Jury Selections are Open to the Family and Public

The trial judge cannot bar the public or family members or friends from criminal jury trials during jury selections, and if so, calls for automatic reversal.

The New Jersey appellate division has held repeatedly that barring the public from the court room, even during jury selections is impermissible and calls for an automatic reversal in the event of a conviction.  In numerous occasions, criminal convictions have been reversed when this happens.  State v. Cuccio, State v. Clark Simon, (which was a case which I tried and was reversed for this reason by the appellate division) to name a few.

Rule 1:8-3(g) provides that the trial judge must allow the public access to the court room during all stages of the proceedings.  The rule provides in pertinent part:

(g) Jury Selection Must be Conducted in Open Court. Subject to (1) and (2) below, the public must be provided reasonable access to the courtroom during the jury selection portion of the trial. (1) Exclusion of Public from Courtroom; Compelling Reasons; Alternatives. The trial judge may not exclude the public from the courtroom unless there is a compelling need to do so. In making that determination, the trial judge shall first consider reasonable alternatives, such as holding jury selection in a larger courtroom, if one is available. If there are compelling reasons to exclude the public from the courtroom, the judge shall consider alternative ways to permit observation, including electronic means. The trial judge shall issue a statement of reasons for limiting or denying public access to jury selection. (2) Voir Dire of Individual Jurors. The requirement of public access.

Prepared as a public service by the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq. Fighting for the criminal accused for 29-years.

The Best Thing to Do If You Are Contacted By the Police to Discus a Criminal Matter.

Prepared by the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., a New Jersey criminal defense attorney.

Most people would be shocked at the number of people who voluntarily speak to the police when confronted about their possible involvement in a disorderly person’s offense, traffic offense or crime.

Most people are under the false impression that they can talk their way out of being charged or arrested for a crime which they may or may not have committed.

The theory which most people hold, is that their explanation, or side of the story, will convince law enforcement that they are mistaken.  Whether or not, this is true, means little to the questioning officer.  In other words, the suspect being questioned never knows, or is never told by the police officer, whether the suspect is the person who they believe committed the crime, and convinced of the suspect’s guilt.  In that case, no matter what he or she says, he or she will be arrested after he or she speaks.  Stated differently, the interrogating officer holds all the playing cards and the officer will not reveal his cards, or what he is thinking.  Most suspects erroneously believe that by speaking to the officer that the officer will reveal his thoughts and evidence against him.  This is simply false, and the experienced interrogating police officer understands this.  Therefore, the suspect being interrogated will gain absolutely nothing by presenting the suspect’s side of the story.

Of course, it goes without saying, but some stupid suspects believe that they can male it up as they go along.  Not only is this a crime under federal law, intentionally lying to a federal law enforcement is a federal crime, but stupid because most suspects do not have a photographic memory and will not remember what facts they told 10-minutes prior, if asked the same question differently again.

In summary the best way to handle any questioning by law enforcement is to simply state to any law enforcement office that seeks information from you regarding your possible involvement in a crime, disorderly person’s offense or serious traffic infraction is the following:  “At this time I have decided to consult with my criminal defense attorney before I proceed further with any further questions.” 

In summary the best practice when faced with an allegation by law enforcement is to assert your constitutional right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This constitutional right is yours, do not give it away.  For further information on criminal defense in New Jersey go to: criminaldefensenj.com

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Raymond Building

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

Office Phone: (908) 354-7006

Cell Phone:   (201) 240-5716

Dated: February 20, 2015

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Prosecutor Must Reveal Confidential Witnesses Prior Cooperation with Law Enforcement under New Jersey Law.

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

In State v. Hernandez the New Jersey Appellate Division held that in all cases in which the prosecutor will use a confidential informant to testify (CW), the State must provide to defense counsel all cooperation agreements as well as details regarding the extend of the cooperation.  In this case the prosecutor filed an interlocutory appeal, appealing the trial court’s ruling that the defendants were entitled to broad discovery regarding a confidential witnesses cooperation with law enforcement in other cases.  The appellate division granted the appeal and affirmed the trial court.

In this case the CW engaged in three cocaine buys with the defendants.  The State intended to have the CW testify as to those buys.  In discovery the prosecutor provide the name of the CW, his criminal history and a copy of the  cooperation agreement which the State had with the CW.

