More allegations of prosecutorial misconduct by OPIA

More allegations of prosecutorial misconduct have been leveled against the embattled Office of Public Integrity and Accountability after the release of an email the state had spent four years denying existed.

The explosive email from then-Deputy Attorney General Pearl Minato was related to a sting operation involving the state’s cooperating witness, tax appeal attorney Matt O’Donnell, fifteen days before the May 2018 Bayonne mayoral election when former Assemblyman Jason O’Donnell (no relation) was a candidate.

In the email, Minato said Matt O’Donnell would “hand to (Jason) O’Donnell donations consisting of a few checks, all of which are legitimate.  (Matt O’Donnell) will then engage (Jason) O’Donnell in conversation regarding other types of donations, e.g. street money.”

“The sole purpose of tonight’s meet is to generate conversation of illegal financial support to O’Donnell in his upcoming bid for the mayoral seat,” Minato wrote in his email to three other deputy attorneys general, including John Nicodemo.

Court records show that the OPIA did not open a file on Jason O’Donnell until the day Matt O’Donnell wore a wire for their meeting – meaning that there was no evidence or prior allegation that Jason O’Donnell was engaged in illegal behavior.

Instead, this might have been prosecutors acting on a whim – which isn’t necessarily legal – and seeking to validate Matt O’Donnell’s cooperation agreement.

Jason O’Donnell’s attorney, Leo Hurley, accused the OPIA of spending four years “attempting to avoid and prevent the disclosure of evidence that will aid the defendant in his defense.”

“This evidence that the state continues to withhold is not only vital to his defense but will reveal what the state has attempted to bury for years: that there was no meaningful reason – other than whim – to justify the consensual intercept of defendant,” Hurley said.

The sting operation came after O’Donnell admitted to illegal activities related to government contracts as an attorney, including using straw donations.  He has been awaiting sentencing for nearly four years.

“There was no evidence or discovery that (Jason O’Donnell) was alleged to have committed any criminal acts – or intended to commit any criminal acts – before April 23, 2018,” Hurley said in a court filing.  “The state did not engage in any meaningful process before blindly issuing an authorization for a consensual intercept that was rooted in the State’s generation of conversation of an illegal activity.”

The OPIA appears to have targeted people running for office because they were running for office.  The concept of selective integrity testing – Matt O’Donnell and the OPIA picked their own targets – has been under fire from key legislators over the last two years.

“As alleged, the defendant was captured on a consensual recording accepting a $10,000 cash bribe in a bag. Unsurprisingly, the defendant is seeking to prevent that recording from being heard at trial,” a spokesperson for the attorney general’s office stated.  “The parties disagree about the proper scope of discovery in connection with the defendant’s effort to keep that recording out of court and to avoid responsibility.”

The spokesperson said the state “has a responsibility to defend discovery rules that prevent this and other cases from devolving into fishing expeditions that unnecessarily delay justice.”

“The state looks forward to responding to the defendant’s brief and litigating this case in the courtroom, and not the press,” the spokesperson said.

The controversial Nicodemo, who told Superior Court Judge Mitzi Galis-Menendez in 2021 that all discovery had been produced, has faced allegations of prosecutorial misconduct in multiple cases and from several different defense attorneys – all former federal and state prosecutors.

Nicodemo has been relieved of his prosecutorial responsibilities and reassigned to a desk job in the state Office of Highway Safety.

There are still roughly 4,000 emails that the state has still not turned over.

“Only after years of motion practice, and ultimate Court intervention, did (the) defendant ever see the text (message from Minato.),” Hurley said.