Case Summary
On July 3, 2013, AJ Nova, a respected cable technician and business owner, found himself at the center of a harrowing legal nightmare that would upend his life and expose critical flaws in the criminal justice system. What began as a routine workday spiraled into a complex web of allegations, procedural missteps, and questionable legal practices that ultimately resulted in a conviction that many argue is a grave miscarriage of justice.
The day started like any other for AJ Nova. A customer entered his store, requesting a cable TV installation at her apartment. After running a credit check, it was determined that the customer did not qualify for free installation, necessitating a $200 deposit. AJ agreed to collect the deposit at the customer’s apartment, located at 43 Ellison Street in Paterson, New Jersey, at 2:00 PM.
Upon arrival, AJ was greeted by Ms. Guisela Montoya, who escorted him to Apartment #3. Inside, he encountered an adult and two children, one of whom was ten years old. AJ spent approximately 15 minutes inspecting the room for cable installation. Adhering to company policy, he informed the residents that same-day service could not be guaranteed and departed shortly after, leaving his contact information for future scheduling.
Later that evening, AJ traveled to East Orange, New Jersey, to open new accounts in another apartment building. Traffic delayed his arrival until around 6:35 PM. After conducting credit checks for potential customers and determining their eligibility for free installation, AJ proceeded to inspect the roof for satellite signals. At approximately 7:15 PM, he received a missed call from a Paterson, New Jersey phone number but did not answer, as he was finalizing installation schedules with his new customers.
The events took a dark turn at 8:20 PM when eight-year-old S.L., accompanied by her mother and her mother’s roommate, filed a sexual assault complaint at the Paterson Police Department. The complaint alleged that a cable technician who had visited their apartment at 2:00 pm had return at 7:00 pm attempted to assault S.L. According to the victim’s statement, the man had asked Ms. Montoya’s to send someone to the first floor to hold the door open while he bring his tools in. Ms. Montoya sent S.L., to the first floor and while there, he asked her to kneel, blindfolded her with a black plastic bag, and attempted to put his private part into her mouth. S.L., and also claimed that the man was recording the act.
The investigation into these serious allegations was marred by critical failures from its very inception. Paterson Police Department Officer Heydee Santana, who took the initial complaint, failed to follow standard protocol for investigating a sexual assault case involving a minor. Her inaction included:
- Not sending the victim to the emergency room for a medical examination
- Failing to collect DNA evidence
- Not swabbing the victim’s mouth for potential evidence
- Neglecting to gather the victim’s clothing for forensic analysis
Read More
When questioned about these oversights, Officer Santana justified her inaction by stating, “It was not her job to do that”. This blatant disregard for established procedures in cases involving minors set the stage for a deeply flawed investigation. (Click here to see Officer Heydee Santana court proceeding)
The Special Investigations Crime Unit later recovered a yellow drill left in the kitchen by the suspect and a black plastic bag allegedly used to attempt to commit the crime. However, when these items were tested for fingerprints and DNA on-site, they returned negative results for AJ Nova. (Click here to see forensic DNA report)
Despite this lack of physical evidence linking AJ to the crime scene, the investigation proceeded based solely on the victim’s testimony. If there were others suspect fingerprint or DNA evidence on the drill or plastic bag, the result were never disclosed to the defense or Mr. Nova. (Click here to see letter from attorney to Mr. Nova)
On July 8, 2013, Child Interview Specialist Ms. Guisella Henriquez conducted an official interview with S.L. During this crucial interview, S.L., described the suspect as having “little hair on his head” and wearing khaki pants. She specifically stated that the man had no distinguishing facial marks or moles and described his eyebrows as “light and little” (Click here to see S.L. Court proceeding).
This description starkly contrasted with AJ Nova’s actual appearance, which includes distinct facial features such as a large mole and bushy eyebrows. (Click here for AJ Mug shot).
Despite these glaring discrepancies, Ms. Henriquez administered a photo lineup on July 15, 2013, where S.L., identified AJ as the perpetrator. (Click here to see photo-array lineup).
The conduct of this lineup raised serious concerns:
- It violated New Jersey Attorney General Guidelines, which mandate that lineups be conducted by an independent investigator who does not know the identity of the suspect. (Click here to see New Jersey Attorney General Guidelines).
