New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney

The Role of a “Criminal Justice Lawyer.” Time to Reform the Criminal Justice Jury System and Permit the Jurors to Hear All The Truth.

2011-12-25T20:24:00.000-08:00

A philosopher once wrote that the only true test of any law is whether it manifests itself in the giving of justice. Everybody talks about justice, but do we really understand what justice means, and does justice have any place in the criminal justice system?

Many cynics would say that justice usually goes to the highest bidder or the wealthy litigant or defendant. There is much truth to that.

Justice of course can be defined in many ways, most notably in the way it is defined. Justice for one is not necessarily justice for another, and justice can be defined by an individual’s subjective ideas of right, wrong, good and evil. Of course, any of these principals can be influenced by ones particular religious ideas, or lack of, prejudices, bias, educational, mental, psychological or physical disabilities. Accordingly, if you had a room filed with a hundred men of women of different political, ethic, religious, economic and racial backgrounds, you would get a difference opinions of what is justice as it applies to any given set of facts and circumstances. Justice for someone would be injustice to others. The hedge fund or banker in the group would in many cases believe that he was “entitled to make millions”, and it was justice that he earn that salary, while the day laborer would shake his head an say it was injustice that he should make the minimum wage to support his family of four.

Likewise, some in the group would not think twice about judging as a juror in a criminal trial of finding a poor inner city young man or woman guilty of selling a small quantity of drugs, arguing that they were performing justice. They might argue that they did this in the name of justice knowing that the consequence of that judgment would send that person to prison for many years or even decades, because “he got what he deserved”, not understanding that the human being which they have righteously judged never had the chance that they did in life.

In truth the factual situations are endless in which people disagree in the most fundamental way in which they agree or disagree in their concept of justice.

In truth how can anyone judge anyone else? We see an action, but we never see a motive. The reason why people act or fail to act in any given situation can depend on countless factors.

Does the jury system promote justice? How can jury have any say in the justice system if juries are never told the entire truth, the full truth, of every case, and about the people to whom they are to judge. Why in the criminal justice system are criminal juries never told the punishment and sentence of their guilty verdict? Juries are never told, and under New Jersey cannot be told, that the defendant who is found guilty will be exposed to, such as extended terms of imprisonment, or periods of parole ineligibility if they determine someone is guilty of the charges. Juries are told that they can only be judges of the facts. Why should the jury not be told that if they believe the law to be unjust under the particular circumstances, that they can render a not guilty verdict? Is it not right and just to education the jury to the full consequences of their decision? Should the jury in a criminal case not know everything about the fellow human being in which they are to judge? To isolate the jury with limited knowledge renders their decision making process inadequate and flawed. In such a flawed system it renders the jury to be a mere tool of the State, and not true judges of the facts, which the law is meant to be. Giving lip service to justice with words only is not justice. I

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

PO Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

908-354-7006

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

YourCivilRights@gmail.com

Lawyers in Elizabeth NJ, Attorneys in Elizabeth NJ, Elizabeth Criminal Lawyers, NJ Criminal Justice Lawyers, NJ Lawyers, NJ Criminal Lawyers

How to Win Your Criminal Case; and What Makes the Best Criminal Defense Attorney.

2011-12-14T09:05:00.000-08:00

It is often asked of me by prospective clients and young attorneys what is the secret of your success and how do you obtain such a large number of cases being dismissed, extremely favorable plea agreements, and jury acquittals for the cases that ultimately go to trial.

Over twenty-five years ago while attending a criminal law seminar while still in law school I was privileged in listening to an experienced criminal defense attorney whose words I have never forgotten. His key to success was simple and direct, that criminal cases are not won in the court room but in the office. To this day my philosophy with ever criminal case is that pretrial preparation is the key to success. You win criminal cases by doing extensive criminal trial preparation with every case. That includes the relentless request from the prosecutor for every piece of discovery which may be relevant to, or lead to relevant discovery in the case. If the prosecutor refuses to turn over the evidence use your subpoena power, OPRA request, or file a motion to compel. Normally, when important information or evidence is not turned over to the defense attorney during the initial exchange of discovery, it is because the prosecutor simply and honestly does not have the discovery in his or her file. However, the search should not end there. The question that a good criminal defense attorney must ask, who is concerned in winning his case, is why did the police fail to turn-over to the prosecutor evidence which is clearly relevant to the guilt of innocence of the criminal defendant? The answer is simple but not obvious to the inexperienced criminal defense attorney. When a piece of evidence is not turned over, and it appears that the police have overlooked it, the majority of the times it was not innocently overlooked, but rather, not obtained, not preserved, or not turned over, because that particular evidence DID NOT FIT INTO THEIR THEORY OF THE CASE. Stated differently, the evidence that they conveniently over-looked, helps your client’s defense and is fodder for reasonable doubt, or in some cases proves that the defendant is completely innocent.

Therefore, it is essential that an extensive and complete investigation of the file and evidence be reviewed by the criminal defense attorney, and to begin with the goal and mind-set, not only what the evidence that was furnished by the prosecution says, but what it doesn’t say, and left out, and why was it left out?

The best criminal defense attorney should with ever case than begin to decide what pretrial motions need to be filed. Remember, the best criminal defense attorney does not stop with the typical motions, such as motion to suppress, but rather, he must be as creative as possible, to think outside the box. Only than will the attorney be able to obtain a wealth of information which will ultimately lead to a complete dismissal of all charges, very favorable plea agreement, or acquittal at trial. Remember, with all cases the first opportunity to win your case is before you even step foot in the court room with your client.

In the final analysis, fancy words or dramatics, begging with the prosecutor, judge or jury will benefit your client little if you are not prepared to do the hard and tedious work pretrial.

Sanzone Firm

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

(908) 354-7006

YourCivilRights@gmail.com

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Dated: December 14, 2011

The Increasing Power of State and Federal Prosecutors.

2011-10-06T06:14:00.000-07:00

The balance of powers between our legislative, executive and judicial branches of government is increasingly shifting to the power of the executive branch of government. This is increasingly evident in the power of the executive branch when it comes to criminal law. Increasing our legislative elective officials who continue to pander to themselves in the hope of getting re-elected continue to pass criminal laws which continue to give more and more power to prosecutorial authorities, which is part of the executive branch.

In New Jersey for example, the county prosecutors, through the largess of our elected officials, wheel tremendous amount of power in almost every aspect of criminal prosecution and procedure.

Because of these powers the judicial branch of government, the role of our judges in the system is increasingly abrogated. Accordingly, to a large extend the hands of the judges to dispense justice is thwarted by the decisions of the prosecutors. Many legal scholars agree that under the current system prosecutors have more power than the judges themselves.

For example in New Jersey the decision to grant or deny a defendant’s admission into the pre-trial intervention program exclusively rests with the prosecutor. Under New Jersey State law unless the defendant can prove that the prosecutor abused its discretion in denying admission (and almost impossible burden), the judge hearing an appeal for denial of admission cannot overturn the prosecutors decision.

Even more frightening is the power of the prosecution to extract guilty pleas from defendants who for many reasons should be having their cases decided by an impartial jury. However, because of legislatures desire to pass more and more get tough on crime laws, such as mandatory sentencing, extended terms, eighty-five percent period of parole disqualification, and other harsher penalties, many defendants have no choice but to plead to a crime which they have not committed, because the risk of losing a trial is just to great. The implicate warning to defendants; if you dare to go to trial and lose, you will pay the consequences.

In New Jersey like most States this is referred to as the “trial penalty”, an unspoken word in the criminal justice system which defendants understand all to frequently. If you have the nerve to go to trial and lose you will receive the trial penalty which is the high costs of going to trial and lose.

It is no secret that legislatures starved of money to fuel the criminal justice costs are quick to make it easy for prosecutors to obtain convictions without the costs of having defendants to go to trial. In affect it matters little if the person charged with a crime is innocent or guilty. What matters instead and is often the most controlling and deciding factor; does the defendant have the courage to spend many years in prison to prove their innocence, when they can receive a probationary term or flat sentence of a few years?

In many cases because of mandatory extended term sentences an innocent defendant will spend many decades or life imprisonment for relatively minor offenses, or more serious crimes, if they opt to go to trial, as opposed to taking a plea of a few years.

These mandatory sentences are universally imposed on defendants charged with offenses involving handguns, drugs, repeat offenders, and intent of distribution near a school zone, park, or public housing complex.

The danger in a democracy which relies upon the balance of powers to check the tyranny from any one branch of government is that increasingly more and more power is given to prosecutors which often lead to abuse, unfairness, and arbitrary decisions.

In New Jersey jurors are told during the trial that they are to decide guilt or innocence’s, and it is the judge that decides the sentence. However, in reality that is not true, because in many respects it was the prosecutor and legislative branch that decided the sentence long before the trial even started. Accordingly, in New Jersey jurors should be told of these mandatory minimum sentences that the defendant faces with a verdict of guilty.

Another way that prosecutors unfairly extract pleas in New Jersey is to overcharge the defendant and to indict him or her on charges which simply do not fit the facts of the crime, in other words over charge the defendant with more serious crimes. For example charging a defendant with intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance when the defendant is only carrying a few grams of the substances.

Because of this imbalance in the criminal justice system in New Jersey fever and fever defendants risk the uncertainty of a trial. New Jersey like most states do not publish the percentage of felony cases that go to trial but according to nine States that publish such information only one in forty cases go to trial. In the federal system it is even less only three percent of the criminally accused decided to go to trial. The United States Bureau of Justice Statistics found that between the years 1986 to 2006 the ratio between pleas and trials doubled. This is no surprise because last year there was only one acquittal for every 212 guilty pleas and trials in federal court. Thirty years ago there was one acquittal for every 22 cases. There is no doubt that with those numbers that many innocent federal defendants are opting for a plea.

Because of these abuses prosecutors are quick to believe the police officers who initially investigate and bring and make the arrests. Because of this power, that is, everything they say will be believed by the prosecutor, errant law enforcement officers are more likely to be involved in arrests of innocent people or be engaged in willful police misconduct and abuse.

It is time that our legislative elected officials stop pandering to themselves and their reelection hopes and start reining in the power of the executive branch and allowing the courts and judges to dispense justice. This unfair imbalance of power is also taking a toll on many criminal defense attorneys, who must languish and suffer with their clients over the decision as to whether or not to take a plea from a defendant which the attorney might seriously and honestly believe is innocent, but cannot afford the risks of going to trial.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

Dated: October 5, 2011

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

NJ criminal lawyer, NJ criminal defense attorney, NJ criminal sentencing, NJ plea bargaining, Union county criminal lawyers, nj criminal attorneys, essex county nj criminal lawyers

Giving a False Statement to Law Enforcement and Right to Remain Silent.

2011-09-19T12:58:00.000-07:00

Similar to federal law it is unlawful for anyone to give a false statement to a State law enforcement officer or a civil State investigator assigned to the Office of the Insurance Fraud Prosecutor’s Office, with the purpose of hindering the detention, apprehension, investigation, prosecution, conviction or punishment of another, or him or herself, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-3a(7) and N.J.S.A. 2C:29-3b.(4). If the false relates to an investigation of a second degree crime or greater, the offender is in violation of a third-degree crime (3-5 years), if the statement relates to an investigation of a third-degree crime the offender is subject to penalties of a fourth-degree crime (18 months). Otherwise, if the statement relates to a fourth-degree offense or traffic or motor vehicle summons it is a disorderly person’s offense.

Therefore, knowing this, it is absolutely essential that anyone being questioned by law enforcement regarding an investigation into possible criminal charges invoke their right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Because anything that they might say which later turns out to be false or misleading, even if innocently made, can result in possible criminal charges which are separate and apart from the crimes being investigated.

Similarly, N.J.S.A. 2C:21-4(b) provides that the making of a false or misleading financial statement is a crime of the third degree.

Therefore, again, it is imperative that anyone applying for al loan, credit card, car loan or mortgage take extreme care in not overstating ones income.

On September 19, 2011 Elizabeth Board of Education employees Maria L. Munn, Angela Lucio and Peter W. Abitanto were arrested by the New Jersey State Police on charges made by the New Jersey Attorney General for third degree theft by deception and third degree tampering of public records or information.

The State alleges that these individuals attempted to defraud the federally subsidized school lunch program designated for low income children. It appears that the State Attorney General is basing one of the charges on a violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:21-4(b) (making of a false or misleading financial statement), in connection with the Elizabeth School lunch program. The second charge is theft by deception which is a second degree crime if the amount is over $75,000.00. Because the amount alleged by the State is under $75,000.00, but over $500.00, the crime is a third degree charge.

Before you are questioned by law enforcement it is highly recommended that you consult with an experienced criminal defense attorney.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Elizabeth, New Jersey

Dated: September 19, 2011

How to Win Your Criminal Appeal: N.J. Criminal Law Appellate Practice

2011-09-01T15:03:00.000-07:00

VINCENT J. SANZONE, JR., ESQ.

P.O. BOX 261

277 NORTH BROAD STREE, 2ND FLOOR

ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY 07207

(908) 354-7006

Attorney for Robert Dugo

_____________________ NEW JERSEY SUPERIOR COURT

STATE OF NEW JERSEY  :       APPELLATE DIVISION

:

       Plaintiff,    :       DOCKET NO. A-004398-02T1

vs.            :       CRIMINAL ACTION

:

ROBERT DUGO          :       On Appeal from a Judgment of 

: Conviction, Superior Court Law
Defendant : Division, Bergen County

_____________________      

                             Trial Judge: Hon. Patrick J. Roma, JSC

 BRIEF AND APPENDIX FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

                                    On the Brief

                                    Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

                                    P.O. Box 261

                                    277 North Broad Street

                                    Elizabeth, New   Jersey 07207

                                    (908) 354-7006
                                    CriminalDefenseNJ.com

                                    CONFINED

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Table of Transcript Citations ................... 4

Table of Cases .................................. 5

Procedural History .............................. 8

Statement of Facts .............................. 9

Legal Argument ................................. 13

Point I     THE POLICE REPORT AND GRAND JURY 

TESTIMONY OF OFFICER REYNOLDS WAS NOT 

HEARSAY AND THE DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE 

BEEN  PERMITTED TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE 

STATE’S WITNESSES  ON SAID REPORT 

AND GRAND JURY TESTIMONY ........... 13

Point II    OFFICER REYNOLDS’ POLICE REPORT WAS 

NOT HEARSAY AND THE TRIAL COURT’S 
REFUSAL TO ALLOW DEFENSE COUNSEL TO 
CROSS-EXAMINE THE STATE’S WITNESSES
 ON SAIDREPORT WAS REVERSAL ERROR ... 26

Point III   THE CHARGE GIVEN THE JURY REGARDING 

SECOND DEGREE ELUDING WAS FLAWED AND 

COMPROMISED THE JURY’S VERDICT ..... 29

Point IV    THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN SENTENCING 

THE DEFENDANT TO TWO YEARS OF PAROLE

INELIGIBILITY .....................  32

Point V     DEFENDANT WAS DENIED A FAIR TRIAL 

      SINCE TRIAL COUNSEL DID NOT MEET THE 

      MINIMAL STANDARDS OF COMPETENT 

      COUNSEL ...........................  38

Conclusion ..................................... 46

INDEX TO APPENDIX

Indictment ............................ Da1 to Da2

Judgment of Conviction ................ Da3 to Da4

Notice of Appeal ...................... Da5 to Da6

Grand Jury Transcripts ................ Da7 to Da 15

Officer Reynolds Police Report ........ Da 16

TABLE OF TRANSCRIPT CITATIONS

1T represents the proceedings on October  8, 2002

2T represents the proceedings on October  9, 2002

3T represents the proceedings on October  10, 2002

4T represents the proceedings on October  16, 2002

5T represents the proceedings on October  17, 2002

6T represents the proceedings on October  22, 2002

7T represents the proceedings on March  21, 2003

TABLE OF CASES

STATE CASES

Hill v. N.J. Dept. of Corrs., 342 N.J. Super. 273 
(App. Div. 2001),certif. Denied, 171 N.J. 338 (2002) .........  22

Polistina v. Polistina, 183 N.J. Super. 291 (App. Div. 1982) .  24

Trenton Passenger Ry. Co. v. Cooper, 60 N.J.L. 219
 (E.&E. 1987).............................................   24

State v. Biddle, 150 N.J. Super 180 (App. Div.) certif. Den. 

