Lawyer Who Urged Client to Kill Adverse Witness Denied Retrial

A New Jersey lawyer convicted of conspiring to kill adverse witnesses and operating a drug trafficking business lost his bid for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence that he says shows he was framed, the Third Circuit said Wednesday.

Paul W. Bergrin was a high-profile criminal defense attorney. During the representation of a client in a drug case, evidence showed he instigated the murder of Kemo McCray, a witness against his client, by telling the client and his friends “no Kemo, no case” several times. McCray was killed by a friend of the client.

Bergrin was also tied by evidence from a body-wire to a plot to kill a government informant in another case. The evidence supporting Bergin’s drug charge showed that he connected buyers with cocaine suppliers and personally supplied clients with cocaine from his law office.

After his convictions, Bergrin said his private investigators found previously undisclosed evidence and asked for a new trial. The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denied the request, and the Third Circuit affirmed in an unpublished opinion.

The allegedly new evidence relating to the McCray murder was from people associated with the hit man, the court said. They told Bergrin’s investigators that the hit man set up Bergrin.

The witnesses’ credibility is questionable, their statements are inconsistent and unsworn, and the statements don’t outweigh the other evidence against Bergrin, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit said. Bergrin’s attempt to assail the hit man’s credibility at trial was unconvincing, Judge Kent A. Jordan wrote for the panel.

Much of the government’s evidence against Bergrin for the murder plot came from the body-wire recordings, and Bergrin came forward with a witness who said they were altered. But Bergrin had advanced the altered-tapes theory at trial, and it was rejected by the jury, the court said.

Bergrin said he was entitled to a new trial on the drug trafficking charge because people came forward and said the government’s witnesses fabricated their stories. Bergrin didn’t show that any of the allegedly inculpatory evidence was critical to the jury’s decision to convict him, Jordan said.

The district court judge didn’t abuse his discretion by refusing to grant Bergrin a new trial, the appeals court said.

Judges Thomas L. Ambro and Jane R. Roth joined the opinion.

Gibbons PC represented Bergrin.

The case is United States v. Bergrin, 2022 BL 119219, 3d Cir., No. 20-2828, unpublished 4/6/22.