The New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division has ruled to dismiss the indictment against Fredy Hernandez, a defendant facing serious charges of aggravated sexual assault and endangering the welfare of a child. The court's decision, issued on July 9, 2026, underscores the importance of double jeopardy protections, which prevent an individual from being prosecuted for the same offense after an acquittal or a mistrial.
This ruling affects Hernandez, who was previously indicted for first-degree aggravated sexual assault and third-degree endangering the welfare of a child. The court's opinion emphasizes that the prosecution's attempt to retry Hernandez would violate his constitutional rights. The case has garnered attention due to its implications for the legal principle of double jeopardy and the rights of defendants in criminal trials.
Background
The case began when Hernandez, also known as Flavio Ayun Maquino, was indicted by an Atlantic County grand jury on November 14, 2023. The charges stemmed from allegations that he had engaged in sexual acts with a minor, identified only as S.A., who was under the age of thirteen at the time of the incidents. The indictment included one count of first-degree aggravated sexual assault and one count of third-degree endangering the welfare of a child.
The trial commenced in July 2025, where the jury was presented with evidence, including testimonies from both Hernandez and the victim. During deliberations, the jury struggled to reach a unanimous verdict. They communicated their inability to agree on one of the counts, prompting the trial judge to declare a mistrial without determining which count had a unanimous decision.
Following the mistrial, Hernandez's legal team filed a motion to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that a retrial would violate double jeopardy protections. The trial court denied this motion, leading Hernandez to appeal the decision, which culminated in the recent ruling from the Appellate Division.
The Ruling
The Appellate Division, in its opinion delivered by Judge Chase, reversed the trial court's decision. The court determined that the trial court had erred in declaring a mistrial without first considering the option of a partial verdict. The judges emphasized that the double jeopardy protections outlined in both the U.S. and New Jersey Constitutions prohibit a second prosecution for the same offense after an acquittal or a mistrial.
The court ruled, "Otherwise, a retrial would subject defendant to prosecution for an offense of which he may already have been acquitted."
The judges noted that the trial court's failure to accept a partial verdict left uncertainty about which count the jury had resolved. This ambiguity raised concerns about the fairness of a potential retrial, as it could lead to Hernandez being prosecuted for a crime he may have already been acquitted of. The court concluded that the indictment must be dismissed to uphold the integrity of the double jeopardy protections.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for the legal landscape in New Jersey, particularly regarding the double jeopardy protections afforded to defendants. The court's decision reinforces the necessity for trial judges to carefully consider the options available when juries are unable to reach a unanimous verdict. It highlights the importance of ensuring that defendants are not subjected to repeated prosecutions for the same alleged offense.
The outcome of this case may influence future trials involving similar circumstances, as it underscores the importance of adhering to established legal principles regarding double jeopardy. Defendants facing serious charges can take some comfort in the court's reaffirmation of their rights, ensuring that they are not subjected to the stress and uncertainty of multiple trials for the same allegations.
What's Next
With the Appellate Division's ruling, the indictment against Hernandez has been dismissed, and he will not face retrial on the charges. The state may not appeal this decision, as the court has made a definitive ruling on the matter. There are no related cases pending that would affect this ruling.