75 N.J. 542 (1977) ...........................................  18

State v. Bunyan, 691 N.J. Super. 417
 (App. Div. 1997) .................................. 19, 20, 23, 24

State v. Carey, 168 N.J. 413, 425 (2001) ...................... 34

State v. Feaster, 156 N.J. 1, 82, 716 A.2d 395 (1998) ......... 26

State v. Nataluk, 316 N.J. Super. 336  (App. Div. 1998) ....... 35

State v. Garfole, 76 N.J. 445, 453, 388 A.2d 587 (1978) ....... 27

State v. Hodge, 95 N.J. 369 1984) ............................. 32

State v. Knight, 145 N.J. 233, 251 (1995) ................. 30, 31

State v. Kruse, 105 N.J. 354, 362 (1987) ...................... 33

State v. Lark, 117 N.J. 331, 567 A.2d 197 (1989) .............  30

State v. Lungsford, 167 N.J. Super. 296 (App. Div. 1979) .. 18, 19

State v. Macon, 57 N.J. 325, 335; 273 A.2d 1 (1971) ........... 29

State v. Mays, 321 N.J. Super. 619

729 A.2d 1074 (App. Div. 1999) ................................ 26

State v. Moore, 358 N.J. Super. 241

 817 A.2d 419 (App. Div. 2003) ................................ 29

State v. Phelps, 96 N.J. 500, 508, 476 A.2d 1199 (1984) ....... 17

State v. Pineda, 119 N.J. 621 (1990) .......................... 34

State v. Roth, 95 N.J. 334 (1984) ............................. 32

State v. Williams, 169 N.J. 349; 777 A.2d 919 (2001) ...... 27, 28

State v. White, 158 N.J. 230 (1999)............................ 27

FEDERAL CASES

Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 302, 93 S.Ct. 1038, 
1049,35 L. Ed.2d 297, 312-313 (1973) .........................  20

Smith v. Wainwright, 799 F.2d 1442  (11th Cir. 1986) ........... 44

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052

80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984) .................................... 41, 43

Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 301, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 1070

103 L. Ed. 2d 334, 349 (1989) .................................. 30

Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 

146 L.Ed. 2d 389 (2000) ........................................ 43

STATUTES AND RULES CITED

N.J.S.A.:29-2b ......................................... 16, 29, 35

N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1f .............................................. 32

N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(b) ........................................ 32, 33

N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6b .............................................. 33

N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1a(1) ........................................... 33

N.J.R.E. 801(d) ................................................ 18

N.J.R.E. 802 ................................................... 17

N.J.R.E. 803(c)(6).......................................... 17, 19

N.J.R.E. 804(b)(6) ......................................... 19, 23

N.J.R.E.  804(b)(1) ............................................ 25

N.J.R.E. 503 ................................................... 36

N.J.R.E. 803(c)(1) ............................................. 24

OTHER AUTHORTIES

New  Jersey Trial & Evidence, ICLE, “You Say, We Say, 
Hearsay, An Intro. To  Hearsay Evidence”, Green Camp; Mitchell,
 p. 10-8. (2003) ............................................ 21, 23

Cross-Examination: Science and Techniques, Pozner & Dodd,  

The Michie Co., 1993, Page 1. .................................. 22

Biunno, 2001 N.J. Rules of Evidence,

Comment 2 to N.J.R.E. 804(b)(1) (Gann) ......................... 25

Biunno, 2001 N.J. Rules of Evidence,

Table of Disposition, Page 973  (Gann) ......................... 18

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Bergen County Indictment 01-05-01315-I charged the defendant with 2nd degree eluding of a police officer, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2b.  Defendant plead not guilty to this charge and a trial was held on the 8th,  9th, 10th, 16th, and 17th of  October, 2002.  The matter was tried before the Honorable Patrick J. Roma and a Jury.  Defendant was found not guilty of 2nd degree eluding, but found guilty of the lesser 3rd degree eluding.   Defendant was sentenced on March 21, 2003 to four years imprisonment, with a period of parole ineligibility of two years. (Da3 to Da4)  A timely notice of Appeal was filed on April 28, 2003. (Da5 to Da 6)

The Defendant filed a motion for bail pending appeal with the Trial Court     which was denied on August 7, 2003.

 STATEMENT OF FACTS

     According to the state’s proofs, on January 26, 2001 at approximately 5:00 P.M., Port Authority Police Officer Richard Beatty, was monitoring E-Z Pass lane 62, of the New Jersey sideof the George Washington Bridge. (2T 168-14)

Officer Beatty observed the Defendant proceeding through the E-Z Pass lane, and observed the toll sign flash, “unpaid”.  Officer Beatty than radioed to Port Authority Police Officer Meyer, who was stationed in the coned catch area, that a black Cadillac Seville, four door, with the license plate down, went through the toll unpaid.  Officer Beatty testified that he could not identify the person driving the Cadillac Seville. (2T 21-7 to 23-19)

Officer Meyer, assigned as a “catcher”, in the coned area, hearing Officer Beatty’s radio transmission, observed the black Cadillac Seville approaching his area, made eye contact with the Defendant, and motioned him to pull over to the right.  The Defendant proceeded pass Officer Meyer, and Port Authority Police Officer Bruce Reynolds who was also in the catch area.  Officer Meyer stated that he saw Officer Reynolds attempt to stop the Defendant verbally as well with his hands.  Officer Meyer saw Officer Reynolds jump back as the Defendant’s vehicle passed him. (2T 157-8 to 164-7); (3T 74-2 to 21) Officer Meyer’s testified that the Defendant was driving between the marked cones when he passed him, which were only approximately eight to ten feet in width. (2T 207-25 to 208-1); (2T 216-24 to 217-10)  Further, he testified that he gave the Defendant a verbal command to stop as well as the “universal” hand signal to stop. (3T 61-10 to 13)  However, Officer Meyer did concede that he could not determine whether the Defendant heard his verbal command to stop. (3T 67-12 to 14) Port Authority Officer, Sergeant Joseph King testified that he was the tour officer and in charge of the E-Z Pass detail.  He testified that he heard Officer Beatty’s transmission regarding a black Cadillac Seville passing the E-Z Pass without registering paid, and saw Officer Meyer and Reynolds attempt to stop Defendant’s vehicle with verbal and hand signals.  Further, he stated that Officer Reynolds was forced to jump out of the way of Defendant’s vehicle so that he was not hit. (3T 109-10 to 111-10) 

      The last witness for the state was Port Authority Police Officer, Michael Simons.  Officer Simons was assigned to the position as the driver of the “chase vehicle.”  Based on the radio transmission he gave chase to the Defendant’s vehicle. (4T 20-2 to 13)  Officer Simons testified that he gave instructions for the Defendant to stop, three times with his “PA” system, but the Defendant refused to stop his vehicle, at which time Officer Simons forced the Defendant’s vehicle, about one-quarter of a mile into the tunnel, into the first cut off, or turn-around on the bridge. (4T 25-2 to 26-6); (4T 28-5 to 19)  The Defendant’s vehicle than made a hard left hand turn into the turn off and his vehicle than faced northbound. (4T 30-11 to 19)  Officer Simons than waited for his back-up officers to arrive, atwhich time they approached the Defendant’s vehicle, and orderedthe Defendant to put the vehicle in park, turn the vehicle off, and place his hands on the steering wheel. (4T 33-17 to 20)  TheDefendant was than ordered out of the vehicle and told to place his hands on the roof of his vehicle, and given a pat down. (4T 34-8 to 13)  Officer Simons suspecting that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and/or narcotics, administered the defendant Mental-physical tests, to wit; reciting of the alphabet and feet together head back for thirty seconds tests. (4T 36-5 to 13)  Officer Simons asked the Defendant if he had taken anything, and the Defendant stated that he had taken a couple of Xanaxs, which the Defendant had a prescription for. (4T 38-22); (4T 40-19)  Based on the fact that the Defendant failed the psycho-physicals, and admitted that he had taken Xanax, the defendant was placed under arrest, not for eluding, but for DWI. (4T 38-24 to 39-7)

      Defense counsel did not call any witnesses or request anyevidence to be submitted to the jury. (4T 198-5)

LEGAL ARGUMENT

 POINT ONE

THE POLICE REPORT AND GRAND JURY TESTIMONY OF OFFICER REYNOLDS WAS 
NOT HEARSAY AND THE DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED 

TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE STATE’S WITNESSES ON SAID REPORT AND 
GRAND JURY TESTIMONY

In this case the only police report that was prepared was that of Officer Reynolds who was deceased at the time of trial.  All of the police officers that testified for the state contradicted the report of Officer Reynolds in many key areas.  

      Specifically, Officer Reynolds wrote in his police report the day of the incident:

      The undersigned officer [Reynolds] also gave the operator 

[Defendant] hand signals and verbal commands to pull over.  

The operator of the vehicle drove around the undersigned 

officer [Reynolds] and P.O. Meier and then dorove [sic] 

around Sgt. King and continued east bound onto the lower 

level.  (Officer Reynolds report attached hereto and marked as “Da-16”)

Specifically, in conflict with the testifying officers, the report of Officer Reynolds did not state that he had to jump away from the Defendant’s vehicle while the Defendant’s vehicle approached him head on.  Throughout the trial, defendant’s trial counsel, attempted to cross-examine the testifying officers regarding this conflict, but was unable to do so, because of the Trial Court’s ruling that Officer Reynolds report was hearsay. (3T 47-13 to 23)

Specifically, When defense counsel attempted to question Officer Meyer’s as to why Officer Reynolds' police report did not mention that Officer Reynolds had to “jump away” from the Defendant’s vehicle, the state objected to the question on hearsay grounds, which was sustained by the Trial Court. (3T 25-22 to 26-9); (3T 47-13 to 48-6)

After a side bar was held, the Trial Court reversed its position and allowed defense counsel to ask the following question regarding Officer Reynolds’ report to Officer Meyer:  (3T 97-6 to 15)

Q.    Officer, do you recall I showed you what has been marked as D-2 for identification purposes only?

A.    Yes.

Q.    Okay.  And that’s Officer Reynolds’ report?

A.    That’s correct.

Q.    Okay, Isn’t it true, Officer, that there’s no reference in Officer Reynolds’ report to him jumping out of the way?

            A.    That’s correct.

On October 16, 2002, six days later the Trial Court reversed its ruling and held that that question was improper and gave the following instructions to the jury:

      I’m going to give you an instruction as I had before.  

Yesterday, you heard the testimony – yesterday actually and today of Officer Meyers (sic).  And specifically, it was a response where he was shown an exhibit and asked whether there was any reference in the report to Officer Reynolds jumping out of the way.  

Okay.  Specifically, that response will be stricken, and you will not use that in your deliberations?  Do you understand that?  (3T 161-25 to 162-8)

Again, during the cross-examination of  Sergeant King, defense counsel was not allowed to question Sgt. King that Officer Reynolds in his report never stated that he had to “jump out of the way” of the Defendant’s vehicle. (3T 151-7 to 13)

      Accordingly, in this case, the Jury never heard that according to Officer Reynolds, the only officer to directly confront the defendant while he passed the E-Z pass lanes, that he never had to jump away from the Defendant’s vehicle.

Not knowing these facts as observed by Officer Reynolds the

jury had no reason to find reasonable doubt in the testimony of the other officers, and the jury under these facts could conclude that the Defendant was guilty of N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2b which states:

        Any person, while operating a motor vehicle on any street …  

        who knowing flees or attempts to elude any police or law 

  enforcement officer after having received any signal from 

  such officer to bring the vehicle or vessel to a full stop 

  commits a crime of the third degree; except that, a person is guilty
  of a crime of the second degree if the flight or attempted to elude   
  creates a risk of death or injury to any person.

Likewise, when Officer Reynolds testified before the grand 

jury, he did not testify that he had to “jump out of the way” of the defendant’s vehicle.  Rather, he stated before the grand jury:

A.    I attempt [sic] to stop the vehicle with hand signals and also verbally shouted for him to pull over.  The vehicle 

didn’t pull over.  He drove around me to a point that I had to step out of the way … And so the individual 

[defendant] slammed on his brakes, made a turn into

the cut.  And westbound traffic was flowing, but heavy.

Q.    Okay.  Now when he gets stopped by the oncoming traffic, you and other officers exit your cars and instructed him to get out of his car.  Is that correct:

A.    Yes.[1] (Da7)

      Of course hearsay is generally inadmissible, N.J.S.E. 802, 

unless it falls within one of the hearsay exceptions.  State v. Phelps, 96 N.J. 500, 508, 476 A.2d 1199 (1984).  In this case it is respectfully submitted that Officer Reynolds’ report was admissible under a number of hearsay exceptions, and should have been admitted.

      Evidence Rule 803(c)(6) provides:

Records of regularly conducted activitiy.   A statement contained in a writing or other record of acts, events, conditions, and, subject to Rule 808, opinions or diagnoses, made at or near the  time of observation by a  person with actual knowledge or from information 

supplied by such a person, if the writing or other 

record was made in the regular course of business and it was the regular practice of that business to make it unless the sources of information or the method, purpose or circumstances or preparation indicate that it is not trustworthy.

Traditionally, this exception to the hearsay rule was referred to as the “shop keepers” rule and was limited in scope to commercial business records.  However, now it is well settled that this exception also applies to police reports and records. State v. Lungsford, 167 N.J. Super. 296 (App. Div. 1979); State v. Biddle, 150 N.J. Super 180 (App. Div.) certif. Den. 75 N.J. 542 (1977)[2]  

Although it is well settled that “citizen” statements contained in these police reports are almost always held to be hearsay, the statements of the police officer preparing the report, “with actual knowledge … made in the regular course of business” … [unless] circumstances of preparation indicate that it is not trustworthy” is not hearsay. N.J.R.E. 803(c)(6).

