Thursday, February 13, 2014

Assistant County Prosecutor and his Investigator Caught Suppressing Exculpating Evidence: Will Justice Prevail?


According to press releases and other legal documents, former Camden County Prosecutor, Harry S. Collins and his Camden County Prosecutor investigator, Matthew Woshnak, conspired to suppress exculpatory evidence, which shed serious doubt on the reliability and credibility of the State’s sole witness in a murder prosecution.  After the defendant was unjustly sent to prison he filed a post-conviction relief motion.  

In response to that motion, an honest prosecutor from that office, Teresa Garvey provided to the defense a note which she found in the file which stated in relevant part, “Per [investigator Falco], his witness B-Nice (resident of Camden Jail) stated that my witness was paid $$ by the Puerto Rican to identify my [defendant] as the shooter.”

More troubling is the undisputed fact that this alleged witnesses account of events was the only piece of evidence against the defendant, and as stated by the Camden County Prosecutor, “there was never any other evidence, physical nor testimonial, directly implicating”, the defendant.

This is one example how sometimes the system does not work and how some prosecutor’s and their investigators engaged in willful misconduct in order to convict a person who they personally believe is guilty, in spite, of the objective evidence, to the contrary.  If true, not only should this prosecutor be disbarred but should be criminally prosecutor.  Likewise the investigator should be criminally charged for official misconduct and be barred from ever holding a law enforcement position again in New Jersey. The clear message that must be sent is that the judicial system will not accept conduct of prosecutors that are deceitful, dishonest, and was the caused of a defendant to either take a plea or convicted after a jury verdict.

Most likely the Camden County Prosecutor and State Attorney General will bring no criminal charges or ethic violations against Collins and Woshnak.  This sends the wrong message since prosecutors who have the highest duty to insure that justice be done will not be deterred from committing this type of outrageous behavior. 

The majority of county, state and federal prosecutors have no interest convicting innocent defendants, and will disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense when discovered.  However, unfortunately this is not the case with all, and by the system condoning this type of conduct without prosecution will only send the wrong massage.

277 North Broad Street
Raymond Building
Elizabeth (Union County), New Jersey 07207
(908) 354-7006


Quote of the day:

Wrote by George Bernard Shaw, but made famous by President John F. Kennedy. "Some people see things as they are and say why?  I dream things that never were and say, why not?"


Saturday, February 8, 2014

Wrongly Accused of a Crime, You are Not the Only One.




Innocent people are unjustly arrested everyday in the United States.  Police don’t always get it right, they make mistakes; they of course are only human.  In some cases unfortunately police officers fabricate a case.   This may be done for many reasons but some of the reasons may be that the police just want to close the case and charge someone  that they believe is a  “bad guy” anyway, so what does it matter.  Shocking, yes, but is a fact of reality and happens more than we think.  Yes shocking law enforcement is a competitive business and some cops are looking to make a name for themselves, get in the news paper, make lots of overtime, or make detective, or stay a detective.   Of course most police officers are hard working, and perform their duty with honor and integrity, but even these officers make mistakes, become to zealous or get lazy or sloppy in their investigation.

Attorney Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., has been practicing criminal defense in New Jersey for 23-years and has had many cases in which innocent people have been unjustly accused, and exonerated due to the tireless efforts and skill of Attorney Sanzone.  Whether it is with the wrongful planting of evidence by the police, false and fabricated confession planned by the police, misidentification, overbroad indictments, are only some of the reasons, Attorney Sanzone has successfully obtained dismissals and acquittals of some of his criminal clients.

The formula of experience, dedication and meticulous preparation is the method in which these results are obtained.  If you or someone whom you care about has been wrongly accused of a crime, you must make the most important decision in your life in retaining an experienced and affordable New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney. 


Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.
277 North Broad Street
P.O. Box 261
Elizabeth, New Jersey
Telephone No. (908) 354-7006; Cell No. (201) 240-5716

New Jersey Criminal Law Defense Attorney Serving, Union, Essex, Hudson, Bergen, Middlesex, Ocean, Monmouth, Passaic, Somerset, Mercer, Gloucester, Cumberland, Atlantic, Cape May counties.