The defense requested additional discovery in the form of the nature and extend of cooperation, as well as any benefits which the CW received for working with the prosecutor on the cocaine purchases.  Specifically, the defendants requested a privilege log detailing internal memorandum and correspondences between the prosecutor and the CW which the prosecutor deemed privileged.  In addition, defendants requested any audio tapes of the CW, his e-mails to the prosecutor, and any statements that the CW had made, which included any investigation reports regarding the CW on the other cases in which the CW had cooperated.

The trial court agreed with the defendants and ordered the discovery subject to any redactions as to specific names and address’ in the other cases.  This included the requirement that the prosecutor electronically search its data base to provide defense with information regarding all past cooperation in which the CW was involved.

In deciding this case the appeals court cited the seminal case Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87-88, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 1197, 10 L. Ed.2d 215, 219 (1963). In that case the State is required to provide the defendants with the record of any statements, of any individual with relevant information or evidence in the case, which are within the possession, custody or control of the prosecutor. Citing Rule 3:13-3(b)(1)(G). In addition to that the State is also required to provide defense counsel with all other exculpatory information or material, which would include pending charges, plea bargains or cooperation agreements for which a witness may be seeking favorable treatment for his trial testimony. State v. Long, 119 N.J. 439, 488-89 (1990).

Before you decide on hiring a criminal defense attorney you should carefully review the criminal attorneys and decide whether that attorney has the experience and competency in handling your criminal case.

Food for thought:  About twenty-years ago the welfare state was being assaulted, along with the export of livable working wages oversees by the rich and powerful.  To take its place was the punishment state promoted by both the republican and democratic parties.  This downward escalator for the working class and poor, by taking away their jobs  and safety net, created a vast army of unemployed poor.  Capitalism needed a replacement and the penitentiary was their answer.  The prison population in the United States has increased every year and we have gone from a working state to a prison state.

Quote of the Day: Theologian Cardinal Baronius’s once wrote, “The Scriptures tell us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go”

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

277 North Broad Street

P.O. Box 261

Elizabeth (Union County), New Jersey 07207

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Office Phone No. (908) 354-7006

Cell Phone No.   (201) 240-5716

Dated:  January 30, 2015

New Jersey Criminal Law Defense Attorney, Lawyers, and Attorneys, serving Union, Hudson, Essex, Bergen, Monmouth, Ocean, Middlesex, Somerset and Mercer counties, Attorney Reviews, Review of Union County Criminal Lawyers.

The City of Elizabeth New Jersey and Criminal Law

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

The City of Elizabeth (Union County)New Jersey according to the 2012 census had a documented population of 126,458 people.  Because of the large population of undocumented and illegal residences the City of Elizabeth population is likely doubled that amount to a population of a quarter-million.

The city is the home of many immigrants from South and Central American countries including the largest being from Columbia.

The City of Elizabeth is has it share of street crimes ranging from homicides, drive-by-shootings, to petty thefts and burglaries. 

Because the City of Elizabeth is known for its high-end and glamorous Latin night clubs the City of Elizabeth attracts young Hispanic men and women from throughout the New Jersey and New York Metropolitan areas.

With this large influx of young party people brings also its share of crimes, which range from assault, date-rape, controlled dangerous substances charges (CDS), sexual assault, DWI, DUI, eluding, fighting, disturbing the peace, resisting arrest, hindering apprehension and other disorderly persons or felonies.

The police in the City of Elizabeth are also known for being aggressive and are known to not deescalate but escalate every encounter.  Further, unlike most major cities off-duty Elizabeth police officers moon-lite in the cities nightclubs, which cause additional problems when an argument ensues between a club bouncer and a patron.  In most cases if the bouncer starts to beat a patron, the off-duty officer will take the bouncers side or simple join in the beating.  Therefore, typically, in the City of Elizabeth, when a fight starts and the police are summoned, be prepared for a resisting arrest, or assault on an officer charge. 

If you have been caught-up in a party night in the City of Elizabeth which has lead to your arrest call the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., it might be the best decision you make.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.
P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

Office:   (908) 354-7006

Cell:     (201) 240-5716 (24/7 emergencies)

Quote of the Day: “There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law in the name of justice.”  Charles De Montesquieu

Know Your Rights, a Civil Forfeiture Answer Can be Used by the Prosecutor as Evidence Against the Criminal Defendant a Judge Held In Hudson County Criminal Division.