Specifically, in State v. Lungsford, [3] the issue that was decided by this Court  was whether the information contained in a police report by an individual who claimed that his automobile was stolen should have been admitted to the jury to prove that in fact his vehicle was stolen.  In Lungsford, this Court ruled that citizen statements contained in police reports are almost universally held to be inadmissible.  However, the distinction between this case and Lungsford, is that Officer Reynolds prepared a report, and testified before the grand jury, not as a citizen, but as a professional police officers, and hence, the report and grand jury testimony was admissible under Evid. R. 803(c)(6).

In State v. Bunyan, 691 N.J. Super. 417 (App. Div. 1997), which like Lungsford, supports the Defendant’s position by holding that a defendant in a post-conviction proceedings is entitled to a hearing as to the reliability of a deceased witnesses statement pursuant to Rule 804(b)(6).

In support of its decision the appellate division said the following:

The United States Supreme Court in Chambers v. 

Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 302, 93 S.Ct. 1038, 1049,   35 L. Ed.2d 297, 312-313 (1973), has made clear that there are situations in which a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to present evidence in his defense must take precedence, as a matter of due process of law, over the mechanistic application of a state’s hearsay rules.  

Thus, as Justice Powell explained:

Few rights are more fundamental than that of an accused to 
present   witnesses in his own defense [citations omitted] In the exercise of this right, the accused, as is required of the State, must comply with established rules or procedure and evidence designed to assure both fairness and reliability in the ascertainment of guilt and innocence.  Although perhaps no rule of evidence has been more respected or more frequently applied in jury trials than that applicable to the exclusion of hearsay, exceptions tailored to allow the introduction of evidence which in fact is likely to be trustworthy have long existed.  The testimony rejected by the trial court here bore persuasive assurances of trustworthiness and thus was well within the basic rationale of the exception for declarations against interest.  That 

testimony also was critical to Chambers’ defense.  In these circumstances, where constitutional rights directly affecting the ascertainment of guilt are implicated, the hearsay rule may not be applied mechanistically to defeat the ends of justice. State v. Bunyan, at 475.

Therefore, without argument, both the report and grand jury testimony of Officer Reynolds were admissible.  However, assuming, arguendo, that those items were hearsay, and no hearsay exception could be found, the Defendant, nonetheless had the right to waive his right to present evidence that he cannot cross-examine.

Because trial counsel was unable to cross-examine the state’s witnesses through the use of Officer Reynolds’ report, the Defendant was unable to effectively cross-examine the state’s witnesses, and hence, the Defendant was denied a fair trial since and his Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him was destroyed.   In the alternative, it is equally well settled that the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that a defendant in a criminal case has the right “to be confronted with the witnesses against him.”  Article 1, Section 10 of our state Constitution provides that same right.  Accordingly, because the confrontation clause is the defendant’s right, he can waive that right.  “The burden is to either establish that the offered evidence is admissible under an appropriate exception to the hearsay prohibition or obtain an affirmative waiver from the defendant of the right of confrontation.” New  Jersey Trial & Evidence, ICLE, “You Say, We Say, Hearsay, An Intro. To Hearsay Evidence”, Green & Mitchell, p. 10-8. (2003)  In this case it is without argument that defense counsel attempted to cross-examine the state’s witnesses with officer Reynolds report.

      As one legal scholar has noted: “The purpose of trial is the discovery of truth. Cross-examination is the best engine for the discovery of truth; Therefore, the purpose of trial is cross-examination.” Cross-Examination: Science and Techniques, Pozner & Dodd,  The Michie Co., 1993, p. 1.  Of course, the right is so important that it was incorporated into the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

    In the final analysis it is the only way that this Defendant could show that direct testimony of the state’s witnesses is exaggerated and/or false, without taking the stand himself, was through Officer Reynolds’ report and grand jury testimony.

Accordingly, because trial counsel throughout the trial attempted to cross-examine the state witnesses with the police report, the plain error rule pursuant to R. 2: 10-2 is not applicable.  Hill v. N.J. Dept. of Corrs., 342 N.J. Super. 273 (App. Div. 2001), certif. Denied, 171 N.J. 338 (2002)

As one legal commentator has stated, “The hearsay rules should not be applied “mechanistically” to defeat the ends of justice since an accused has a fundamental right to present witnesses in his own behalf”. New Jersey Trial & Evidence, ICLE, “You Say, We Say, Hearsay, An Intro. To Hearsay Evidence”, Green & Mitchell, p. 10-6. (2003)

The police report and grand jury testimony of Officer Reynolds was likewise admissible pursuant to N.J.R.E. 804(b)(6), “Trustworthy statement by deceased declarant”, since the police report written shortly after the incident has sufficient indicia of truthfulness. 

N.J.R.E. 804(b)(6) states:

Trustworthy statements by deceased declarants.  In a civil 

proceeding, a statement made by a person unavailable as a

witness because of death if the statement was made in good 

faith upon declarant’s personal knowledge in circumstances 

indicating that it is trustworthy.

In State v. Bunyan, 154 N.J. 261, 270-271 (1998) the court held that the rule also applies to criminal cases when the hearsay evidence is offered by the defendant and the evidence is necessary to insure that the defendant receives a fair trial.   In Bunyan, 154 at 270-271 the court held that this rule exemption should not be restricted to civil cases, when the defendant in a criminal case offers the evidence, and his right to a fair trial is jeopardized if the civil limitation is not relaxed.

In this case, the report of Officer Reynolds was essential to refute the testimony of the other officers whom all viewed defendant’s vehicle pass Officer Reynolds at some distance away. 

Likewise, the police report would be admissible pursuant to R. 803(c)(1), Present sense impression:

A statement of observation, description or explanation of an 

event or condition made while or immediately after the 

declarant was perceiving the event or condition and without

opportunity to deliberate or fabricate.

This hearsay exception is not dependant on the declarant’s availability, and has a long long history in New Jersey dating back to the seminal case, Trenton Passenger Ry. Co. v. Cooper, 60 N.J.L. 219 (E.&E. 1987); Polistina v. Polistina, 183 N.J. Super. 291 (App. Div. 1982)

In this case, the report of Officer Reynolds was prepared shortly after the incident, and the Jury should have heard that officer Reynolds never in his report mentioned that he had to “jump out of the way” of the defendant’s vehicle, but rather that the defendant “drove around” Officer Reynolds.

Likewise, Reynolds grand jury testimony would be admissible 

pursuant to R. 804(b)(1), Testimony in Prior Proceedings.  Although it is well settled that the state may not introduce the grand jury testimony of an unavailable witness against the defendant at trial, “There is no similar blanket restriction on the defendant’s introduction of prior grand jury testimony under this rule.” Biunno, Current N.J. Rules of Evidence, Comment 2 to N.J.R.E. 804(b)(1) (Gann).

POINT TWO

OFFICER REYNOLDS’ POLICE REPORT WAS NOT HEARSAY AND THE TRIAL 
COURT’S REFUSAL TO ALLOW DEFENSE COUNSEL TO CROSS-
EXAMINE THE STATE’S WITNSSES ON SAID REPORT 

WAS REVERSAL ERROR

It is respectfully submitted that the Trial Court made evidentiary trial errors which require a new trial.  

It is well settled that a Trial Court has "considerable latitude regarding the admission of evidence," and is to be reversed only if the court abused its discretion. State v. Feaster, 156 N.J. 1, 82, 716 A.2d 395 (1998)

The failure of the Trial Court to allow cross-examination of state’s witnesses with Officer Reynolds’s report constituted plain error, that is, error producing and unjust result.  State v. Mays, 321 N.J. Super. 619, 729 A.2d 1074 (App. Div. 1999)  Rule 2:10-2 provides that this Court shall not disregard a trial error when it has been shown to “clearly capable of producing an unjust result.”

It is respectfully submitted that the Trial Court’s refusal to allow the defense to fully cross-examine the state police witnesses with officer Reynolds report was not harmless error, but in fact, reversible error.  

    In State v. Williams, 169 N.J. 349; 777 A.2d 919 (2001), our Supreme Court held that the trial court’s refusal to allow an out of court statement of a desceased person, unavailable to testify at trial, regarding his declaration against interest that he shot the murder victims, was reversible error.  The court quoting State v. White, 158 N.J. 230, 247-48 (1999), held: “An error is harmless unless there is a reasonable doubt that the error contributed to the verdict.”  In this case the Defendant did not receive a fair trial since the Defendant had no way of refuting the testimony of the state’s 

police witnesses, all testifying that Officer Reynolds was forced to “jump out of the way”, when the officer attempted to hail the Defendant’s vehicle down.  

      Accordingly, this Defendant had the absolute right to “advance in his defense any evidence which may rationally tend to refute his guilt or buttress his innocence of the charge made.” State v. Garfole, 76 N.J. 445, 453, 388 A.2d 587 (1978)

    Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that those facts not learned by the Jury, “may have affected the jury’s view of the evidence” against the Defendant.  State v. Williams, 169 N.J. at 361.

POINT THREE

THE CHARGE GIVEN THE JURY REGARDING SECOND 

DEGREE ELUDING WAS FLAWED AND COMPROMISED

THE JURY’S VERDICT

In this case the Trial Court instructed the jury that the enhanced element of eluding, making it a 2nd degree crime, would be satisfied if the Defendant placed anyone at risk including the Defendant himself. (5T 50-22 to 25)  Most recently in State v. Moore, 358 N.J. Super. 241; 817 A.2d 419 (App. Div. 2003), a case decided after the instant case, this Court ruled that the language in N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2b, stating: “if the flight or attempt to elude creates a risk of death or injury to any person”, does not include the defendant.

Notwithstanding that the Jury did not find the defendant guilty of 2nd degree eluding, the flawed jury instructions contributed to a compromised verdict, of guilt for the 3rd degree charge.  Whether an error in the jury instructions is reason for reversal depends on the degree of probability that it led to an unjust verdict. State v. Macon, 57 N.J. 325, 335; 273 A.2d 1 (1971)  

Therefore, the only issue remaining is whether this Court 

should give retroactive effect to this Court’s decision in Moore and whether the flawed instruction caused an unjust verdict.

In State v. Lark, 117 N.J. 331, 567 A.2d 197 (1989) the court held that a "case announces a new rule when it  breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation on the States or the Federal Government … [or] if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant's conviction became final.” State v. Lark, 117 N.J. at 339. rk, supra, 117 N.J. at 339 (quoting  Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 301, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 1070, 103 L. Ed. 2d 334, 349 (1989)  Moreover, Lark held that a decision involving an "accepted legal principle" announces a new rule for retroactivity purposes so long as the decision's application of that general principle is "sufficiently novel and unanticipated." State v. Knight, 145 N.J. 233, 251 (1995)

If a “new rule” is at issue, as is the case in the instant case, three factors are considered to determine whether the “new rule” should have retroactive effect:

(1) the purpose of the rule and whether it would be furthered by a retroactive application, (2) the degree of reliance placed on  the old rule by those who administered it, and (3) the effect a retroactive application would have on the administration of justice. [citations omitted]  Although those three factors have received detailed attention in our retroactivity case law, our 

cases also indicate that the retroactivity determination often turns more generally on "the court's view of what is just and consonant with public policy in the particular situation presented. State v. Knight, 145 N.J. 233, 251 (1995)

In this case, the Trial Court’s jury instruction regarding the Defendant placing himself at risk for injury, and “substantially impaired the reliability of the truth-finding process, the interest in obtaining accurate verdicts may suggest that the new rule be given complete retroactive effect.” State v. Knight, 145 N.J. at 251 
    Because of the Trial Court’s second degree eluding charge, the Jury was unaware that the actions of the Defendant, in placing himself at risk, should not have been a factor in their deliberations.  Therefore, that factor compromised and clouded the rest of their deliberations, for the eventual compromised verdict of the third degree eluding.

POINT FOUR

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN SENTENCING

THE DEFENDANT TO TWO YEARS OF PAROLE

INELIGIBILITY

The scope of appellate review of sentencing decisions under the Code was announced in State v. Roth, 95 N.J. 334 (1984) and State v. Hodge, 95 N.J. 369 (1984).  The holding in Roth summarized the court's function on appellate review: 

In sum, then, appellate review of a sentencing decision calls for us to determine, first, whether the correct sentencing guidelines, or in this case, presumptions, have been followed; second, whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the findings of fact upon which the sentencing court based the application of those guidelines; and third, whether in applying those guidelines to the relevant facts the trial court clearly erred by reaching a conclusion that could not have reasonably been made upon a weighing of the relevant factors. Roth, 95 N.J. at 365-366.

The defendant was convicted of a third degree crime and sentenced to the presumptive term of four years pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1f.  

However, the Trial Court, in spite of the sentencing the 

defendant to the presumptive sentence, decided to impose a two year period of parole ineligibility pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6b.

In this case the Trial Court used the language of  N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6b, and held:

I do not find a single mitigating factor.  I am going to impose a term of four years in State Prison, and I am going to find that the court is clearly convinced that the aggravating factors substantially outweigh the mitigating factors.  I am going to impose a parole disqualified of two years. (7T 90-21 to 91-1)

      We know the law:

“Hence, we expect it will be a rare case in which the sentencing court imposes a period of parole ineligibility on top of a presumptive sentence … [and] that such ineligibility will be imposed but rarely when the court has imposed the presumptive sentence. State v. Kruse, 105 N.J. 354, 362 (1987)

Before the Trial Court can impose a period of parole ineligibility it must set forth on the record the all of the valid aggravating factors, and compare them to the mitigating factors, if any, and find that it is clearly convinced that the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors.

In this case the Trial Court erred by double counting the aggravating factor, N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1a(1), “the nature and circumstances of the offense”, when it held:

      Given the nature of the offense, we’re talking about going through 
      and E-Z Pass on the George Washington Bridge, a place where there
      is a lot of traffic, a place where we had police officers on duty … 
      I’ve looked over my notes. There are at least two or three officers
      that had to get out of the way who somehow felt that they would be 
      at risk.  I’m concerned that given the nature of this offense and the  
      offense, people could have been put in harm’s way.  And were able
      to remove themselves, it is perhaps a saving grace that no one was,
      in fact, injured. (7T 83-13 to 84-7)

      The law is clear and well settled that a sentencing court cannot take
  into consideration factors which the legislature     has already taken 
  into  consideration in the grading of the offense.  State v. Pineda, 119 
  N.J. 621 (1990); State v. Carey, 168 N.J. 413, 425 (2001).  Furthermore,
  the nature and circumstances of the offense can only be applied for things
  that actually occurred in the commission of the crime, and not as the Trial  
  Court held, “people could have been put in harm’s way.”  Furthermore, and
  most importantly, the Jury found that the defendant’s conduct did not
  “create a risk of death or injury to any person,” an element which grades
  the offense to second degree eluding, and accordingly, found him not guilty
  of second degree eluding. 

