Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

State of New Jersey v. Christopher Reynoso

Date: 04-13-2026

Case Number: 18-01-0078

Judge:

Court: Superior Court, Law Division, Passaic County, New Jersey

Plaintiff's Attorney: Timothy Kerrigan, Assistant Prosecutor

Defendant's Attorney:


Click Here For The Best Patterson Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory

Description:
Patterson, New Jersey, criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with murder, attempted murder, and weapons offenses.

Christopher Reynoso, claimed that detectives did not honor defendant's assertion of the right to stop the interrogation, thus requiring the suppression of statements defendant made after that invocation.2 See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 473-74 (1966).

a May 15, 2017, drive-by shooting of several
people gathered in front of a residence on Federal Street in Passaic. At 11:15
p.m. that night, a car drove past the residence before turning right onto
Burgess Street at 11:16 p.m. The car circled back onto Federal at 11:18 p.m.
and passed the home again. On this second pass, someone fired a gun from the
car at the group of people gathered in front of the residence, hitting twenty -
year-old Bryan Cabrera and twenty-three-year-old Hansel Castillo
Outcome:
The Defendant was found guilty.

Affirmed.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:

About This Case

What was the outcome of State of New Jersey v. Christopher Reynoso?

The outcome was: The Defendant was found guilty. Affirmed.

Which court heard State of New Jersey v. Christopher Reynoso?

This case was heard in Superior Court, Law Division, Passaic County, New Jersey, nj.

Who were the attorneys in State of New Jersey v. Christopher Reynoso?

Plaintiff's attorney: Timothy Kerrigan, Assistant Prosecutor. Defendant's attorney: Click Here For The Best Patterson Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory.

When was State of New Jersey v. Christopher Reynoso decided?

This case was decided on April 13, 2026.