BREAKING: New Jersey Supreme Court Rejects State’s Appeal in Eisemann Case

In a major victory for Rabbi Eisemann, the New Jersey Supreme Court has declined to accept the prosecutor’s request to appeal the decision that overturned the guilty verdicts and granted the SCHI founder a new trial in the closely-followed case.

Last year, Superior Court Judge Joseph Paone ruled that new evidence that arose that likely would’ve changed the jury’s verdict, thus warranting a new trial.

Additionally, Paone ruled that prosecutors knew about that evidence before the 2019 trial, yet they withheld it from both the jury and the defense, thus violating the Brady Act and providing an additional reason why a new trial was warranted.

Prosecutors appealed that decision to the state’s Appellate Division, but the 3-judge panel unanimously sided with Rabbi Eisemann, in a decision released in May.

Weeks later, the prosecution filed a motion to the state Supreme Court, asserting that the trial judge and the appellate panel made errors that necessitate review by the high court.

Prosecutors pressed the urgency on the court, claiming that this case would be an opening for issues in the future, as the withheld evidence was a QuickBooks audit trail, and if they were mandated to overturn such evidence, it would set a precedent which would be hard to sustain in today’s digital age.

“The panel adopted a brand-new Brady requirement that risks havoc in the digital age, particularly in financial prosecutions,” prosecutors wrote in their brief. Later, they expounded: “Clarity is thus needed from this Court, particularly in an age when law enforcement is increasingly reviewing a defendant’s own electronic data.”

It remains unclear what the prosecution will decide to do now, as they determine whether they should press ahead with a new trial, or drop the case altogether.

Please continue Davening for Osher ben Chana Frumet.

This content, and any other content on TLS, may not be republished or reproduced without prior permission from TLS. Copying or reproducing our content is both against the law and against Halacha. To inquire about using our content, including videos or photos, email us at [email protected].

Stay up to date with our news alerts by following us on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook.

**Click here to join over 20,000 receiving our Whatsapp Status updates!**

**Click here to join the official TLS WhatsApp Community!**

Got a news tip? Email us at [email protected], Text 415-857-2667, or WhatsApp 609-661-8668.


  1. From the very beginning this entire story was not straight, honest and truthful.
    The one and only reason why the Government decided to investigate Rabbi Eisenman was due to the fact that the Asbury park press got insulted that they were not granted permission to come to Schi School.
    If the government is looking for criminals and obviously they have a lot of money and man power to go after different people for certain reasons.
    I recall a few years ago here in NJ, a certain lady judge, she ruled against a certain individual and a few days later someone came to her home and shot dead her husband. So my big question is maybe it would be a wise idea if the workers that are heavily focused on the Rabbi Eisenman story maybe we can transfer some of those workers to the investigation to who is the guy that shot the husband of the judge.

  2. What about all the million/s of dollars that have been collected from the public and now, we found out it was wasted? Can we sue the State for the money that we spent on false charges? Plus sue for the anguish they caused Rabbi Eiseman, his family, close friends and the Public, etc..

    • Joe – the only one that brought up religion is you. Nowhere in the article or previous comments is the word religion even mentioned and so to you I say ‘leave religion out of it’.. but once we’re on the subject of religion, let me just say that if religion was in fact left out of it (as you pointed out) the case never would have been brought in the first place much less been able to drag on for so many years and put an innocent man and his family and his community through so much unnecessary hardship and anguish… so your point is just misdirected that’s all.

Comments are closed.