N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2b.  Additionally in State v. Nataluk, 316 N.J. Super. 336, 350 (App. Div. 1998), it was held that police involvement cannot be an aggravating factor in sentencing for eluding a police officer.  The Trial Court additionally found that the defendant was a risk to commit another offense, and that was based on the Defendant’s motor vehicle record and questions asked of the Defendant by the trial court at sentencing, when the Trial Court ruled:

      The risk to commit another offense, I’ve looked over – this is One of 
      the reasons why the motor vehicle abstract is important. I look over the 
      motor vehicle abstract, and I see various types of motor vehicle
      offenses. By the defendant’s own admission, he would lie, I mean, he
      used the word lie, to state [sic] authorities in order to obtain a 
      license  … If it were not for the fact that the Court asked a question
      about multiple names and the multiple Social Security Numbers, perhaps
      I would not have gotten a response.  But I think that’s a factor that
      the Court has to take into account in terms of the risk to commit 
      another offense. (7T 84-12 to 85-3)

     Although some trial judges in this state question defendants at 
  sentencing, it is unlawful and should not be permitted because it is contrary
  to the United States and New Jersey Constitutions.  The Fifth Amendment to
  the  U.S. Constitution protects the accused right not to be a witness 
  against  himself.  This is codified in N.J.R.E. 503 which allows the Defendant 
  to remain silent and refuse to answer questions posed by a trial court.  In 
  this case, the Trial Court asked many questions of the Defendant, without   
  advising him, that he had the right to remain silent and had the right not to 
  answer any of the questions.  Further, the Trial Court used those answers to  
  find that the Defendant was at risk to commit another offense.  Further, prior  
  to the interrogation of the Defendant, the Trial Court stated to the   
  defendant, “Okay, Mr. Dugo, this is your opportunity to make a statement    
  [emphasis supplied] before I proceed with sentencing.” (T7 64-7 to 9)  

  Specifically, the court questioned the Defendant regarding the following
  areas:   (1) regarding prior child support arrearages for his now majority
  age children; (2) use of alias; and, (3) driving abstract.  One of the
  questions asked of the Defendant was, “Did you obtain a license in any other  
  state?”  In which the Defendant said he had obtained a Florida and New Jersey 
  license under different socil security numbers, when he was eighteen and  
  twenty-six years of age, and that he lied to obtain said drivers licenses.   
  (7T76-24 to 79-17)

    It is respectfully submitted that the Trial Court should not have used the  
 Defendant’s opportunity to give a statement, turn it into an interrogation  
 session of the Defendant, and than used those answers against the Defendant.

Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that the Trial Court, if not   explicitly, implicitly used this information against the Defendant when he sentenced the Defendant to two year parole ineligibility, and the two year parole disqualification should not have been imposed for this third degree crime.

POINT FIVE

DEFENDANT WAS DENIED A FAIR TRIAL 

BECAUSE TRIAL COUNSEL DID NOT

MEET THE TRIAL COUNSEL DID NOT MEET 

THE MINIMUAL STANDARDS OF 

COMPETENT COUNSEL

The Trial Court ruled that Officer Reynolds report could come in under the business records exemption to the hearsay rule, and made the following ruling regarding the admission of Officer Reynolds report.

            So there’ll be no questions asked of this witness with 

respect to the report.  You’re free to make arrangements to – if the Prosecutor does not agree to subpoena the custodian of records of the Fort Lee Police Department to make arrangements on your side of the case in order to admit either the full report or redacted version of the report.  (3T 151-7 to 12)

Trial counsel was so deficient and incompetent that he rested without ever requesting that Officer Reynolds report be admitted, and read to the Jury as per the Trial Court’s ruling.  Prior to that ruling defense counsel had continually throughout the trial attempted to cross-examine the state’s witnesses on Officer Reynolds’ report, arguing that Officer Reynolds’ report was not hearsay, but was an “adoptive admission” and “witness unavailability” exception to the hearsay rule. (3T 142-16 to 149-10)  Remarkably, after receiving a favorable ruling from the Trial Court, defense counsel, made the following unintelligent statement:

Mr. Silvera:  I don’t – I don’t quite get what the Court is saying.

      The Court:  You don’t get what I just said?

Mr. Silvera: Judge, no.  I can produce exhibits during the State’s case in chief.

      The Court:  Well—

Mr. Silvera: The rule of evidence allows me to do that.

      Ms. Frisica:      The Judge is saying you can call the 

custodian of records and try and offer it as a business record.

Mr. Silvera:       But, Judge, but it’s not a business record.  It is not a business record, and that’s a reason why the police statements are hearsay and they’re not allowed to be admitted in front of the jury.  (3T 152-3 to 18)

Based on the request of defense counsel, and the urging of the prosecutor, the Trial Court, than decided to change its ruling regarding the Trial Court permitting Officer Meyer to testify under cross-examination admit that Officer Reynolds report did not mention that he had to jump away from the Defendant’s vehicle when he ruled:

            I would instruct the jury to disregard the response of 

Officer Meyers with respect to his statement that there was no indication in Officer Reynolds’ report of him jumping out of the way. (3T 157-2 to 6)

Based on that ruling defense counsel than argues that he would lose credibility with the Jury if the court instructs the Jury to disregard Officer Meyer's testimony regarding that issue. (3T 157-7 to 159-10)  In the attempt to again help defense counsel the trial court, again recites its previous ruling:

            Mr. Silvera, perhaps I didn’t make myself clear, but I 

indicated that during your side of the case if you chose to do so you have a report which has been marked as D-2.  

      If the prosecutor did not agree,    you could get the 

      custodian of records to have the report properly

authenticated.  And within that report, the information that you are attempting to adduce would be the same information, the absence of the jumping out of the way.  You would have that opportunity.

There’s no prejudice to you.  (3T 159-11 to 20)

Again, trial counsel’s ineffectiveness and incompetence is exhibited when he states to the court:

      Mr. Silvera:  -- keeps saying I’m trying to admit the 

report.  That – All I’m trying to do is to have it marked as an Exhibit.

      The Court: The report could be in a redacted form.
      Mr. Silvera: But I’m not trying to admit the report, Judge.  

And once again, and Judge, I hate to keep going over 

this. (3T 160-11 to 18)

When the Jury was called back in the trial court gave the 

following instructions:

            I’m going to give you an instruction as I had before. 

Yesterday, you heard the testimony – yesterday actually and today of Officer Meyers And specifically, it was a response where he was shown an exhibit and asked whether there was any reference in the report to Officer Reynolds jumping out of the way.  Okay.  Specifically, that response will be stricken, and you will not use that in your deliberations?  Do you understand that?  (3T 161-25 to 162-8)

  We know the rule.  The Sixth Amendment to the United States 

Constitution states that “the accused shall have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense”, and our Supreme Court has defined “assistance”, as “effective assistance of counsel.”  Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984)  In Strickland, the Defendant must show that trial counsel’s performance was so deficient that his performance deprived the Defendant of his Sixth Amendment to “effective assistance of counsel.”

In this case the colloquy between defense counsel and the Trial Court, shows without any doubt, that defense counsel’s level of competency was so deficient that he did not render “effective assistance of counsel” to the Defendant.  During the cross-examination of Officer Beatty and Meyer, defense counsel attempted to elicit the admission from these officers that Officer Reynolds police report made no mention that Officer Reynolds had to jump out of the way of the Defendant’s vehicle.  After receiving a favorable ruling from the court, defense 

counsel reversed his own position, argues against the admission claiming that police reports are not admissible as hearsay.  Of course, the prosecutor interested in keeping that piece of inconsistent evidence from the jury, the Trial Court was bullied into instructing the Jury that the testimony of Officer Meyer regarding the report of Officer Reynolds be stricken.  Notwithstanding, that ruling, the Trial Court over and over again explained to defense counsel, that he could still have the police report read to the jury in the defense counsel’s case in chief.  From the colloquy, it is clear that defense counsel still did not understand the court’s ruling, even after the court explained it to him four times. 

The second part of the Strickland test is that, but for, defense counsel’s deficient performance the outcome of the trial would have been different.  In Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed. 2d 389 (2000) held, that this Defendant must show that he was prejudiced by defense counsel performance, and there is a “reasonable probability” that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result would be different.  The court went on, that a reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine the confidence of the outcome. Williams v. Taylor,  529 U.S. 390-91.  Further, “[A] verdict or conclusion only weakly supported by the record is more likely to have been affected by errors than one with overwhelming record of support.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. at 687.  

It is without dispute that the evidence against the Defendant was tenuous and based only on the subjective, not objective, observations of the testifying police officers.  Therefore, viewed in that light, both of the Strickland standards are met here.

 In Smith v. Wainwright, 799 F.2d 1442, 1443-1444 (11th Cir. 

1986) held that a failure to elicit prior inconsistent statements of a witness constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.  Moreover, defense counsel was clearly deficient by failing to have the grand jury transcripts read to the Jury in his case-in-chief, which too, would be admissible under the circumstances.

Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted, that all of the errors set forth by defense counsel supra, show, without any doubt, that defense counsel errors undermined the confidence of the outcome of this trial, since the Jury never had any evidence, before them, that would give them any reasonable doubt regarding the Defendant’s innocence.  It wasn’t that the evidence wasn’t there, it was that defense counsel did not have the required skill, knowledge and competence to present it to them, so that the Jury could have heard a complete picture of all the evidence in this case.  Further, because of the Trial Court’s reversal regarding the cross-examination of the police officers with the Reynolds report, it is highly likely that defense counsel lost all credibility with the Jury, 

making any of his arguments to the Jury regarding reasonable doubt as to the Defendant’s innocence worthless and of no effect.

The case at bar is a text book example of the frightening, but very real chance that Mr. Dugo has been wrongfully convicted and sent to prison.

 CONCLUSION

Based on the above mentioned facts and law, Defendant Robert 

Dugo asks this Court to reverse the Judgment of Conviction entered in this matter and acquit the Defendant of 3rd degree eluding.  If such Relief is not granted,  Defendant asks that a new trial on 3rd degree eluding be granted.  If such relief is not granted, Defendant asks that the sentence be reversed and that he be re-sentenced.

Respectfully submitted,

___

Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

Dated: September 18, 2003

[1] Grand Jury Testimony of Officer Reynolds, Pages 6 & 9.


[2] Rule 801(d) defines business as “includes every kind of business, 
institution, association, profession, occupation and calling, whether or not conducted for profit, and also includes activities or governmental agencies.
[3] As the Court is aware, Lungsford was decided under old evidence rule Evid. 
R. 63(13), which has now been changed to Evid. R. 803(c)(6). (Biunno, 2001 N.J. 
Rules of Evidence, Table of Dispositions, Page 973, (Gann)

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.
Elizabeth, New Jersey
CriminalDefenseNJ.com
(908) 354-7006


N.J. Criminal Attorneys, NJ Criminal Lawyers, NJ Criminal Defense Lawyers, NJ Criminal Appeal Lawyers, NJ Criminal Appeal Attorneys, NJ Federal Lawyers, Union County Criminal Attorneys

New Jersey Supreme Court Makes Ground Breaking Decision Regarding Eye Witness Identification Testimony.

2011-08-25T10:47:00.000-07:00

On August 24, 2011, two cases that will have national implications, the New Jersey Supreme Court in the cases, State v. Larry R. Henderson, and State v. Cecelia X. Chen, held that eyewitness identification is inherently unreliable, and the court issued sweeping reforms to protect defendants from wrongful convictions.

Prominent legal scholars and law professors have held that the New Jersey Supreme Court is the most prominent and trailblazing State Supreme Court in the United States in the area of criminal law and procedure, and these two cases again confirm that fact according to the New York Times. (Headline Article, August 25, 2011) More than seventy-five percent of the convictions overturned by the Innocence Project by DNA evidence involved erroneous eyewitness identification. http://www.innocenceproject.org.

Because of the strong possibility of mistaken identification the Supreme Court has ordered that the Committee on Model Jury Charges for New Jersey modify the existing charges to educate jurors that factors such as, stress on the eyewitness, distance and lighting, memory decay, speed of identification, witness characteristics, length of interaction, the presence of visible weapons, cross-racial identification, the eyewitnesses interaction with non-State actors, or interaction with State actor, among other things can seriously effect whether the eyewitness is making an accurate identification.

As the Supreme Court wrote, "That evidence offers convincing proof that the current test for evaluating the trustworthiness of eyewitness identification should be revised ... the record proves that the possibility of mistaken identification is real. Indeed, it is now widely known that eyewitness misidentification is the leading cause of wrongful convictions across the country."

The court in its 134 page decision also rejects the United States Supreme Court formal for eyewitness identification under the seminal federal case Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977), and affords New Jersey criminal defendants greater protection. Again, this is not the first time that our State court has given greater protection to its citizens under New Jersey law.

Because the case only applies to future cases, those which are tried 30 days after the revised model jury charges are approved by the Supreme Court it is essential that any pending trials in which eyewitness identification is a key issue, that those trials be stayed. This criminal defense attorney would argue that the new jury instructions are of such importance that any trial that went forward without these new instructions would be a denial of the defendant’s Fourteenth Amendment to procedural due process and would amount to ineffective assistance of counsel.

Thank your New Jersey Supreme Court for again showing the rest nation the way in the protecting the rights of the accused, and seeing to it that a defendant has a fair and impartial trial.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Elizabeth, N.J.

Dated: August 25, 2011

NJ criminal lawyers, NJ criminal defense attorneys, NJ federal criminal lawyers, union county NJ criminal lawyers, Union County Criminal Attorneys.

How to Win Your Criminal Case; Use of Social Networking Sites.

2011-08-08T08:12:00.000-07:00

In one of my recent cases a young (pusher-addict) defendant was charged with distribution of heroin to his friend who overdosed and died. The charge a first degree strict liability drug induced death offense carried a sentence of 10 to 20 years with an 85% period of parole ineligibility. In that case the Somerset County Prosecutor’s Office was quick to copy a photograph from the defendant’s public Facebook page, which they quickly disseminated to all the major New Jersey newspapers in the State along with a press release on the day of his arrest. The photograph was a picture of the defendant taken two years before with his shirt off and laughing. The picture was unfair prejudicial and extremely damaging, and the prosecutor’s office knew exactly what they were doing by posting this photo. The photograph of the defendant had absolutely no connection to the case. The purpose for releasing the photograph was to prejudice the defendant and taint the jury pool with the subtle and unfair essage that the defendant was living the high-life and laughing about it, while selling drugs. Nothing was further from the truth.

In recent years law enforcement has used social media sites to obtain inculpatory evidence against defendant using these sites. However, not as well known, or used by many defense attorneys is the use of these sites to benefit the defendant. For the defense social media sites can be a treasure trove of exculpatory evidence, impeachment material, and other helpful information for the defense.

All of us have heard incidences reported in the media in which rogue cops have posted information on their social media sites as "rogue cop", or "I pick up garbage for a living". These statements of course are impeachment material under Giglio.

In one of my recent cases which resulted in my obtaining a dismissal of all criminal charges against the defendant my client was able to obtain some very interesting information regarding the officers bias. In that case a municipal patrolman was called to a nightclub at the bequest of the manager when the defendant complained about the bar bill and the poor quality of the drinks. When the patrolman arrived he immediately took the side of the manager of establishment and arrested the defendant when she questioned the patrolman obvious bias. The defendant did absolutely nothing wrong and it was clearly a bogus arrest. Prior to trial the client, a person with some expertise in computers was able to ascertain and printout some very damaging information regarding the police officer and his connection to the nightclub. Among other things she obtained proof and printouts that the manager and owner of the nightclub were friends of the officer on Facebook, that the office had one of his personal parties hosted by the nightclub, and that he had listed the nightclub as one of his favorite places. Needless to say this information would have been very damaging to the officer as to credibility and motive for the arrest if the matter had gone to trial, but because of the officers fourth failure to appear for trial (for obvious reasons that it was a bogus arrest), the matter was favorably resolved in the defendant’s favor with no criminal record. The officer if honest should have recused himself from the call or at a minimum take undue caution to be fair based on his personal friendship with the manager and owners of the nightclub.