Thursday, February 6, 2014

Appellate Division Held Boro of Princeton Police Officer Could Not Open Car Door of Motorist that Appeared to Be Falling Asleep While Vehicle was Parked and Idling.




In State v. Bennett the appellate division rejected under the caretaker exception of the warrant requirement to open the car door to a motor vehicle that was parked and idling to investigate a possible DWI. 

The defendant vehicle was parked in front of a convenience store near Princeton University in the early Sunday morning (2:43 A.M.).  The police officer suspecting that the motorist had been drinking approached the motor vehicle and opened the door.   The officer ordered the defendant out of the vehicle and requested that the defendant perform field sobriety tests, which the officer alleged he had failed.  At the station the defendant refused to submit to a breath test.

The motion to suppressed was granted by the trial court, however, the law division judge reversed and held that under the caretaker exemption the officer had the duty to investigate whether the defendant was intoxicated.  However, in a published opinion the appellate division reversed the law division and held that the caretaker exemption was not applicable here and that the officer overstepped his authority by immediately ordering the motorist out of his vehicle.

This case affirms well established case law that the opening of an automobile door without probable cause, or reasonable articulable suspicion, or after a valid automobile stop for a motor vehicle infraction, is unlawful.  Note, an officer may request a motorist to exit the motor vehicle after a motor vehicle stop.  What makes this case unique is that the first thing that the police officer did was open the door, and order the motorist out.  If he had asked him to roll down the windows, and further facts indicated that the motorist was intoxicated, than the police officer could have ordered the motorist out to perform field sobriety tests.

As the court in Bennett held, the officer should have knocked on the window, and first determine whether the motorist had alcohol on his breath before requesting that the motorist exit the vehicle.

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

277 North Broad Street
Raymond Building
P.O. Box 261
Elizabeth (Union County), N.J. 07207
(908) 354-7006

Union County Criminal Defense Attorney Protecting the Rights of the Criminally Accused for 23-Years.  Practice devoted exclusively to criminal law.

Wednesday, February 5, 2014

Driving While Intoxicated; Refusal to Submit to Breath Test; Field Portal Breath Testing; Leads to Possible Affirmative Defense under the Confusion Doctrine




More and more local police departments are using portable field breath testing devices for probable cause to arrest DWI /DUI suspects.  Although the New Jersey Supreme Court has not approved such  devices, and they are not admissible in court to prove probable cause or the offense of driving while intoxicated or impaired.  However,  more and more police department are using these machines to test suspect’s breath at the scene of the motor vehicle stop.  For years the Coast Guard and New Jersey State Police have been using these devices to test operators of vessels and boats in New Jersey waterways for probable cause to arrest the boater.  However, not until recently are these devices being used by more local police departments.

The use of these portable breath machines at the scene, pre-arrest, might be fertile ground for the affirmative defense under the confusion doctrine.  Under established New Jersey law a defendant who is confused regarding whether he can remain silent (i.e., after being given his/her Miranda rights), and whether because of said rights he must submit to the breath test at the station can raise some interesting issues.  Under State v. Leavitt, 107 N.J. 534, 542 (1987), the New Jersey Supreme Court addressed this issue.    Normally, refusal to submit to the alcohol breath machine (Alcotest), at the station cannot be justified, and someone who refused to submit to the test will be charged with refusal which carries the same penalties and driving while intoxicated.  However, the Supreme Court has held that it is possible, under the right fact pattern, for the defendant, to offer the affirmative defense of confusion, under very limited circumstances, if applicable to the facts of the case. 

This doctrine of confusion seems to be more relevant than before based on the fact that police officers who use the portal machines at the scene to test breath might be creating confusion on the part of the motorist.  For example if the motorist submits to the portable test and is arrested, and than given his Miranda rights to remain silent.  Such actions on the part of the police might cause confusion on the part of the motorist who again is asked to submit to a (station house official Alcotest) test, after he/she has already been given his Miranda rights to remain silent.  By requesting the motorist to submit too a second  test, one at the scene, and one at the station has the potential in creating confusion on the part of the motorist, who, in most cases because of the consumption of alcoholic beverages might have less  cognitive ability to begin with. 

