## Facts

- On October 23–24, 1999, a group including Thomas J. D’Amico (an off-duty police officer), Josephine Castagna, and Violet Arias was at Sinners Go-Go Bar in Elizabeth, New Jersey.
- Bennett Grant and a companion arrived later; an altercation escalated into a group assault outside the bar.
- Grant was chased and beaten by multiple individuals and suffered fatal head injuries, including blows with a lead pipe and a heavy paving stone; he died at the hospital from multiple head trauma.
- Arias became a central prosecution witness after pleading guilty to second-degree reckless manslaughter pursuant to a plea agreement.
- Arias had a stipulated polygraph arrangement with the State and changed her account after a polygraph indicated she had been untruthful in an earlier statement.
- In a joint trial, the jury convicted D’Amico of first-degree aggravated manslaughter, two counts of second-degree official misconduct, and fourth-degree obstruction of justice, and convicted Castagna of second-degree aggravated assault.
- The trial court limited cross-examination of Arias regarding the polygraph results and the reason for her changed statement.
- The Appellate Division reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial; the State sought review as to Castagna and D’Amico.

## Issues

1. Whether limiting cross-examination of a crucial State witness about the reason she changed her statement after a polygraph showed untruthfulness violated the defendants’ confrontation rights and required reversal.
2. Whether D’Amico established ineffective assistance of counsel on the trial record under the Strickland standard.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the Appellate Division and remanded for reinstatement of Castagna’s and D’Amico’s convictions and sentences.
- The Court held it was error to restrict cross-examination concerning the witness’s polygraph results and related change in statement, but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The Court held that, on the trial record presented on direct appeal, D’Amico did not establish ineffective assistance of counsel.

## Legal Principles

- Improper restriction of cross-examination that bears on a key witness’s credibility can constitute constitutional error, but the conviction may stand if the State proves the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Harmless-error review considers the strength of the State’s case, the role of the challenged testimony, and the extent of other impeachment and cross-examination permitted.
- Ineffective assistance of counsel requires proof of both deficient performance and prejudice under Strickland v. Washington.
- Claims of ineffective assistance often require fact development beyond the trial transcript and are commonly addressed in post-conviction proceedings rather than resolved on direct appeal when the record is incomplete.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that limiting cross-examination about a stipulated polygraph and a witness’s resulting change of story was erroneous but did not affect the verdicts beyond a reasonable doubt, and it declined to find ineffective assistance on the existing trial record, ordering reinstatement of the convictions and sentences.


State v. Castagna, 187 N.J. 293 (2006)