When relevant defense counsel should not hesitate to use its subpoena power to obtain social media information for all of the prosecution’s witnesses for information that exculpates the defendant or can lead to impeachment evidence for the defense. This information is clearly discoverable under the seminal federal cases Brady and Giglio. Further, during the pendency of the case defense counsel should monitor all public available social website information to determine whether major charges to the site have occurred which might tend to show that the person is attempting to hide or delete information because of the case.

Lastly, defense counsel should not hesitate to mine social media sites for any public information regarding potential jurors in any given case and any possible biases or prejudices that they might have but fail to disclose to the defense.

Although most jurisdictions have not addressed the issue, defense counsel should be aware of the ethical considerations in not obtaining any personal information from any social media site through misrepresentation.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

Elizabeth, New Jersey, New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney, How to win your criminal case in New Jersey

CriminaldefenseNJ.com

Dated: August 8, 2011

How to Win Your Criminal Case: Jury Instructions.

2011-08-08T08:07:00.000-07:00

One of the most overlooked areas in trying a criminal case is the jury instructions that the jurors will receive by the trial judge at the end of the case.

Most appellate reversals of criminal convictions are the result of jury instructions that deviate from the model charges or when the trial court misstates or reads to the jury instructions which are inaccurate.

The focus of this article however is not on errors by the trial judge but more importantly on the need by the defense attorney to insure that the jury understands the law and how it applies or does not apply to the facts of the case before the jury. Only when the jury understands the law can they make an informed decision regarding the innocence of the accused resulting hopefully in a not guilty verdict.

As Professor Peter Tiersma recently observed, “There has been a substantial amount of research during the past decade documenting that jurors do not understand traditional instructions very well, especially when more difficult concepts come into play.”

To begin with most jurors do not understand the concept of reasonable doubt. Research in this area by criminologists Lieberman and Sales, in their treatise, "What Social Science Teaches Us About Jury Instruction Process", estimates that 75% of jurors do not even understand that if they find reasonable doubt that they must acquit.

An additional problem and far more greater danger to the defendant is the danger that the jury will hear through other crime evidence, (Rule 404b evidence) that the defendant has a prior record. In these cases the tendency is that the jury will take confront in convicting the defendant, even in a close case with reasonable doubt, if they believe that the defendant is a bad person, and should be punished.

Therefore with that in mind it is essential that defense counsel use every possible legal means to convey the jury instructions in language that the jury will understand.

First, in regards to reasonable doubt it is important that the defense counsel in concrete terms through stories, analogies, metaphors and parables, convey to the jury what reasonable doubt is and is not. One helpful tool is a chart, which I use (if allowed by the trial judge), which explains different concepts of reasonable doubt.

Second, it is important in a circumstantial case that the jury is told a story in which circumstantial evidence wrongly accused someone of a crime or wrong that they did not commit. I use the story of the poor farm boy who was afraid of getting beaten by his father for eating the blueberry pie before supper, covered his little dog (his only possession which he loved dearly) with blueberry pie thinking that the father would blame the dog. The father, poor, overworked and uneducated beat his son’s dog to death in front of his son. This is a powerful story which conveys how circumstantial evidence without more can lead to the wrong conclusion.

Third, it is most important that the jury instructions are explained to the jury to explain in plain language how the law can not sustain a conviction based on the facts proven or not proven in the case. This is extremely important, and the judge will give defense counsel greater leeway, with crimes in which there is little or no case law, or there are no specific model charges for the offense in which the defendant is charged. In the case in which there are no model charges, it is essential that defense counsel begin to craft a charge at the beginning of the case.

In conclusion as with all criminal cases it is essential that defense counsel does not overlook one of the most important part of a criminal jury trial, that being the jury instructions and defense counsel making the jury understand how the charges can only lead to one honest and fair conclusion, that being, a not guilty verdict as to all charges. It is irresponsible to expect the jurors to figure out for themselves their most important function.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

Elizabeth, New Jersey, New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney; How to win your criminal jury trial, NJ best criminal defense attorney

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Dated: August 8, 2011

Pleading to a Megan’s Law Offenses and Community-Supervision for Life Conditions.

2011-08-08T07:43:00.000-07:00

Most defendants do not learn of the draconian conditions and requirements of the community-supervision for life (or life time parole) which are mandatory for all defendants convicted of a sexual offense in New Jersey, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4. Under community-supervision the defendant may be required to wear an ankle bracelet for 24/7 monitoring by the defendant's parole officer. It also includes, among other things, lifetime monthly meetings with the parole officer, prohibiting travel outside New Jersey, residency and employment restrictions, unannounced home visits and inspections, curfews and urine screenings for non-prescription drugs. These are the basic restrictions and can be even more oppressive depending on the individual parole officer and his or hers individual predilections.

That is why it is extremely important that all defendants subject to community-supervision for life be advised by defense counsel exactly what “community-supervision” for life means.

In fact in a recent case State v. Villanueva the appellate division remanded a PCR appeal back to the trial court to determine through an evidentiary hearing whether defense counsel was ineffective for not advising Mr. Villanueva of the community supervision for life requirements.

The appellate division citing State v. Jamgochian, 363 N.J. 220 (App. Div. 2003) which held that a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel was made when defense counsel failed to advise the defendant of his travel restrictions for life.

Mr. Villanueva plead guilty to one third-degree count of child endangerment. In that case Mr. Villanueva admitted that as the school basketball coach he required that his 12-14 year old players be weighed in the nude. Mr. Villanueva’s defense was that he did not believe that his conduct was sexual in nature. In that case Mr. Villanueva alleged in his post conviction relief petition that he did not understand the gravity of the lifetime supervision program until he was notified the 22 restrictive conditions by his parole officer.

In conclusion every defendant charged with a sexual offense must understand that pleading to such offenses with a sentence to probation does not end the defendant’s nightmare, and that with such draconian conditions of life time community supervision for life, an innocent defendant must seriously consider going to trial, even with the threat of imprisonment hanging over his or her head.

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

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

New Jersey Criminal Defense Lawyer
Elizabeth, New Jersey
Dated: August 8, 2011

North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation Crime Lab Gets Caught Presenting False Blood Lab Results, Which was Certified by the Same

2011-07-28T11:55:00.000-07:00

The North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation Crime Lab (NCSBI) was exposed in being complicit in the submission of numerous false lab reports resulting in a number of defendants being unjustly and falsely convicted of crimes which they did not commit.

Specifically, in 1993 Gregory Flynt Taylor was convicted of murder and sentenced to a life sentence. The criminal conspiracy was exposed when it was learned through a post-conviction appeal hearing that NCSBI Special Agent Duane Deaver was engaged in preparing false and misleading lab analysis when in the Taylor case testified that Mr. Taylor’s SUA tested positive for blood stains when in fact the samples only provided positive results from a presumptive test known as the “phenolphthalein test”. In fact in the Taylor case Special Agent Deaver deliberately withheld from defense counsel the fact that when he performed the more advanced and confirmatory test called the “Takayama test”, the results were negative. In the

Further Special Agent Deaver also withheld from the defense that a third test called the “Ouchterlony test” likewise proved negative for the existence of human blood.

Taylor case no only evidence against Taylor was a jail house snitch who claimed that Taylor admitted to him that he had committed the murder.

Fortunately Mr. Taylor was able to prove his innocence when Deaver was compelled to produce his original lab notes which confirmed the negative results on the two confirmatory tests. This is one of the reasons that it is essential that the defense attorney in all cases require the production of all the laboratory notes of the forensic chemists.

In August of 2010 the Attorney General of North Carolina released the Swecker-Wolf Report”, prepared by two retired FBI agents which found that out of 15,419 serology reports, 904 filed contained similar misleading language as to presented by Deaver.

What is even more disturbing was the fact that the American Society of Crime Lab Directors-Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD-LAB) certified for 20 years that the NCSBI was proficient, accurate and reliable forensic laboratory.

What is even more shocking and troubling is that the New Jersey State Police Forensic Laboratory is likewise certified by ASCLD-LAB, the same agency that covered up the misconduct in North Carolina’s lab for 20 years.

http://www.state.nj.us/njsp/divorg/invest/forensics.html

By: Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

Dated: July 28, 2011

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Elizabeth, New Jersey

(908) 354-7006

NJ criminal attorneys, NJ criminal lawyers, NJ criminal defense lawyers, NJ criminal defense attorneys, Newark criminal lawyers, Elizabeth nj criminal attorneys, Elizabeth criminal defense lawyers. Union county nj criminal lawyers.

The Use and Abuse of Confidential Informants By Law Enforcement in the State of New Jersey

2011-07-15T09:37:00.000-07:00

One of law enforcements dirty kept secrets which very rarely see the day of light is the use of confidential informants. In every type of criminal case in both the state and federal levels a defendant can obtain a very substantial sentencing reduction, including a straight probationary sentence, for substantial assistance or cooperation to law enforcement.[1] It is without dispute that the potential fear of criminal prosecution, reduced sentence, monetary incentives, or other inducements may motivate a criminal suspect, who turns into a confidential informant, in providing information which is false or not totally inaccurate.

An example of the most flagrant abuse of confidential informants is typified by the Bulger fiasco. After 16 years on the lame, Irish Boston mob boss and serial murderer James “Whitey” Bulger was finally captured at the age of 81. What is shocking about Mr. Bulger was that while committing dozens of murders he was an informant for the Federal Bureau of Investigation and because of his informant status was able to commit crimes with impunity.

Bulger was allowed to flee Boston when he was warned by his long time handler FBI special agent John Connolly, Jr., who warned Bulger that Bulger was indicted for murder.

Because of his actions agent Connolly was convicted of racketeering in May of 2002 and sent to prison.

Bulger fed the FBI information on his rival the New England Mob and in return Bulger was permitted to run his illegal activities including murder without any interference from the FBI or other law enforcement agencies.

Although nothing similar has surfaced here in New Jersey as horrendous as the Bulger-FBI connection, many criminal defense attorneys have questioned in court the cozy relationships that many confidential informants or (CI) have with law enforcement.

Law Enforcement affidavits for search warrants are filled with hearsay statements to support law enforcements requests for judicial warrants to search homes, tape phones and engage in other types of judicial order investigation techniques. Often it is impossible to test the veracity of these hearsay statements or to determine if the CI even is real.

As the law stands now in New Jersey there are no official set of guidelines or rules to guide or control the use of misuse of confidential informants in criminal investigations in this state.

In New Jersey the problem has become so troubling that in June of 2011 the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey published a study on the practice of using CI’s in New Jersey.[2] The study found that New Jersey does not have a set policy in the use of CI’s and that every county prosecutor office in this state has their own policies.

In New Jersey there is no uniform statewide policy in the use of CI’s. Only the New Jersey State Police have a statewide database on their informants but it appears that they do not share that data base with any other law enforcement agency in this state.

It is without doubt that some law enforcement officers in this state overlook the criminal conduct of CIs under their supervision and control. Further, many of these CIs in the attempt to “work-off” their offenses for sentencing purposes will engage in entrapment of people who would not have engaged in the crime, but for the inducements and promises made by the CIs to the unsuspected victims. The CIs know they will not get arrested for crimes which they devise, plan and participate in, and have nothing to lose and will stop at nothing to snare others.

Many CIs are forced by law enforcement officers to participate as informants with threats of additional criminal charges, the threat of spreading rumors in the community or gang that the suspect is a “snitch”, removal and placing of their children in foster care, confiscation of property and loss of job, by notifying the arrestee of his or her arrest.

Currently the Office of the Attorney General requires that all CI agreements be in writing in all narcotics cases, and applicable state law requires that if the CI participated in the alleged crime that he or she can be forced to testify through a motion to disclose the identity of the CI.[3] This information is published in the New Jersey Prosecutor’s Manual published by the Division of Criminal Justice on January 2, 2001.

Accordingly, a number of glaring misuses of confidential informants in this state that must be rectified and investigated in every criminal case.

1. Statewide mandatory guidelines in the use of CIs.

2. Whether the search warrants were circumvented and abused by the use of CIs.

3. Veracity and actual existences of a CI in the investigation of an alleged crime.

4. Whether the CI engaged in or promoted any crime.

5. Full dossier of every CI, which includes, but not limited to, documentation and disclosure. when ordered by the court, of all information on the particular CI, including investigations in which he has been involved, and information disclosed, and whether that information was reliable and verified.

6. That any and all misuse, or violation of the guidelines, require that the CI be prohibited in further participation in the program, and that any criminal investigations that he was involved in which lead to the arrest of a suspect be dismissed by the prosecutor’s office and disclosed to defense counsel.

7. That in every criminal case the assistant prosecutor must notify defense counsel of the use of a CI in a particular case because often that information is never disclosed to defense counsel.

In summary the use and abuse of confidential informants must be rectified and that in every case the criminal defense attorney must pursue that inquiry with proper investigation and the appropriate pre-trial motions.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

Dated: July 15, 2011

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Use of criminal informants in New Jersey criminal practice, entrapment and confidential informants, nj criminal attorney, nj criminal trial attorneys, CIs in new jersey law enforcement.

[1] The Federal Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, 5K1.1; New Jersey Brimage Guidelines, 1998, 2004.

[2]

http://www.aclu-nj.org/downloads/0611ACLUCIReport.pdf

[3] State v. Forez, 261 N.J. Super. 12, 22025 (App. Div. 1992), State v. Surles, (Slip Opinion, NJ. App. Div. 2009)

Admission into the Pre-Trial Intervention Program without Pleading Guilty As a Condition

2011-07-13T06:39:00.000-07:00

The Pre-Trial Intervention Program (“PTI”) is a prosecutor program that allows the prosecutor in certain cases to divert the charged defendant to a period of one year of probation, after which all the charges are dismissed. The program is open to first offenders charged with non-violent offenses as well as other requirements. Admission to the program is no contingent upon the defendant pleading guilty to the charges.

Some county prosecutor’s offices in New Jersey, especially, Passaic County Prosecutor’s Office have often insistent that as a condition to admission the defendant was required to admit to the crime. I have always resisted this requirement and have been successful every time.

Recently in State v. Burak a case decided on June 28, 2011, the Appellate Division granted an evidentiary hearing to determine whether defense counsel was ineffective when he permitted his client to plea guilty to the criminal charge as a condition of admittance to PTI. In that case the State conceded that the defendant was improperly required to enter the guilty plea as a condition to admittance into the program.

