Friday, August 4, 2017


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

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

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, May 16, 2017

Mere Presence Jury Charge and Defense Witness List Prior to Trial

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, March 23, 2017

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

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

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

Monday, March 6, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, February 21, 2017

Tweet By Defendant Can Be Admissible in a Criminal Case

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

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

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

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

Monday, February 20, 2017

Expungement of CDS Conspiracy Charge in New Jersey

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

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

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

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