State of New Jersey v. Marc Panchenko – The Impact of Waiving Miranda Rights

State of New Jersey v. Marc Panchenko 

Docket No. A-0133-19

Decided August 26, 2022

Submitted by New Jersey Sex Crime Lawyer, Jeffrey Hark

In a recent unpublished decision, the Appellate Division of New Jersey affirmed the trial court’s grant of the State’s motion to admit Defendant’s statement to police. At the suppression hearing, the trial court heard testimony from the detective who led the execution of the search warrant at Defendant’s apartment and from Defendant himself. The detective testified that Defendant answered the door when she knocked, and that she provided him with a copy of the search warrant authorizing the removal of materials related to child pornography. Defendant let the team of investigators into his home, and the officers seized computers and electronic devices. An hour later, the officers set up a recorder in the Defendant’s bedroom, brought him in, and prepared to take a statement.

Prior to providing Miranda warnings, the detective explained that the officers were there as part of a child pornography investigation following a “cybertip.” The detective then read Defendant the Miranda warnings, but when she got to the waiver section Defendant stated that he would not waive his right. Following an exchange between the Defendant and detective, the Defendant ultimately agreed to waive his Miranda rights and provide a statement. Defendant testified that he had waived his rights and provided a statement because he felt “badgered” by the detective stating that she would not provide any more information about why the police were conducting a search unless he agreed to talk. However, the trial court ultimately ruled that the Defendant had voluntarily waived his rights. The court rejected his claim that his statement was coerced or improperly induced, and noted that Defendant, who had previously been convicted of a child pornography offense, was aware of his rights and the criminal justice process. In its decision affirming the trial court’s ruling, the Appellate Court stated that they agreed with the trial court’s assertion that the Defendant understood his rights and voluntarily agreed to talk to the detective to learn more about why he was under investigation.

At Hark & Hark, we are experienced Criminal Defense Attorneys who represent clients for appeals in Superior Court for issues like the previously discussed case pertaining to potential U.S. Federal and N.J. State Constitutional rights violations when issuing Miranda warnings. We work hard to ensure that our clients receive exceptional representation in order for them to receive the most favorable outcome in their case as a result.

We offer payment plan options to clients financially incapable of providing full payment upfront. If you are facing criminal charges similar to this circumstance, please call us to discuss the matter. At Hark & Hark, we represent clients for any case in any county in New Jersey including Atlantic County, Bergen County, Burlington County, Camden County, Cape May County, Cumberland County, Essex County, Gloucester County, Hudson County, Hunterdon County, Mercer County, Middlesex County, Monmouth County, Morris County, Ocean County, Passaic County, Salem County, Somerset County, Sussex County, Union County, and Warren County and any town including Audubon, Gloucester City, Oaklyn, Audubon Park, Gloucester Township, Pennsauken, Barrington, Haddon Heights, Pine Hill, Bellmawr, Haddon Township, Pine Valley, Berlin Borough, Haddonfield, Runnemede, Berlin Township, Hi-Nella, Somerdale, Brooklawn, Laurel Springs, Stratford, Camden, Lawnside, Voorhees, Cherry Hill, Lindenwold, Waterford, Chesilhurst, Magnolia, Winslow, Clementon, Merchantville, Woodlynne, Collingswood, Mt. Ephraim, and Gibbsboro.