This case highlights the need for defense counsel to continually be aware of the law and to challenge and question every proposal offered by the prosecutor. As proven time and time again the assistant prosecutor handling the case for county prosecutor’s office will push defense counsel into agreeing to things that are sometimes illegal and not in the best interest of the defendant, or his attorney.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Elizabeth, New Jersey

Pre-Trial Intervention, Criminal Lawyers NJ, Elizabeth Criminal Attorney, Newark Criminal Lawyers, Union County Criminal Attorneys, NJ criminal trial attorneys

Dated: July 13, 2011

WHY CASEY ANTHONY WAS FOUND NOT GUILTY OF MURDERING HER DAUGHTER

2011-07-08T11:20:00.000-07:00

The reason why Casey Anthony was found not guilty of the murder of her daughter Caylee had absolutely nothing to do with the skill or lack of skill or experience of her defense attorney. In fact her attorney an inexperienced attorney having been admitted to the Florida Bar since 2005 made major trial errors in his defense of Ms. Anthony. In his opening defense counsel knowing that his client would most likely never take the stand told the jury a factual scenario that the child was killed by an accident, knowing that the only way that he could prove that factual scenario was through the testimony of the defendant, Ms. Anthony, or other witnesses. Defense counsel in his opening statement shocked veteran defense attorneys with promises that he knew he could not ever keep. In most jury trials jurors do not forget promises made and not kept by defense attorneys and prosecutors and a jury will not hesitate to punish the respective sides for empty promises.

The reason why Ms Anthony was acquitted was for the simple reason that no reasonable jury following the law as given to them on reasonable doubt could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Anthony engaged in, or participated in the death of her daughter.

Under Florida law reasonable doubt is defined as:

A reasonable doubt is not a possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary or forced doubt. Such a doubt must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding conviction of guilt. On the other hand, if, after carefully considering, comparing and weighing all the evidence, there is not an abiding conviction of guilt, or, if, having a conviction, it is one which is not stable but one which wavers and vacillates, then the charge is not proved beyond every reasonable doubt and you must find the defendant not guilty because the doubt is reasonable. It is to the evidence introduced upon this trial, and to it alone, that you are to look for that proof. A reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant may arise from the evidence, conflict in the evidence or the lack of evidence.

In the Anthony case the State of Florida decided to indict Ms. Anthony on capital murder charge knowing that they had no evidence as to her guilt beyond the tenuous circumstantial facts regarding Ms. Anthony’s behavior during the period in which Caylee was missing. The State of Florida hoped in getting a conviction of Ms. Anthony not through hard evidence but through the visceral hatred that people have when they see that a mother, who has not seen her child in thirty days, and lies about it, consoles her sorrows with drinking dancing and partying.

Unlike Florida in New Jersey the reasonable doubt jury charge and attempts to afford the defendant accused of a crime even more protection.

The prosecution must prove its case by more than a mere preponderance of the evidence, yet not necessarily to an absolute certainty.

The State has the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Some of you may have served as jurors in civil cases, where you were told that it is necessary to prove only that a fact is more likely true than not true. In criminal cases, the State’s proof must be more powerful than that. It must be beyond a reasonable doubt.

A reasonable doubt is an honest and reasonable uncertainty in your minds about the guilt of the defendant after you have given full and impartial consideration to all of the evidence. A reasonable doubt may arise from the evidence itself or from a lack of evidence. It is a doubt that a reasonable person hearing the same evidence would have.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof, for example, that leaves you firmly convinced of the defendant's guilt. In this world, we know very few things with absolute certainty. In criminal cases the law does not require proof that overcomes every possible doubt. If, based on your consideration of the evidence, you are firmly convinced that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged, you must find [him/her] guilty. If, on the other hand, you are not firmly convinced of defendant's guilt, you must give defendant the benefit of the doubt and find [him/her] not guilty.

The bottom line is that Casey Anthony was very lucky that she was given a jury which took the reasonable doubt standard seriously, and applied the law without passion, prejudice or hatred. Unfortunately, and this is no secret in the criminal defense bar, most juries do not hold the State to its proofs and adhere to the reasonable doubt standard as given by the trial judge. Yes she was only 12 good jurors away from sitting on death row. Although most people, including myself, believed that Ms. Anthony was probably guilty, the jury in the end did the right thing. When all is said and done, a jury of 12 reasonable people is the only protection we have against the power of the government to prosecute and take another human beings life and liberty.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Elizabeth, New Jersey

(908) 354-7006

Criminal Defense Attorney in New Jersey, Union County, Federal Court, Newark, N.J., Jersey City N.J., New Brunwick, N.J.

Dated: July 8, 2011

Mistaken Identification and Rush To Judgment

2011-06-22T14:47:00.000-07:00

On December 26, 1862 the Dakota Indian named We-Chank-Washta-don-pee, or also known as “Chaska”, was sentenced to death by a military court of justice. Prior to the execution of sentence President Abraham Lincoln pardoned Chaska. However, his jailers confused him with another Dakota Indian and hanged him anyway. Of course everyone would agree that this was a tragic example of mistaken identification.

To often in the rush to close a case and go to the next open case the police will make a prudential judgment as to the guilt of a suspect without any evidence other than a hunch.

In a recent case that came to my office this week, a prior arrest free African-American female college student was accused of stealing a pocket book from the doctor’s office in which she had been sent for an IME by an insurance company. Inside the pocket book were numerous credit cards and other identifying information.

The same day the pocket book was stolen, a Black female was observed attempting to purchase a large amount of expensive merchandise at the Short Hills Mall with the stolen credit cards. Having nothing to go on but a grainy video of this individual purchasing these items with the stolen credit cards, the police decided to charge this college student on a hunch.

The college student is innocent and it appears that the police did nothing to really attempt to solve this crime and catch the real perpetrator of the crime. If the cops in this case had engaged in real honest police work they would have learned quickly that the college student was innocent and should never have been charged. Clearly this is a case of mistaken identity.

Again a rush to judgment on a hunch is unethical, unfair and dishonest and does nothing in the pursuit of justice. Unfortunately, this type of shoddy police work is more the rule than the exception and causes me great concern as a criminal defense lawyer in New Jersey.

As Pope John Paul I was quoted as saying, “If you want peace work for Justice.”

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Elizabeth, New Jersey

(908) 354-7006

Dated: June 22, 2011

False Confessions and Police Misconduct.

2011-06-22T09:41:00.000-07:00

It is astounding and sometimes hard for people to imagine or understand why someone would confess to a crime in which he or she did not commit.

Unfortunately the number of false confessions that are given each year in the United States is astounding. Attorney Peter Neufeld of the Innocence Project in New York has estimated that a quarter of the DNA exonerations involve cases in which people have given false confessions.

The most famous of the false confession cases is the infamous Norfolk Four. United States Naval Officers, Tice, Williams, Dick and Wilson, stationed at the naval base in Norfolk Virginia were convicted of the brutal rape and murder of Michelle Moore-Bosko in 1997. The only evidence against the sailors was the coerced confessions by a detective who was later charged and convicted for police misconduct (knowingly extracting false confessions). In that case the detective, Detective Ford, fed to the sailors held back facts of the case that only the detective knew, and later typed those facts into the signed or taped confessions. Even when the real killer, Omar Ballard, was charged and convicted based on DNA evidence, and his confession that he committed the crime alone, the police still refused to dismiss the charges against the Norfolk Four. Detective Ford knew that Sailor Dick was innocent because navel logs showed that Sailor Dick was on the ship U.S. Saipan at the time of the murder.

The Norfolk four continued to maintain that their confessions, which were either signed or taped, were made on the basis that they were coerced with threats that included that they would receive the death penalty if they did not plead guilty.

This was not the first time Detective Ford was accused of extracting false confessions from suspects. In the Lafayette Grill case in 1990 he was also accused of similar misconduct. Detective Ford was known to brag to fellow detectives that he could coerce a false confession out of anyone to solve a crime, regardless of person’s innocence, or lack of evidence against the accused.

All of the Norfolk Four defendants were sentenced to long prison sentences and in 2008 30 retired FBI agents asked the governor of Virginia to pardon the sailors.

After spending many years in prison the Norfolk Four were eventually pardoned over the objections of the State Attorney General who for years fought against their release knowing that the four were truly innocent.

Another infamous and troubling case was the false confession of Douglas Warney who spent nine years in prison for a murder which he did not commit. At the time of his confession Mr. Warner was suffering from AIDS and AIDS dementia. In that case the police claimed that Mr. Warney confessed to the crime and with facts that only the murderer would know. Unfortunately, the facts which they claimed he knew about the murder were facts which the facts also knew and which they fed to him. In the Warney prosecution there were no witnesses, no physical evidence, or DNA evidence to link Mr. Warney to the crime. Mr. Warney was eventually exonerated by DNA evidence and the arrest and conviction of the person who committed the crime whose DNA was at the crime scene.

The American Psychological Association has continually maintained in their studies that susceptible individuals subject to common police interrogation techniques will confess to anything. Even less susceptible individuals often confess to crimes that they did not commit with the false and misleading information from the detective that “if you just tell me what I want to hear, we will wrap this up and you will be going home.” Or, if “you admit to what you did, you will not be charged with a crime.” Of course, all of these lies are done off the audio-visual camera.

I am currently handling a pending case in Union County New Jersey in which I am representing an individual who was tricked into given a confession to a crime in which he did not commit. A motion to suppress the statements is pending with the court, and it is likely that the confession will be thrown out. In that case the detective interrogating my client asked my client what happened and when the facts did not conform to the facts of the crime, the detective told him what to say. Fortunately, in that case all of the promises and lies were off camera. However, the feeding of the facts to my client was captured on video and will make the difference in suppressing the statement as being a product of a coerced false confession.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Elizabeth, New Jersey

(908) 354-7006

Dated: June 22, 2011

The Necessity of the Immediate Investigation of the Alleged Crime Scene by Criminal Defense Lawyer before any Surveillance Video is Destroyed.

2011-06-21T09:09:00.000-07:00

In many of my previous blogs I have written about the early investigation of the alleged crime scene. This immediate investigation is even more important in recent years with the proliferation of surveillance videos, both official and private surveillance cameras.

Recently I spoke about a case in which one of my client’s was falsely accused of sexual assault on the sidewalk of an Elizabeth Street, not far from a city police surveillance video camera. The charges of sexual assault were dropped by the Union County Prosecutor’s Office when an examination of the alleged site, by me, in which the assault allegedly occurred, revealed a police video camera, not far from the alleged assault. Upon this discovery a notice to the police to perverse the video, and their failure to do so, resulted in all charges being dropped.

On June 17, 2011 it was reported that a narcotics detective, Payano, assigned to undercover detective work in the Bronx, New York, was charged with perjury in claiming to have witness a hand-to-hand narcotics transaction which never occurred. The dishonest cop was exposed when the defense attorney brought to the attention of the Bronx D.A., evidence from the private surveillance camera that the detective had lied about what he alleged so, in fact, he was not even at the scene. As a result all of the criminal charges had been dropped by the Bronx D.A., and the dishonest detective was indicted in a 64 count indictment for preparing a false police report and perjury.

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

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Elizabeth, N.J.

(908) 354-7006

Dated: June 21, 2011

Prior to Trial Defense Counsel Must Force the Prosecutor to State Whether it Intends to Introduce Evidence of Uncharged Criminal Conduct, and Disclose to the Defense any Evidence to Support this Alleged Criminal Conduct

2011-06-07T12:08:00.000-07:00

All to often at the time of trial the prosecutor will attempt to introduce what is commonly known in New Jersey criminal practice as “other crime evidence”, or Rule 404(b) evidence against the defendant. This typically is evidence of other crimes or wrongs allegedly committed by the defendant. This evidence is not admitted to prove that the defendant had a propensity to commit the instant offense which he is on trial for, but rather to prove another relevant issue of the case, such as to prove motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge or absence of mistake or accident, when such evidence is relevant to a material issue at trial.

This evidence is probably the most damaging type of evidence offered against a criminal defendant because the jury hears that the defendant had committed another crime or wrong before, and often it is difficult if not impossible for the jury not to use this evidence improperly.

Therefore, it is essential in every criminal case that defense counsel in his initial discovery request demand that the prosecutor state whether it intends to introduce evidence of uncharged criminal conduct, when the State presents its case, or during the State’s cross-examination of the defendant, if he or she testifies.

Further, the letter should demand that if the State intends to proffer this type of evidence that it immediately disclose the specific wrongful acts, and that the State furnish to the defense during discovery any and all evidence to support such evidence, which includes, but not limited to any and all evidence that is relevant to such uncharged criminal conduct.

Lastly, defense counsel should make it clear that in the event that this information is not disclosed to the defense during discovery that the defense will object to the State’s attempt to introduce such evidence at the time of trial, because the defense would clearly be prejudiced by such a delay in disclosure.

On June 6, 2011, Mr. Dominique Strauss-Kahn appeared for his arraignment in New York Supreme Court at the criminal courts building in Manhattan to enter his plea of not guilty. In connection with that plea the first thing that his defense attorneys (Taylor and Brafman) did by way of discovery to the prosecutor, was to demand from the prosecutor that it disclose to the defense any uncharged criminal conduct which might include allegations of other victims that Mr. Strauss-Kahn engaged in other sexual crimes or wrongs with these women.

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

277 North Broad Street, P.O. Box 261, Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

(908) 354-7006

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

YourCivilRights@gmail.com

Dated: June 7, 2011

Newark’s Mayor Cory Booker and His Continued Cover-up of the Newark Police Department and His Lack of Integrity as Mayor.

2011-06-01T07:10:00.000-07:00

Since becoming Newark’s mayor, Cory Booker has done nothing to address the continued abuse and corruption prevalent in the Newark Police Department.

On September 9, 2010, the American Civil Liberties Union brought a federal civil rights suit against the City of Newark and its police department alleging that over a period of two-and-a-half-year officers of the Newark Police Department engaged in various forms of police misconduct such as false arrests, violence and excessive force, and shake downs and various other forms of abuse and corruption.

When the suit was filed Mayor Booker called the suit “misleading and “manipulative.” He further said himself or through his spokespersons that the petition was “frivolous” and “filed in bad faith”, and that Newark would use every means at their disposal to get it dismissed. Such response by the Mayor shows at a minimum, that he was either ignorant of the pervasive corruption of city police force, or engaged in a cover-up. Such behavior, either way, is unacceptable as the mayor for our largest city in this State.

Instead of investigating the internal affairs department to ascertain whether the ACLU suit had any merit, Booker stated on a radio talk show, “We don’t need to be taken on wild chases that suck up time and energy, and take police officers away from their mission on Internal Affairs and their mission on public safety.” This statement of Booker shows his ignorance of the essential and important function of a police internal affairs unit.

On May 14, 2011, eight months later, when the federal government announced that it would engage in its own investigation of the Newark Police Department, Booker said that it was on board with the fed’s from day one. In fact, Booker lied to the press when he said that he was against the ACLU lawsuit because the ACLU lawsuit did not call for a federal investigation. In fact, if he had read the ACLU Complaint the first line reads, “The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey respectfully requests that the Special Litigation Section, acting pursuant to its authority under 42 U.S.C. § 14141, commence an investigation into the Newark, New Jersey Police Department.”

For years experienced attorneys were aware that the internal affairs division in the Newark Police Department was virtually non-existent in practice and that any grievance that reached their desk was quickly dismissed with no real integrity or investigation. In fact it was a common practice for citizens complaining about a Newark Police Officer to be threatened by members of the internal affairs department, with arrest, or with the threat of forcing the grievant to submit to a polygraph test, a violation of the Attorney General Guidelines.