In a recent case in Union County, the use of the two machines did create confusion on the part of the motorist who was arrested for both DWI, and refusal.  Because the motorist submitted to the portable test at the scene, arrested, then given his Miranda rights to remain, silent, and then asked to submit to a second test at the station, created a mix which lead, in that case to the dismissal of the refusal charge, and the defendant having plead only to the none-per se, 3-months loss of license DWI charge.  In that case the culmination of these facts caused the defendant to be confused and had no intent to refuse the test at the station.  Because the prosecutor looking at the facts fairly and objectively recognized the problem, and realized that in good faith that he could not prove the refusal beyond a reasonable doubt, and accepted the plea.
 
If you have been arrested or charged for DWI or driving while impaired you are advised to seek the consultation and retention of an experienced criminal defense attorney Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq., (CriminalDefenseNJ.com) who has many years of experience in defending people accused of this serious motor vehicle defense.

Your decision in choosing a New Jersey criminal defense lawyer is important, make that choice wisely.  I invite you to look at the proven results of Attorney Sanzone. CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.
P.O. Box 261
277 North Broad Street
Elizabeth (Union County), New Jersey 07207
Tel: (908) 354-7006



Monday, February 3, 2014

Another Example How Some New Jersey Municipal Courts are All About Money and Little About Justice



Know one has to reminded that municipal courts are supposed to be in the business of dispensing justice, not generating revenues for cash strapped municipal budgets.

Sadly most municipal court judges are pressured by municipal elected officials to generate fees and fines.  In recent years municipal courts are cash cows and without the enormous revenues generated by the court municipalities could not balance their budgets.

It goes without saying that municipal court judges that are merely revenue collectors for the towns that hire them are not performing their judicial functions.  Also finding the police officers credible in every case, and finding every defendant before them guilty, does nothing to foster the principals that judges are beyond such petty concerns.  The problem of course is that municipal court judges are hired at the behest of the town fathers you often gauge the performance of the judge in their town, not by judicial temperament, fairness and understanding of the law, but rather, how much money did the judge bring in last year.  

The problem was highlighted again when the Borough of Eatontown in Monmouth County engaged in a search for a new judge after seeing court revenues drop by more than 20 percent under prior judge, George Cieri, who appeared from press accounts to have good judicial temperament, fairness, and some compassion for assessing lower fines for the poor people who often came before him (let us be honest most people that are ticketed and arrested and appear in municipal courts are in fact the poor and minorities).


The problem surfaced when one councilman had no shame (Dennis Connelly a retired Eatontown cop) in urging his fellow council members to pick one attorney over another, and sole criteria was that this particular attorney was known to be a great revenue collector for the township in which he was currently employed as a judge.  Mr. Connelly also had the temerity to write according to press accounts that young and aggressive officers who were writing a lot summonses might get discouraged if the wrong judge was chosen.   He further wrote according to press accounts that Judge Cieri had a different philosophy of being a judge, whatever that means.  Although this is an extreme example of a person who has no understanding of the judicial system, this however, is not an isolated example.

All this was confirmed by the courage of the attorney Eugene Melody III, of Martin Melody in Little Silver, who pulled his name from the selection process when he wrote.  The town’s expectations are “inimical to my interpretation of how the constitution intended the third branch of government to function." Hats off to this courageous attorney to speak the truth.  The scandal also drew the attention of assignment judge Lawrence Lawson, who told the town to stop pressuring judges about revenues.   The issue of generating revenue over justice was also confirmed by Judge Cieri who complained to Judge Lawson about being pressured by the township.

The inherit conflict between justice and revenues in municipal court is a Statewide problem.  In the future the problem will only get worse as towns and cites scramble for every shrinking revenue sources and teeter on bankruptcy.   That is why all New Jersey municipal court must consolidate as Governor Christie has promoted, into joint municipal courts, with judges appointed by the Governor based on judicial experience, temperament, knowledge of the law and fairness.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.
P.O. Box 261
277 North Broad Street
Elizabeth (Union County) New Jersey 07207
Tel: (908) 354-7006
“If you want peace work for Justice.”  Pope John Paul, I