Appeals court grants new trial in 2017 Passaic drive-by shooting case

Judges find serious problems with police questioning of teen defendant

A Passaic man convicted of a 2017 drive-by shooting that left one person dead and another wounded will get a new trial after an appellate court found serious problems with how police handled his interrogation.

Christopher Reynoso never confessed to killing 23-year-old Hansel Castillo and wounding 20-year-old Bryan Cabrera during the shooting; in fact, he “steadfastly maintained his innocence” during the interview, the appellate decision said.

But Reynoso, who was a minor at the time, did unwittingly give the cops details about the clothing he wore the day of the shooting. And prosecutors leaned heavily on that information to secure his conviction on charges of murder and attempted murder.

Reynoso, who faced five decades in prison for the crimes, appealed the verdict. And a three-judge panel found on April 10 that prosecutors never adequately proved that Reynoso voluntarily made the statements that contributed to his imprisonment.

The court took issue with several parts of the police interview, saying cops didn’t provide adequate translation services for Reynoso’s Spanish-speaking mom; didn’t let him talk to his mother privately before he waived his Miranda rights; and made “inappropriate remarks … that undermined and burdened his right to confer with counsel,” the 102-page decision read.

That was enough for the appellate court to vacate Reynoso’s 2022 murder conviction and order a new trial.

“We are led to conclude that the prosecution did not meet its burden of proving that the defendant’s waiver of rights and ensuing statement were given voluntarily under New Jersey law,” the court wrote. “That standard erects a formidable hurdle the state must vault.”

Neither the Passaic County Prosecutor’s Office nor the Passaic Police Department responded to requests for comment.

The case sprang from a May 15, 2017, incident in which Reynoso and codefendant Nelson Vargas drove by and shot into a crowd of people gathered in front of a home on Federal Street in Passaic, according to court documents.

Authorities brought Cabrera to St. Joseph’s University Medical Center in Paterson, where staff treated him for a gunshot wound to his shoulder. He was discharged around 2 a.m.

Castillo, who was shot in the right side of his chest, fared much worse.

A friend rushed him to St. Mary’s General Hospital in Passaic, where he was treated and spoke to police about the shooting. But he died the next morning.

Cops eventually pinned the killing on Reynoso, the triggerman, and Vargas, the driver.

They brought Reynoso in for questioning on that June 1, which is when three detectives spoke to him and his mother, Lorenza Montiel.

One of the detectives, Alex Flores, read Reynoso his Miranda rights even though they hadn’t arrested him yet.

Flores gave Reynoso and his mom Miranda forms, with Reynoso’s in English and Montiel’s in Spanish.

But during the interrogation, the language barrier proved to be a problem the cops didn’t adequately remedy.

The police weren’t translating the questions and conversations in real time, and instead gave her summaries in Spanish of what had been said.

“The incomplete and delayed translation provided to Montiel impaired her ability to offer timely advice as she might have done if she more fully understood what was being said,” the court ruled.

Beyond that, Reynoso was not given the chance to talk with his mother privately before he decided to waive his Miranda rights and speak to the detectives, the court said.

“We presume that any such conversation would have been in Spanish and would have afforded Montiel an opportunity to provide candid advice to her son on how to balance his desire to clear his name and encourage police to investigate other suspects against the risk of answering police questions,” the judges wrote.

And finally, the court took issue with the way the detectives spoke to Reynoso, such as when Flores told the suspect there might be consequences if he decided to bring in a lawyer.

“So … if I wanna leave, I could leave, right?” Reynoso asked at one point.

“If you wanna leave, you can leave,” Flores replied. “But you must understand that … once you say you want a lawyer, I gotta talk to my bosses to see what they gonna do with you.”

Reynoso quickly shook his head and said he didn’t need an attorney, the documents said.

This was a big problem for the appellate court.

“The remark was … improper because it could reasonably be construed as a threat of repercussion if defendant were at any point to invoke his constitutional right to an attorney,” the judges wrote.