Almost without exception, however, the grievance was simply dismissed as frivolous by the I.A. unit because in every case the officer’s version of events was deemed more credible than the grievant. Notwithstanding, that often the same cops were being complained about over and over again, no integrity tests or other types of investigations were being undertaken against the suspected cops.

Attorney Sanzone has had first hand experience and has in federal court confronted the corruption and police misconduct of police officers for the City of Newark in his civil rights cases against the city (CriminalDefenseNJ.com). Likewise, in criminal cases Attorney Sanzone has successfully defended defendant’s charged with false allegation by Newark Police Officers and has obtained dismissals or acquittals because of various forms of police misconduct.

The Cory Booker cover-up unfortunately is not limited to him or his city. Unfortunately, in almost every town and city in this State, mayors, police commissions and directors have internal affairs units which are a virtual joke. Contrary to law and public safety, these police directors’ use their internal affairs units not to protect the public from bad and corrupt cops, but rather, as a device to quash and silence citizens from making valid complaints, with the purpose to discourage and dissuade them from filing grievances and complaints against police officers and police departments in the future.

The federal government and state attorney’s general office has a daunting task in reforming police departments, but it is clear that left to their self policing they will continue to abuse and violate citizens’ constitutional rights with impunity. It would benefit everyone including honest and hard working police officers to weed out cops who engage in corruption and police misconduct; why it does not happened I do not know.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Elizabeth, N.J.

Dated: June 1, 2011

United States Supreme Court affirms lower Courts Ruling that Prison Conditions in the California Penal System amounts to Cruel and Unusual Punishment in Violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

2011-05-25T15:21:00.000-07:00

On May 24, 2011, in a five to four split decision the United States Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, Brown v. Plata, held that because of the horrendous conditions at many of California’s prisons, especially facilities and units which house prisoners with mental disabilities, that California prison officials can no longer be trusted with policing themselves, and therefore, must reduce their prison population by federal court order.

In increasing numbers many enlightened and progressive jurist are now recognizing that because people sentenced to prison have no one to speak on their behalf, and that politicians caring only to be re-elected have no interest in protecting the rights and dignity of their prison population, that the judiciary is now forced to step in under the Eighth Amendment to United States Constitution to protect prisoners from cruel and unusual punishment. The Constitution under the Eighth Amendment states that no one shall be subject to cruel and unusual punishment and the conditions of many of our nations jails are just that cruel and inhuman.

Because all of the States have cut back on funds allocated to their prison systems, more and more prisoners are languishing under prison conditions which are inhuman and violate the Constitution.

As Justice Kennedy writing for the majority wrote, “A prison that deprives prisoners of basic sustenance, including adequate medical care, is incompatible with the concept of human dignity and has no place in civilized society.”

If society expects and demands that a prisoner upon release live a good and law abiding life, society must treat the prisoner like a human being and afford that person every civil dignity possible under the conditions of incarceration.

As the Court noted, in California inmates were kept in man- sized cages until a bed became available or inmates with mental disorders standing “in a pool of his own urine, unresponsive and nearly catatonic.”

In 2007, here in New Jersey one very enlightened and progressive Federal District Court Judge, the Honorable Katherine S. Hayden, held that the conditions at the Passaic County Jail in which federal prisoners were being held awaiting trials or sentences, was “shameful”. As Justice Hayden wrote in her written opinion, “...forces the question of how long we continue to turn a deaf ear, mine included. It has become a tired fact of life in these courtrooms that Passaic County Jail is overcrowded, is breaking down, and is a very rough place to serve time.”

As noted, the Passaic County Jail was noted for severe overcrowding, with hundred of inmates packed into dorm like rooms, inches apart. The jail had infestations of rats, mice, and other assorted types of insects. The jail was notorious for serving food not fit for human consumption, with dead insects and rat and mice dropping in the food. Because of the food many inmates received little or no nourishment.

Because of the deplorable conditions of the jail Judge Hayden correctly reduced the jail sentence which she imposed upon a defendant who was incarcerated under these cruel and harsh conditions.

Because of Judge Hayden’s courageous decision, and the United States Attorneys concern that she would reduce other prison sentences with other defendants serving time at the Passaic County Jail, the United States Marshall Service pulled out all of the federal inmates from that facility.

It is time that more judges take into account in sentencing defendants the conditions that are being imposed in our local, county, state and federal jails, and act with courage and compassion for speaking out and protecting a segment of society that has no voice.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Dated: May 25, 2011, Elizabeth, N.J.

Police Dispatcher Misidentifying Detained Suspect Calls for the Suppression of Evidence from the Wrongly Arrested Suspect

2011-05-24T18:58:00.000-07:00

On April 26, 2011 the New Jersey Supreme Court in State v. Handy suppressed narcotics seized from a defendant who was wrongly identified by a police dispatcher has having an open warrant.

The facts of the case were that a Millville Police Officer requested from the police dispatcher the confirmation of identities of a number of individuals detained and not possessing any identification. The police dispatcher advised the officer that Mr. Handy had an open warrant and Mr. Handy was arrested. A search incident to the arrest revealed that Mr. Handy was in possession of CDS and was charged with that offense. The dispatcher advised the officer that Mr. Handy had a warrant notwithstanding that Mr. Handy had given the officer his date of birth which was different than the one listed on the warrant.

The Supreme Court reversed the conviction holding that the Appellate Division erred in holding that the officer acted reasonably and good faith. This case by the Supreme Court for the first time holds that a police dispatcher is an integral part of law enforcement and that errors made by a police dispatcher either intentionally or negligently will be visited upon the police officer relying on such erroneous information. Accordingly, such an arrest is an illegal arrest and any evidence seized by such erroneous information, leading to an illegal arrest, will be suppressed.

For more information regarding the suppression of contraband in any criminal case in New Jersey you are invited to consult the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., at CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

(908) 354-7006

Dated: May 24, 2011

When is a Criminal Defense Attorney Considered Incompetent to the Level of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel?

2011-05-18T20:24:00.000-07:00

In 1996 Richard Rosario was convicted of murder in Bronx County New York. The only evidence against Rosario was the testimony of two witnesses whom picked his photo out of a book of police photos. There was no motive for the crime, since Rosario did not know the victim, or the two witnesses.

For the defense of this murder Rosario had the powerful and persuasive evidence that for the entire month June, 1996, Rosario was living in the State of Florida, and had 12 alibi witnesses whom were willing to testify to that fact.

Unfortunately his court appointed lawyer only called two of those witnesses to testify. The prosecutor was able to convince the jury during his summations that those two witnesses were close friends of Rosario and lied on his behalf.

The Federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in denying Rosario a new trial even though his court appointed lawyer performance was a “colossal failure”, involving “uncommonly bad mistake.” Fortunately for Rosario Chief Judge Jacobs dissented with the majority decision, and the matter is now before the United States Supreme Court, which will decide next week whether to take the case.

Hopefully the United States Supreme Court will get it right next week and agree to hear the case and grant a new trial for Mr. Rosario who has been incarcerated since 1996.

More often than we might think decisions that are made by defense counsel can sometimes be classified as ineffective, thus denying the defendant his constitutional right as guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. During every criminal trial every decision made by defense counsel has enormous consequences for the defendant, and every decision made must be made with the out-most competency expected of competent legal counsel, which can only come from experience and knowledge of the law.

In New Jersey every defendant convicted of a crime has up to five years to file a petition for post conviction relief requesting the trial court and than the appellate court if necessary, grant a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Although rarely granted, in some cases the performance of trial counsel was so deficient as to warrant a new trial.

Attorney Sanzone has 21 years of experience in defending individuals charged with Federal and State crimes, and has dedicated his practice to giving competent and vigorous representation to each and every one of his clients.

Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

Elizabeth, New Jersey

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

(908) 354-7007

YourCivilRights@gmail.com

New Tool By Law Enforcement to Avoid Obtaining a Search Warrant and Abrogate the Fourth Amendment in Searching a Home.

2011-05-17T07:05:00.000-07:00

On May 16, 2011, the United Supreme Court held in Kentucky v. King, that police officers arriving at a home, and suspecting that evidence is being destroyed can bust down the door and proceed to search the house if they believe that evidence is being destroyed. This rule only applies if the police first knock and announce their presence and did not create the exigent circumstances.

In the Kentucky v. King case police officers in Lexington, Kentucky, suspecting what they believed to be a hand to hand drug transaction in a parking lot, rushed into an apartment complex to arrest the suspect. However, while in the apartment they smelled the odor of burnt marijuana coming from one of the apartments. Suspecting that evidence was being destroyed, they knocked down the door and searched the apartment finding cocaine and marijuana. It was later learned that the apartment which they entered was the wrong apartment.

The lower court suppressed the evidence citing the Fourth Amendment and search warrant requirement to enter a home in the absence of exigent circumstances.

As Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., writing the majority opinion wrote. “... the exigent circumstances rule should not apply where the police, without a warrant or any legally sound basis for a warrantless entry, threaten that they will enter without permission unless admitted.”

Justice Alito also wrote that if the defendant Hollis D. King had opened the door and refused admittance to the officers the officers would have needed a search warrant, because at the stage he was not destroying evidence. However, defendant King decided to ignore the knocks by the officers and engaged in destruction of evidence. Thus the Court in essence affirmed New Jersey case law which holds that police officers cannot enter a home under the basis of the “plain smell” rule without a search warrant.

It is unlikely that this decision will have much effect in New Jersey in State criminal prosecutions because our New Jersey Supreme Court has continually ruled that the application of the Fourth Amendment in home searches is more protective than federal law.

A motion to suppress is a key tool by every defendant charged with processing contraband in any criminal case. If you are charged with such a crime and for more information regarding your rights you are urged to seek the legal advise of an experienced New Jersey criminal defense lawyer, Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., an attorney who has represented and been successfully in suppressing evidence seized by police without a search warrant for many of his clients.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.
CriminalDefenseNJ.com
P.O. Box 261, 277 North Broad Street, Elizabeth, N.J.
(908) 354-7006
Yourcivilrights@gmail.com

Star Ledger Feature Story on the “Teflon Tenant”, Mark Newton

2011-05-15T07:18:00.000-07:00

May 15, 2011, the Star Ledger did their Sunday first page cover story on the non-attorney, Mark Newton, of Newark, New Jersey, who pro se, has waged hundreds of court battles against landlords and others over the last 19 years. Mr. Newton has availed himself to every legal procedure and technique to avoid paying rent, and has costs landlords through Essex County hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees trying to defend themselves against these frivolous lawsuits and complaints.

Attorney Sanzone successfully defended one landlord in Newark Municipal Court who was falsely charged by Newton. As Attorney Sanzone was quoted in the Star Ledger today:

“He’ll use every legal maneuver that he can possibly think of to try and tie up a case until the litigants that are against him give up … Vincent Sanzone who faced Newton in a case involving a landlord. He has a lot of time and resources to tie people up … This guy is the Teflon tenant, said Sanzone the Attorney who represented Young on the criminal charges.”

For a full text of the interesting article go to:

http://blog.nj.com/njv_barry_carter/2011/05/carter_newark_man_acts_as_his.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

If you are faced with criminal charges and want further information regarding the legal services of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., go to Criminaldefensenj.com

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

(908) 354-7006

YourCivilRights@gmail.com

New Jersey State Police Get Caught in Another Police Cover-Up.

2011-05-11T19:15:00.000-07:00

The State Troopers who were involved in the investigation of one of their fellow Troopers, Sgt. William Billingham, who was caught driving recklessly and intoxicated when Mr. Billingham rear-ended and nearly cost the life of an innocent Black motorist, Clayton Tanksley.

Instead of arresting Trooper Billingham and firing him from the force, his supervisors covered up Trooper Billingham’s criminal actions, and instead arrested the innocent Black motorist, Mr. Tanksley.

The New Jersey State Police claim the Motto of “Honor, Duty and Fidelity.” Taxpayers of this State support this State agency and we deserve more than more cover-ups from incompetent, dishonest and corrupt Troopers. It is clear that the Troopers continue to protect their own, as they did with Trooper Sheila McKaig who was caught three times driving while intoxicated and did not receive one ticket.

The actions of the State Police Supervisors who protected Trooper Billingham bring no Honor to the State Police or this State, are not performing their “Duty”, and demonstrate by their actions only “Fidelity” to each other.

The police officers of the New Jersey State Police our not above the law, and if they are to be respected they most first respect themselves and follow the Motto of “Honor, Duty or Fidelity.”

If the New Jersey State Police are serious about reforming themselves, there must be swift and serious discipline for Mr. Billingham and the Troopers who conspired, aided and abetted Billingham’s criminal actions.

Because it is clear that the New Jersey State Police cannot reform themselves it is time that the United States Attorney General or the State Attorney General’s Office, again intervene to investigate and prosecute this matter. Clearly the Troopers involved have committed a violation of federal law under the applicable federal criminal rights statutes. (18 U.S.C. Section 241; 18 U.S.C. Sections 242, 245)

May 11, 2011

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

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Tel: (908) 354-7006

Cell: (201) 240-5716

New Jersey Victims of Crime Compensation Office and the Defendant’s Right to Know.

2011-04-29T11:43:00.000-07:00

The New Jersey Victims of Crime Compensation Office pays millions of dollars a year to victims and sometimes fraudulent victims who claimed that they have been injured by defendants.

The VCCO pays a maximum claim of $25,000.00 for various bills and expenses incurred by a crime victim, such as medical expenses, child care, and loss of earnings, and another possible $35,000.00 for rehabilitative services for victims claiming catastrophic injuries. In New Jersey this amounted to approximately 9.5 million in 2010.

The New Jersey Rules of Criminal Procedure require that every presentence report state the amount that the alleged victim has been paid from the VCCO.

N.J.S.A. 2C:44-6(3) provides that every presentence report shall include a report on any compensation paid by the VCCO, in my practice of criminal law for over 21 years, not one presentence report has contained that mandatory information.

The question arises as to why the VCCO payment or application information is not automatically made discoverable to the defense for purposes of cross-examination as to a possible motive in why the alleged victim made the charges against the defendant?

Therefore, in every applicable case it is mandatory that defense counsel request the information through a court order, if the prosecuting attorney is not willing to provide that information voluntarily. Even if the information is not helpful during trial, it nevertheless needs to be disclosed on the presentence report.

The criminal defense attorney who is involved in such a case and suspects that the victim might be falsely pursing the charges for a monetary gain must be diligent in being aware of that issue, for purposes of impeaching the credibility of the alleged victim.

Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., has been involved in many criminal cases in which the credibility of the alleged victim revolved around a monetary motive for bring the false charges against the defendant. In a number of cases this information led to the ultimate dismissal of the charges by the prosecutor’s office, through pretrial disposition, or after a verdict of acquittal by the jury.

Sanzone Firm

Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

YourCivilRights@gmail.com

(908) 354-7006

New Jersey Drug Court Program Its Pitfalls and Benefits.

2011-04-29T08:35:00.000-07:00

There is no argument in the medical community that drug addition is a medical malady, no different than any other serious medical condition that takes sustained and prolonged medical treatment.

Often in the struggle to overcome addition the addict has periods of sometimes many months in which he is cured of his addiction. However, more often than not, the person addicted relapses into his drug dependency.

