavior.
“They can’t give the Rabbi back the years, but they should pay his legal bills,” Cryan said. “Another, among many, sad day for NJ OPIA.”
Nicodemo prosecuted Eisemann’s first trial. He has since been reassigned to an administrative job with the Division of Highway Traffic Safety and is no longer a line prosecutor.
Four former federal and state prosecutors have alleged that Nicodemo has shown a pattern of prosecutorial misconduct in this case and others.
Vartan, had subpoenaed Nicodemo to testify and sought to force the attorney general’s office to share his disciplinary record and employment file. The dismissal of the charges rendered a hearing of the prosecutor’s bid to quash the subpoena as moot. |
After the first trial, Paone said Nicodemo intentionally withheld crucial evidence and disregarded a court rule requiring prosecutors to disclose important information in the government’s possession to the defendant’s lawyers.
Nicodemo did not respond to a message left on his cell phone.
“We are tremendously disappointed that the Court would prevent the jury from deciding this case, despite the extraordinary standard that applies to such motions. It is especially unfortunate that the Court ruled before, rather than after, a jury verdict, leaving the State no legal recourse,” said First Assistant Attorney General Lyndsay V. Ruotolo. “Our important work continues beyond this individual case, and we remain committed as ever to tackling corruption or fraud when we confront it.”
Republican gubernatorial candidate Jack Ciattarelli, who could wind up appointing Ruotolo’s successor next year, took a different view.
“I am happy to hear that, while far too long delayed, justice has been granted for Rabbi Eisemann with the closure of the case against him,” Ciattarelli stated. “For over 30 years, Rabbi Eisemann has been at the forefront of advocacy programing for the special needs community, and I wish him and his family peace and success in their important work.”
Eisemann, who founded the School for Hidden Intelligence, was accused of misappropriating over $200,00 in school funds as part of a scheme to create the effect that he used personal funds to repay money he owed the school. He was found guilty after a four-week trial, but was acquitted on three other charges.
Vartan sought a new trial after discovering Nicodemo and the state attorney general’s office sat on evidence they were required to provide to the defense, namely the audit trail that led to Rochel Janowski, the former school bookkeeper.
Janowski certified that an entry she made into a QuickBooks ledger account “was never intended to erase a debt” owed by Eisemann, “nor did it.” She said the particular ledger item was used when she didn’t know how to attribute a transaction.
Vartan argued that Nicodemo and other prosecutors knew the entry was made by Janowski and kept from him, a violation of the Brady Rule that requires exculpatory evidence to be turned over.
“In the most literal sense, however, there can be no doubt that if Janowski is believed by a jury, the verdict will be different,” Paone wrote in his opinion. “It goes does more that merely contradict the evidence adduced at trial; it goes to the central issue of defendant’s guilt and has the probable effect of exonerating the defendant.”
Prosecutors argued that they did not suppress evidence because the QuickBooks data was produced before the trial. But Paone determined that the entry as “merely one line buried in a thumb drive of presumably countless pages of journal entries, and which was key to the state’s case.”
This story was updated at 3:21 PM with comment from Ruotolo and Ciattarelli.