'An important red flag' - crime figure's lawyer on altered records in 1984 Toms River hit

TOMS RIVER - Attorneys who represented reputed mob figures Martin Taccetta and his brother at their 1993 trial in the golf-club beating death of a Toms River car dealer were adamant Tuesday that they never received an FBI report showing records of Taccetta's alibi were altered to destroy it.

At a hearing Tuesday on reputed Lucchese crime family soldier Martin Taccetta's motion for a new trial, both defense attorneys also were equally adamant that the deputy attorney general who tried the case should have turned over the FBI report to them and, had he done so, so, they would have asked that the trial be halted so they could conduct an investigation into who tampered with the documents.

Taccetta, 72, of Florham Park, a reputed soldier in the Lucchese crime family, is seeking a new trial based on claims that the state withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense during the trial.

Taccetta stood trial with four other organized crime associates, including his brother Michael, and was acquitted of Craparotta's murder, but convicted of extortion, racketeering and conspiracy. He is still serving a sentence of life plus 10 years in prison with no chance for parole before 30 years.

The documents at the center of Martin Taccetta's motion for a new trial are his dental records, purporting to show he was at his dentist's office in West Orange on June 12, 1984, the same day Vincent "Jimmy Sinatra'' Craparotta was beaten to death at his Route 9 car dealership in Toms River.

An FBI analysis of the dental records in 1993, which was requested by former deputy attorney general Robert Carroll, determined they were altered by writings that obscured the date of Taccetta's dental appointment, which was the same date as Craparotta's murder.

"I've never seen those records before now,'' Taccetta's attorney at the 1993 trial, David A. Ruhnke, testified Tuesday about the FBI analysis of Taccetta's dental records.

Deputy Attorney General Daniel I. Bornstein claimed Ruhnke signed a receipt saying he received the records. Taccetta's current attorney, Marco Laracca, said the receipt was undated and did not itemize the evidence received.

When Ruhnke was questioned about the receipt he signed, he responded, "I don't know what that receipt is for; the receipt doesn't say it's for medical records.''

A detective for the attorney general's office, Gabriel Perez, testified Tuesday that he interviewed the state investigator who also signed the receipt, who said she had no recollection of turning over the documents to Ruhnke.

Taccetta received the FBI's analysis of his dental records only in recent years through a Freedom of Information Act request.

"I had no information about the records being tampered with on some level,'' Ruhnke said at the hearing before Superior Court Judge Dina M. Vicari. "I did not have that information until recently.

"I think I should have been advised of the circumstances reflected in that report, yes,'' he said.

Laracca, asked Runhke whether he would have taken steps to investigate further if he had received that information during the 1993 trial.

"Absolutely,'' Ruhnke replied.

Ruhnke said he would have investigated "who and where and why it occurred, because it might provide a basis for dismissal on the basis of prosecutorial misconduct, so it was an important piece of information that I never had.''

Ruhnke, being cross-examined by Bornstein, said he never came across a situation where records of an alibi were tampered with in the almost 32 years since the trial.

"That would have been an important red flag for me to show that somebody is messing with these records to delete an alibi, and if it surely isn't Mr. Taccetta, who is it?'' Ruhnke said.

Michael Critchley, who represented Michael Taccetta at the 1993 trial, also testified Tuesday, saying he never received the FBI report. Critchley said even though his client wasn't charged with murder, the FBI report would have undermined the state's entire case against all the defendants.

Critchley said if the defense attorneys had information that the FBI confirmed Martin Taccetta was at his dentist's office when the state's cooperating codefendants claimed he bragged about killing Craparotta, it would "completely contradict'' the state's witnesses.

The state argued at the trial that Craparotta was murdered to scare his nephews into paying tributes to the Lucchese crime family on profits from their video poker machines on the Point Pleasant Beach boardwalk.

Michael Taccetta was not charged with Craparotta's murder, but charged and convicted of extortion.

Critchley said the FBI report about the dental records would have been relevant to all of the defendants because Martin Taccetta's alibi defense would have discredited the state's witnesses and rebutted its theory of the crimes.

If the defense had the FBI report, "it would be almost impossible to contradict that alibi defense,'' Critchley said.

"Without the FBI analysis, I don't know if it could be successfully done,'' he said.

Addressing the possibility that Martin Taccetta could have still participated in the murder at 10:30 a.m. and been at his dentist's office for an 11:30 a.m. appointment, Critchley said that still would have been "very, very damaging for the state's case.''

Explaining further, Critchley said. "It would have been most farcical to say that Mr. Taccetta had been involved in a homicide, but also had a dental appointment.''

Vicari did not rule on Martin Taccetta's motion. She asked the attorneys to submit briefs for her to consider before she renders a decision.

This article originally appeared on Asbury Park Press: Lawyer says he never learned of altered records in Toms River mob hit