Thursday, September 27, 2018

Republican Senators made a Big Mistake Letting a Prosecutor Question Judge Kavanuagh's accuser, Ms. Ford.

Republican Senators made a Big Mistake Letting a Prosecutor Question Ms. Ford.

Why did the senators retain a prosecutor (Ms. Mitchell) to question Ms. Ford, and not a competent criminal defense attorney to cross-examine Ms. Ford?

As soon as I learned a few days ago that the republican senators retained a state prosecutor to cross-examine Ms. Ford, I knew it was a big mistake. And after watching the hearings and her performance it is apparent that I was right.

Prosecutors are excellent with direct examination, but most are horrible at cross-examination, because in reality with most trials they have little opportunity and experience with cross-examining witnesses. Cross-examination is the art and the bread and butter of CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEYS, in which their cases rise or fall on their ability to discredit the state's or government's witnesses.

The republicans with their competent legal staffs could have framed vigorous and cutting questions, much better than prosecutor Mitchell, who is basically only asking direct questions, which are not exposing her inconsistencies and bias towards Judge Kavanaugh.

If I was cross-examining Ms. Ford the first question I would ask is why in her opening statement she repeatedly called him Mr. Kavanaugh and not Judge Kavanaugh. Further, knowing what she allegedly claims he did to her, why did she not follow his career, or look him up, google him, and knowing that he seat on the DC Circuit, never raised this issues with the authorities. The little admission or omission by Ms. Ford could have opened the door with probing questions as her level of prejudice and hatred against Judge Kavanaugh, in which she did NOTHING ABOUT FOR 36 YEARS.

Thursday, September 20, 2018

Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr. Esq.
3 mins

Ms. Ford is a registered Democrat and is a viral supporter of killing the unborn at any stage of the pregnancy, including partial birth abortion.
Ms. Ford traveled all the way from California to Washington D.C. to attend the anti-Trump Women's March on January 21, 2017, to advocate LGBTQ rights, abortion rights, identity politics and the feminist radical agenda.
Do we forget what Ms. Ford's heroes (and organizers of the march) yelled on the stage that day, the obscenities and outrageous remarks about the United States and our beloved President Trump.
This woman would do or say anything to stop this devout pro-life Catholic from being confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and someday voting to stop the genocide of the unborn.
The abortion industry will do anything to continue killing the unborn, and they might be behind her directly. However, I do not think she needs any encouragement from them.
Let us hope some of our pro-life senators have the courage to cross-examine this radical pro abortion woman, and expose her for what she is, and what she really believes. That being that she hates Judge Kavanaugh for who he is, has become, what he believes,and all the things which she and her democratic party despises.
In the court of law, motive is always relevant and never collateral.
Vincent James Sanzone, Jr., Esq., September 19, 2018

Friday, August 4, 2017


Prepared as a public service by the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr. (908) 354-7006.
In State v. Wright the New Jersey Supreme Court held that police cannot enter a home or residence to search for contraband, notwithstanding that a landlord or third-party reports to the police that they saw contraband in plain view.

In this case a landlord fixing a water leak, who was in the residence lawfully saw contraband and reported it to the police.  The police without obtaining a judicial warrant searched the residence and later arrested the occupant. 

The Supreme Court said that the police were required to obtain a judicial warrant and in applying for the warrant use in the affidavit what the landlord saw as their probable cause to search the residence.

In deciding the hire a Union County criminal defense attorney it is wise and best practice to hire a NJ criminal attorney who is familiar with the fourth amendment motion to suppress issues which might resolve your criminal case most favorable to you.

Also, in a recent United States Supreme Court case in Rodriguez v. United States, our highest court held that a motorist does not have to wait for an extended period of time for a drug sniffing dog to arrive.  In that case the motorist was told to wait after the motor vehicle warning had been issued for another 7-minutes until the dog had arrived.  The court held that was to long and suppressed the CDS found in his motor vehicle.  This holding was affirmed by the New Jersey Supreme Court.

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

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