In New Jersey the Drug Court Program or “special probation”, requires the defendant to remain drug free throughout the program which can last up to five years. Ascertaining whether the defendant is drug free is done by having the defendant give weekly urine samples which are tested by a State approved lab.

The defendant who tests positive on a second or subsequent test is subject to the revocation of the special probation drug court program and a sentence to jail.

N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14(g) states that a person in special who is subject to drug court revocation can be sentenced by the judge to a limited time of incarcerated from 30 days to 6 months. However, to often judges facing a defendant with more than one positive test are too quick to discharge the defendant from the program and immediately send the defendant to a state prison sentence.

In deciding whether to discharge the defendant from the drug court program the judge must take into account any recommendations of the defendant’s medical or treatment providers. It is imperative that drug court judges understand the great difficulty that defendants with drug addictions have and understand that his is a life time struggle of each defendant who often falls, before the final cure.

There is no argument that a key component of the drug court program is accountability. However, accountability component must be measured with the reality that in most cases there will be slips in the process, and that a quick decision to terminate and jail the defendant does not serve the interest of justice.

In the event that the defendant is terminate from special probation he or she is entitled jail credit for all the time that he or she spent in any impatient facility.

If you are facing the prospects of entering or being terminated for the drug court program you are strongly advised to contact the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr. who has over 21 years in the practice of criminal law in the State of New Jersey, and has handled and counseled many defendants in the New Jersey Drug Court Program.

April 29, 2011

Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

(908) 354-7006

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

YourCivilRights@gmail.com

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

277 North Broad Street

P.O. Box 261

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

New Jersey DWI Conviction Tossed Based on Sleep-Driving

2011-04-21T13:48:00.000-07:00

A Superior Court judge sitting in Somerset County New Jersey threw out a driving while intoxicated conviction based on the defendant sleep-driving, after she took sleep medication, Ambien and Seroquel, along with four glasses of wine, and retiring to bed for the night.

The defense attorney in this case argued that the defendant was “pathologically intoxicated”, and was not aware of the side effects of the medication she was taking, which had not been noted by the manufacturers.

The defendant claimed that she had no recollection of the arrest and processing at police headquarters, claiming that she only became aware of the incident the next day after she saw a number of moving violations on her kitchen table. The defendant’s blood alcohol level was .10% at the time of her arrest. The defendant was a resident of Hillsborough New Jersey.

In the event that you are charged with a driving while intoxicated or driving while impaired you should consult the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., who has over 21 years of experience in representing individuals charged with such offenses throughout the State of New Jersey.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.
P.O. Box 261
Elizabeth, N.J. 07207
(908) 354-7006
CriminalDefenseNJ.com

David Jones President of NJ State Police, Get's Caught in Another Horrendous and Despicable Act

2011-03-29T13:30:00.000-07:00

State Trooper Union President David Jones again discredits himself and the New Jersey State Police by his “Gestapo” attempt to silence radio host Craig Carton of 101.5 F.M, on the radio show “Jersey Guys.”

May 23, 2007, New Jersey Attorney General Stuart Rabner wrote to State Police Superintendent Rick Fuentes, saying that Mr. Jones as president of the troopers union “discredited both himself and the Division of State Police,” when Jones released personal information about Mr. Carton creating the perception that Mr. Carton and any other citizen would pay dearly if they dare criticize or have a grievance against any state trooper or the division itself.

On May 3, 2007 when Mr. Jones held a press conference attempting to defend why on the State Trooper’s Fraternal Association’s password protected Web site had numerous anonymous trooper postings that threatened a “ticket blitz” against motorists because of the radio dis jockey’s comments. At that news conference Mr. Jones threatened to release Mr. Carton’s home address and license plate number, along with all of the executives of the radio station, because of Mr. Carton's comments about the state police.

For Jones’ horrendous and despicable behavior State Police Superintendent Fuentes disciplined Jones with a slap on the wrist with only a thirty day suspension and written reprimand.

This is not the first time that Jones has attempted to silence critics of the State Police. In one specific occasion Jones published two blatantly false and defamatory statements against this criminal defense and civil rights attorney in regards to a civil rights lawsuit filed against three troopers who had brutally beaten a black motorist.

It is with some relief that this time that David Jones was caught and exposed by the Attorney General and warned that intimidation techniques have no place in a free and democratic society.

I agree with Mr. Carton’s comments that Mr. Jones does not deserve to be carrying and badge and gun, and this is just one more example of a trooper who believes and acts above the law, and does not deserve to hold a job at the taxpayer’s expense.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq., 277 North Broad Street, P.O. Box 261, Elizabeth, New Jersey, 07207, (908) 354-7006: March 30, 2011, CriminalDefenseNJ.com

"If you want to peace work for justice." Pope John Paul I

The Urgent Need to Reform the N.J. Municipal Court System

2011-03-11T19:11:00.000-08:00

The Urgent Need to Reform the New Jersey Municipal Court System

Although this N.J. Criminal Defense Attorney does not personally need evidence of the existence of God, every once in a while he sends us a message that he is listening in the form of poetic justice.

This message came down again with the second driving while intoxicated (DWI) conviction of George Korpita the former municipal court judge in the towns of Dover, Rockaway Borough, and Victory Gardens.

While on the bench this man did not blink when he threw the book at each defendant who came before him. This man while on the bench did not flinch when he routinely took away driving privileges of working men and women in the need of a driver’s license to support their families. Not surprisingly at the time of the motor vehicle stop the first thing Korpita said to the police officer was, “I’m a judge. Bro. Can’t you give me a break?”

Not surprising, Korpita, when was arrested on February 15, 2008, in Township of Sparta, attempted to use every defense that he himself rejected from other defendant’s during is tenure on the bench. When Korpita failed the alphabet test he claimed that the police officer was lying and that he did fine. When he failed the walk and turn test he claimed that he could not do the test because one leg was shorter than the other. When he was asked to submit to Alcotest test readings (knowing the 20 minute wait after a belch) he belched repeatedly 78 times in 75 minutes, blaming it on escargot he had eaten earlier. Not surprising was the fact that miraculously the burping stopped after he was issued a ticket for refusal.

What is not surprising were the admission that he made while intoxicated at the time of his arrest regarding his dishonesty, injustice and corrupt behavior as a municipal court judge. In his rant after being issued a ticket for refusal and in his anger at the police, he admitted that as a judge he always ruled in favor of the police, “but not again.” Even more shocking was the admission that he “would always allow the police to beat the shit out of people”, but would no longer do it.

This admission of utterly disgraceful behavior is no surprise to this New Jersey criminal defense attorney who had the unhappy privilege of defending a mother who was in the emergency room at St. Clair’s Hospital in Dover when she attempted to intervene by verbally requesting a Dover police officer to cease beating her mentally handicapped son. The dishonest cop looking for a two-month disability vacation claimed that the mother grabbed the back of his shirt causing him back injury. (can't make this stuff up) The mother having her son punched repeatedly by the cop was charged with assaulting the officer and resisting arrest, when the nurse tried to protect the mother from being arrested for no reason.

At trial two nurses, one Catholic Chaplin, and the treating physician from St. Clair's all testified that the mother did not touch the police officer. What was more shocking than Korpita's ruling that the Catholic Chaplin, two nurses and treating physician were lying when he made his decision finding the mother guilty of all charges, was the fact that prior to all four defense witnesses testifying Korpita in open court attempted to intimidate all four witnesses by telling them that by testifying that they waived their Fifth Amendment against self incrimination and could be charged themselves with committing a crime., and should seek the advise of legal counsel. To their credit the treating physician, two nurses, and Catholic Chaplan all had the courage to tell the truth and testify in spite of Korpita's attempt to intimidate them. (You cannot make this stuff up)

On appeal a New Jersey Superior Court Judge in Morris County reversed the disorderly person’s assault conviction, but nevertheless convicted the mother because she refused to be cuffed when the nurse attempted to protect the mother by moving her into another room away from the errant police officer.

What is important with the Korpita story is that to many of the municipal court judges in this State, in various degrees, are no different than George Korpita. To often they are more interested in keeping their jobs, and the only way they do it is by increasing the municipal court fine revenue by finding everyone guilty. Often the most bizarre and brazen perjured testimony by municipal police officer are found credible at the expense of the accused defendant. More often than not there is absolutely no justice in municipal courts in this State. There is a conflict of interest since the judge’s paycheck depends on him or her being reappointed, and any municipal court judge that is fair will not be reappointed, since being fair sometime demands that defendants are acquitted.

The remedy in my opinion is that the municipal court system undergo a major reformation, a reform, which will attempt to give some justice for the people who come before it.

It is time that our State Legislature take away from the local towns the appointment of judges. Municipal Court judges should be appointed by the Governor, or some other neutral body, based on merit, fairness and experience. The courts should be consolidated to eliminate costs and cronyisms, and the salaries of these judges paid by the State from tax revenue and fines generated.

As John F. Kennedy said, “People see things and say, why, I see things and say why not.” The time for reform and change is now; we should not expect anything less.

New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney, Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq. Law Office Located at 277 North Broad Street, Union County, New Jersey 07207. (908) 354-7006 Posted: March 11, 2011 CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Excerpts of Criminal Jury Summations by New Jersey Attorney Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

2011-02-01T13:25:00.000-08:00

Excerpts of criminal jury summations in State v. Ngyuen, Morris County, N.J., by attorney Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr. The actual summations lasted 2 1/2 hours. The Defendant was found not guilty of all second degree charges, and the defendant did not spend one day in State Prison. The case tried by the the Office of the New Jersey Attorney General's Office Organized Crime Division. The State offer before trial was a five year state prison sentence.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

A New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney, Elizabeth, New Jersey (908) 354-7006

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Opening Statements; When to Win Your Case?

2010-01-05T11:51:00.000-08:00

The question is often asked; during a criminal jury trial when should defense counsel win the jury over to his client's side? The most obvious and correct answer is at the first chance that he gets, and that is during the opening statement. After defense counsel's opening the jury should be so convinced of the defendant's cause, that all of the prosecutors witnesses will be viewed through the lens of defense counsel's opening, and more easily enable defense counsel to cross-examine each witness for the prosecution through the eyes of the defendant, with the defendant's theme of the case already planted in the jurors minds.

It is well settled that most jurors, like people in general (in spite of instructions from the judge to contrary not to make any opinions until all the evidence is in), do in fact take sides early on in any given case. Like people in general, jurors, make decisions, either consciously or unconsciously to like or dislike someone, there is no escaping that fundamental fact of human nature. Therefore, it is essential that during the defense opening statement that defense counsel present all of the facts which he or she honestly believes the evidence will show and why that evidence means that his or her client is not guilty of the crimes charged. The opening is not the time to talk about the criminal justice system, it is not the time to speak in platitudes, or generalities, it is the time to speak about your client and the facts which show that your client cannot be guilty of the charges.

Therefore, the opening must be fairly detailed and fact sensitive, and in all cases be much longer than the opening by prosecutor. It is the first, and probably the best chance to win your case. If you do not win your case at the opening, you usually will not win your case, because the time summations role around the jury has long decide who they want to win. The jury wants to hear your side of the story at the beginning, give it to them at the beginning and win your case.

Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

January 5, 2009, Elizabeth, New Jersey
CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Third Circuit Rules That Trooper Beating Case Goes To Jury

2007-11-01T09:01:00.000-07:00

The Federal Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Justices, Trump-Barry and Fuentes, ruled on August 29, 2007, that District Court Chief Judge, Joseph E. Irenas, did not err in denying New Jersey State Police Officers, Parry, Brown, Fife, and Guliano, summary judgment, and that they must face and submit to a Camden County Federal Jury for a determination how much excessive force they used against Aundrey Green, and how much he is to be compensated, for the beating in which he suffered on the night of April 22, 2002 by Troopers, Parry, Fife, and Brown.

The case can be found at Green v. State Police, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 20693

Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.
P.O. Box 261
277 North Broad Street
Elizabeth, N.J. 07207
(908) 354-7006
CriminalDefenseNJ.com
YourCivilRights@gmail.com

Why The System Is Not Even Close To Fair Especially Fair For the Middle Class

2007-08-27T07:00:00.001-07:00

Why Do Criminal Defendants with lots of Money usually win their entire case outright, or obtain a very favorable result? Money. I know this is not a novel thought, but let's look at some of the reasons why the money works. Fallacy number one is that the defendant who has money hires the best lawyer. Not so, most of the "marquee" criminal defense lawyers who command the big bucks, usually know less law, and are often ineffective trial litigators with little passion and zeal for their client. But if that is so, why do they sometimes achieve more favorable results than average attorney? The answer is, support staff, investigators, expert witnesses, and their ability to work full time and many hours on the client's case.

You see, very few working middle class defendants, who earn a living and do not qualify for the services of the public defender, and their ancillary services, such as expert witnesses, investigators, etc. , can afford to hire a lawyer who will provide them with a competent vigorous defense. You see, most middle class defendants shop around for the cheapest lawyer, negotiating like they are shopping for a new or used automobile. Why because they do not know how the legal system works, and they do not understand the time and effort it takes for a criminal defense attorney to win their acquittal. Instead they shop for the cheapest lawyer, and when that cheap lawyer gives them little or no defense, or forces them to take a plea for which they are innocent, they act surprised.

Unfortunately, the legal system works on money, and it is no different than any other fact of life. Money does buy justice, and until the system changes, beware of the cheap lawyer. Also, beware of the lawyer you guarantees, any lawyer who guarantees a victory is unethical, and the client should run away. Many clients do not understand that even with the most simple criminal trial, lasting only a few days, that a competent effective attorney must devote 30 to 40 hours of outside court trial preparation, such as preparation of opening and closing statements, the review of police reports, and the preparation of cross-examination of each potential witness for the state, as set forth in each police report. Not to mention, the review of the applicable case law and jury instruction.

Remember, in closing, for any indictable criminal charge, which requires a trial, any attorney who charges less than $10,000.00 as his retainer is not doing his client a service, but rather a disservice, because such an attorney, unless right out of law school, with no experience, can not afford to put his best efforts in time and talent in his client's trial.

Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.
Elizabeth, New Jersey

CriminalDefenseNJ.com
YourCivilRights@gmail.com

Shocked At Racist Comments

2007-08-26T19:58:00.000-07:00

Shocked At Racist Comments

As a civil rights and criminal defense attorney I am currently involved in federal civil rights case in which I represent an African-American, Aundrey Green, who was brutally beaten by three New Jersey State Police Officers. During the beating Mr. Green was handcuffed and unarmed. Mr. Green was kicked and punched numerous times, and his head was split open by one of the troopers metal flashlights. Much of the beating, not all, was audio-video taped by the Motor Vehicle Recording tape, which was on the dashboard of the troopers’ vehicle. To expose this brutal beating and the officers involved, the MVR tape was posted on Youtube and can be seen with the following link, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rul6AtlvxW0.

To date, there have been 32,000 view of the Youtube video and 301 comments to same. What is shocking to me, and has opened my mind to the racism against African-Americans, is some of the horrendous and shocking racist comments made against Mr. Green because of his race. When will this hatred come to an end?

Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.
CriminalDefenseNJ.com
YourCivilRights@gmail.com