Tuesday, May 16, 2017

Mere Presence Jury Charge and Defense Witness List Prior to Trial

Presented as a public service by the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., a New Jersey Criminal Defense attorney with 28-years of experience defending people charged with crimes.
State v. Tier

On May 2, 2027, the New Jersey Supreme Court recently decided in State v. Tier, that a criminal defendant is not required to give the prosecutor a written synopses of the defenses factual witnesses. 
The court held that Rule 3:13-3(b)(2)(c) only requires that the defense provide written statements to the State only if the defense witness is interviewed by a defense investigator and that interview was reduced to a writing, or written signed statement of the witness.

The court did rule however, that the defense was required to designate whether the witnesses were character or factual witnesses. 
This is a good criminal defense decision authored by Justice Timpone.

State v. Randolph
In another opinion authored by Justice Albin on the same day, the New Jersey Supreme Court held in State v. Randolph that a defendant had reasonable expectation of privacy in an abandoned or vacant apartment, and that the defendant charged with a CDS charge found in that so called vacant apartment had automatic standing to contest the warrantless search.  The Supreme Court held that the trial court was required to determine after the motion hearing as to whether the apartment was really vacant or abandoned.

The court also held that the trial court erred in refusing to give the “mere presence” charge, however, the court held that in this case failing to give the charge amounted to harmless error since the mere presence charge was charged in other areas of the jury charge.
This was also a good criminal defense decision.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.
(908) 354-7007
277 North Broad Street
Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

Thursday, March 23, 2017

Brick Township Board of Adjustments Says No to Wawa Rt. 70

God Bless the honorable board members of the Brick Township Board of Adjustments, Mike Jamnik, David Chadwick and Louis Sorrentino who did what was "right and just" for the health, peace and safety of the Lake Rivera residences by voting no for the Wawa mega gas station, convenience store and fast food restaurant. 
Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

"God offers to every mind its choice between truth and repose.”  Those who choose repose receive release from the mandates of truth; but it is only temporary. No man or woman can reject truth forever.  Those who choose truth, on the other hand, have no rest—and so they continue to fight for justice."  Ralph Waldo Emerson.   

Monday, March 6, 2017

Under the Bail Reform Act, Prosecutor Must Provide All Discovery for the Bail Detention Hearing

Prepared as a Public Service by the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

     The Appellate Division settled the issue under the new Bail Reform Act as to whether the State was obligated to provide all discovery in its possession for a detention hearing.  The State in numerous cases objected believing that it could cherry pick what discovery to turn over to the defense.

     In State v. Robinson, the appellate division settled that issue holding that under the Bail Reform Act the prosecutor must turn over all discovery in its possession. Which includes all discovery in the hands of the law enforcement agencies investigated the alleged crime.

     Under the Bail Reform law the State can move for a detention hearing if the State deems that the defendant is a danger to society.
Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.
Union County Criminal Defense Attorney
(908) 354-7006

Quote of the day.
“God offers to every mind its choice between truth and repose.”  Those who choose repose receive release from the mandates of truth; but it is only temporary. No man or woman can reject truth forever.  Those who choose truth, on the other hand, have no rest—and so they continue to fight for justice.  Ralph Waldo Emerson.   

Tuesday, February 21, 2017

Tweet By Defendant Can Be Admissible in a Criminal Case

The Defendant charged with assault tweeted, “shoe to ya face” to the victim.

The State in the prosecution of the defendant proffered a tweet by the defendant which was admitted by the trial court.  The defendant objected on appeal and argued that the tweet was not properly authenticated, and could have been easily forged.  The defendant was convicted and appealed.

The appellate division in State v. Hannah (December 20, 2016), held that the tweet was admissible and that in this case there was sufficient circumstantial evidence that the tweet in fact had come from the defendant.  In all such cases the court held that the traditional rules set forth in N.J.R.E. 901, and that each case in which this type of evidence is being moved into evidence court must examine the rule, and admit such evidence if admitting such evidence would not be an abuse of discretion.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.
30-years of experience as criminal lawyer in Elizabeth, Newark, Jersey City, New Brunswick, Union, Hudson, Middlesex and Essex County
(908) 354-7006

Monday, February 20, 2017

Expungement of CDS Conspiracy Charge in New Jersey

Provided as a public service by Attorney Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

Expungement of criminal records under New Jersey law is not as easy and simple as one might expect.  New Jersey Expungement Law is complex and the interpretation of the law is often difficult to understand.  A recent appellate division case addressed the issue of whether a conspiracy to commit a drug offense should be treated differently than the substantive crime for expungement purposes.
In June of 2016, the New Jersey Appellate Division ruled In the Matter of the Expungement Petition of D.P., that a conviction for Conspiracy to Distribute CDS is not similar to the substantive crime of Intent to Distribute or accomplice liability of Intent to Distribute.  The Court held that the conspiracy offense unlike the substantive crime (or accomplice liability) is expungable.