- Ms. Henriquez used suggestive techniques, including tapping AJ’s photo several times and subtly pointing to his picture while presenting it to Scarlet. (Click here to see Photo Identification Expert Dr. Geoffrey R. Loftus report)
- When Scarlet viewed AJ’s photo, she identified him within two seconds, even before the picture was fully placed on the table. In contrast, she studied the other photos for approximately twelve seconds each. (Click here to see The Evidence Store forensic report)
- Furthermore, photo lineups conducted with the victim’s mother and her roommate failed to identify AJ as the perpetrator, adding another layer of doubt to the identification process. (Click here to see the victim’s mother and her roommate identification court proceedings)
On July 16, 2013, two detectives from the prosecutor’s office arrived at AJ Nova’s business office and arrested him without providing details of the charges. During the arrest, they confiscated a Samsung Galaxy 3 cellphone. AJ was processed with an initial bail set at an exorbitant $500,000. The charges included endangering the welfare of a child, sexual assault, luring or enticing a minor, and aggravated assault.
The handling of AJ’s cellphone evidence became a significant point of contention during the investigation and trial. Initially, the phone was password-protected and inaccessible to investigators. However, in 2015, nearly two years after AJ’s arrest, prosecutors managed to bypass the phone’s security and discovered two photos in a hidden cache folder. These photos did not depict AJ, the victim, or the crime scene. Nevertheless, the prosecution used them to insinuate AJ’s involvement in the crime.
The prosecution’s expert witness, Henry Hernandez, made several untruthful statements to the jury, including claims that AJ had recorded videos of the assault and subsequently deleted them. These assertions were later debunked by AJ’s retained Cellphone expert, John Lucich, who conducted a thorough forensic analysis. Lucich’s findings conclusively proved that the photos and videos had no connection to the alleged crime. (Click here to see Cellphone Expert Mr. Lucich forensic report)
AJ’s trial was plagued by ineffective legal representation and jury misconduct, further compromising his right to a fair trial. His defense attorney, Ms. Leigh Saltiel, made a critical error by failing to cross-examine the state’s key witness, Scarlet Lopez. Given that her testimony was the only evidence linking AJ to the crime, this failure denied the jury the opportunity to assess her credibility through direct questioning. (Click here to see court proceeding of attorney Leigh Saltiel).
The jury selection process also raised significant concerns. Juror #4, Mr. Raul Saharig, displayed clear bias during voir dire (questioning of the juror’s), admitting that he automatically deferred to police testimony and could not remain impartial. Despite this admission, he was allowed to serve on the jury, fundamentally compromising AJ’s right to a fair trial. (Click here to see Mr. Saharig Juror #4 court proceeding).
AJ Nova’s conviction, based solely on unsubstantiated testimony and marred by procedural errors, has had devastating consequences. He now faces a life sentence, a stark contrast to the 15-year plea deal he was initially offered but rejected in his determination to prove his innocence. This disparity highlights the problematic nature of the “trial penalty,” where defendants who exercise their right to trial often receive far more severe sentences than those who accept plea deals. (Click here to see Prosecutor’s plea deal)
The case has exposed critical flaws in the criminal justice system, from the initial investigation to the trial process. It raises urgent questions about the reliability of eyewitness testimony, the conduct of photo lineups, the handling of digital evidence, and the effectiveness of legal representation in ensuring fair trials. To ensure that AJ was found guilty, trial court committed an egregious and prejudicial action toward the very end of the trial by giving misleading informations on knowing and possession of photos allegedly found in AJ cellphone, which broadened the possibility bases for conviction and removed fairness or objectiveness from the case. (Click here to see Judge’s Marilyn C. Clark jury instructions).
As AJ Nova continues to fight for his freedom, his case serves as a powerful call to action for comprehensive reform in the criminal justice system. His case stands as a stark reminder of the potential for grave injustices within our legal system and the urgent need for systemic changes to protect the rights of the accused and ensure that justice is truly served.
Reasons for Seeking Clemency
On June 19, 2024 New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed Executive Order 362 which expedited consideration for person who are serving sentences that reflect an excessive trial penalty. Mr. Nova case reflect to be an excessive trial penalty. He was giving a life sentence (75 years) with an additional 5 year parole supervision. Based on a comparison with the (15 years w/85%) documented pre-trial offer, expedited consideration is warranted under the Executive Order.
This clemency mean a second chance to him. Not only because he will be reunited with his children and family sooner, but because he will be able to give back to the community by volunteer my time in “Community Center” and speaking to the general public about staying away from drugs and crimes.
As a Christian person he is, he will be an active member of “Casa de Jehovah Church” in Paterson, NJ. He is looking forward to be part of the local organizations that feeds the hunger and help the homeless. As a bilingual paralegal and a writer, he will volunteer his time to the Legal Aid Service, Community Legal Center, Child Care Law Center, Elderly Law Center and Volunteer Legal Service of NJ. Upon his release, he will be living with my brother Ivan Nova and working at his friend store “Jeiro Compus LLC” in Paterson New Jersey.
He will open his own Publishing Company with the help of my family.