Before you retain and attorney to expunge your criminal records you should seek an attorney with extensive experience in New Jersey Expungement Law.  Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., has been helping people expunge their criminal records for 30-years, allowing them to get a fresh start in life and move forward with productive lives.  In today’s economy it is almost impossible to obtain employment with a criminal conviction.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.
Elizabeth, N.J.
(908) 354-7006

Wednesday, November 30, 2016

New Jersey Appellate Division Ruled Aggregation of Two Types of CDS Not Permitted

The Appellate Division on November 14, 2016 held that Judge Marilyn C. Clark, J.S.C. was correct in ruling that N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(c) does not permit the aggregation of two different types of drugs, which in this case was Heroin and Cocaine for the purposes of charging the defendant with a first degree crime.

Judge Clarke held at the trial level, which the Appellate Division affirmed that under the plain language of the statute and under the doctrine of lenity, the language of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1) states that it is illegal to “manufacture, distribute or dispense, a controlled dangerous substance.”  The key word being substance, not the plural, substances, as the prosecutor argued to the court.  Judge Clark did however ruled that aggregation is permitted with the same substance, sold on different dates to reach the first degree level.  Further, because possession with intent to distribute different substances do not merge is further support that Title 35 controlled dangerous substance crimes, are crimes that must be dealt with separately.  State v. Jordan, 235 N.J. Super. 517, 520 (App. Div. 1989).

In joint prosecution for co-defendants, the jury must also decide under N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(c), the court noted: “Where the degree of the offense for violation of this Section depends on the quantity of the substance, the Quantity involved shall be determined by the trier of fact... in determining the grade of the offense, whether distribution or dispensing is to the same person or several persons.”

This is a good decision for the defense bar because it interprets an area of the New Jersey Drug Law which is often misinterpreted.

Quote of the Day: “God offers to every mind its choice between truth and repose.  Those who choose repose receive release from the mandates of truth; but it is only temporary. No man or woman can reject truth forever.  Those who choose truth, on the other hand, have no rest—and so they continue to fight for justice.”  Ralph Waldo Emerson. 

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

Elizabeth, N.J. Union County, Essex, County, Ocean, Monmouth, Hudson County, Bergen County, Passaic County

Telephone: (908) 354-7706


Friday, November 4, 2016

The Evil of Moral Relativeness

In 1992, Justice Anthony Kennedy, wrote in Planned Parenthood vs. Caseythat “at the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
That is the type of disordered thinking that can lead to the absurd judicial decision, to wit, the killing of the unborn child for any reason based on the subjective belief of the mother that the physical or mental wellbeing of the mother could be adversely affected.   Yes, even under the absurd pretext that it would cramp the mother’s life style.  Justice Kennedy should be reminded that our founding Fathers actually believed that the right to life is given to us in the Bill of Rights by our Creator, and not by the Supreme Court.

No Justice Kennedy, this type of thinking leads to moral relativeness, which means that there is no objective truth, that anyone can decide what is true, and it is for the individual to decide what is truth, no matter how absurd and evil that might be.  If everything is true, as Justice Kennedy says, there is no absolute truth.  No Justice Kennedy there is objective moral truth, and to turn ones back on objective moral truth will lead to the absolute destruction of a civilized society as we know it.

There is no question that this type of disordered thinking leads us down the road to moral destruction.  If we can kill the unborn baby because an individual decides that this is not a person and has (“defined one’s own concept of existence”), why not kill the infirmed, the mentally handicapped or the elderly.   For that matter anyone that does not follow one’s own concept of existence. 

A distorted view of the natural law as espoused by Justice Kennedy is simply a recital of the positive law concept espoused by dictators and tyrants, who have turned their backs on God and the natural law.  History has gave us a multitude of tyrants and evil dictators, especially in the 20th Century who decided who was a person, and who was worth of having the protection of the state.  Wasn’t it Adolph Hitler who decides that people of the Jewish faith were none person, worthy to be only to be murdered by the State. 
Where does such disordered thinking end.  If our judges of the highest court in the United States ascribe to such nonsense is anyone safe?  What has the sexual revolution brought us but the seeing of another, not being of beauty made in the likeness and imagine of God, but rather an object to be used and sometimes sadly even abused.

Equally troubling is the dictatorship of the followers of this post-pagan hearses.  These proponents of such disordered thinking will not hesitate to demonize anyone who will not follow and subscribe to this type of pagan and destructive thinking.  They falsely label themselves as progressives and people of acceptance and inclusion, but in reality they are the ones who in the end will force all of us to accept, or be eliminated, if their “concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life,” is not accepted. The dictatorship of moral relativism is already upon us and few of us even know what is happening.

In a true democracy it is not so much as what we can do, but what we ought to do.  When we fail to do what is “right and justice” there can be no real true freedom.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.
Elizabeth, (Union County, Essex County) New Jersey
(908) 354-7006