Written as a Public Service to the People by the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.
Served with a forfeiture civil complaint while criminal charges are pending, be careful what you say, you might have waived your fifth amendment right to remain silent.
In a case recently decided by one trial judge, a Hudson county criminal judge held that the admissions made in the civil answer is admissible as to the defendant’s guilt in the underlying criminal case.
In a case of first impressions a New Jersey trial judge says a defendant's answer to a civil forfeiture complaint is admissible in a criminal prosecution arising from the same facts.
The fact alleged by the prosecution is that the CDS found in the defendant’s mother’s apartment in a Hudson County apartment as a result of a search warrant was being possessed with the intent to distribute.  However, along with the drugs was cash in the amount of $3,293.00 which the defendant claimed belonged to him.  The defendant made that admission when he filed a civil forfeiture answer to the prosecutor’s forfeiture civil complaint to forfeit the money.
The State had no evidence directly linking the drugs and money to defendant other than the defendant’s admission in his answer.
The trial court refused to bar the admissions under United States v. Simmons, 390 U.S. 377 (1968),http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/390/377/ which held that a criminal defendant cannot be forced to choose between his Fourth (illegal search) and Fifth (right to remain silent) amendment rights.  In other words nothing that the defendant says in a motion to suppress can be used against him at trial by the government, unless the defendant testifies and only by way of impeachment.
I am not so sure that this case would stand constitutional muster if the New Jersey Supreme Court was presented this issue.
Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.,Esq.                    P.O. Box, 277 North Broad Street, Elizabeth (Union County), N.J. 07207

Telephone: (908) 354-7006                                  E-Mail, YourCivilRights@gmail.com

Quote of the day:

"Three things I cannot escape: the eye of God, the voice of conscience, the stroke of death. In company, guard your tongue. In your family, guard your temper. When alone guard your thoughts." - Venerable Matt Talbot

Dated: November 21, 2013

Defending the Possession with Intent to Distribute Case In Superior Court-Hudson County, Jersey City, by Criminal Defense Attorney Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

www.criminaldefensenj.com

It is without argument that the majority of criminal cases on the docket in Superior Court, Hudson County are the controlled dangerous substance (CDS) offenses.  Even drug users who have quantities of over 10 to 20 dime bags are often charged with possession with intent to distribute, notwithstanding that they do not possess the narcotics for sale, but only for their own personal use.  Often these users face the draconian penalties as sellers when in fact they only possess the CDS for their own personal consumption.

Remember if you are convicted twice for such an offense, the second conviction will result in a mandatory extended term, increasing the offense level automatically from a third-degree to a second-degree, or a second-degree crime to a first-degree crime depending on the amount of CDS and whether it was recovered within 1000-feet of a school, or 500-feet of a public park or public building such as a library.

There are many ways to defend these types of case and often an expert is needed to refute the prosecutor’s police expert who will testify that based on his knowledge and the hypothetical question posed to him, that the defendant possessed the quantity of CDS not for possession but rather with intent to distribute. 

The police expert will use factors such as other packaging material, such as baggies found near the CDS, scales, cutting agents, large sums of money, as well as other facts which he will claim shows that the defendant possessed these drugs not for his personal use but with intent to distribute.  In most cases the defendant will need to refute this testimony with his own drug intent expert.  Accordingly, the defendant must retain his own intent expert to explain to the jury that possession of 15-bags of heroin for example is typical and highly standard for a person who has a drug habit of 5-10 bags per day, and that the sum of 15 or 20 bags, based on the defendant’s drug usage, will last him or her maybe two days.  The law office of Vincent Sanzone has handled hundreds of these types of charges, and has successfully worked with defense drug experts at trial in defending these cases.  If you are charged with such an offense in Superior Court, Hudson County you are urged to consult the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

(908) 354-7006

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

Dated: October 10, 2013

Belleville New Jersey Cops Acted With Excessive Force in Firing 30 Shots at Dante Cespedes for Allegedly Lunging with Knifes

In what appears to be another insistence of excessive force and poorly trained police officers, three Belleville Township police officers gunned down a man with a knife.  The police officers allege that the Cespedes a chef at a New York City hotel lunged at them with two knifes, when they entered the house to execute an arrest based on a municipal court complaint by his wife.

The question is why did they fire 30 rounds of bullets at Cespedes at close range, in which 24 rounds were pumped into his body?  Why didn’t the three police officers attempt to disarm him and dislodge the weapon first with a night stick, by hitting his arms or hand with the night stick or mental flash light?  Why didn’t they attempt to stop him by firing non-lethal shots to the legs or arms?  Why did they find it necessary to pump 30 bullets into his body and in essence execute this man on the spot?  Why didn’t they first attempt to retreat before they decided to use deadly force?   Why didn’t they attempt to teaser him or mace him first?  Why did they enter the house knowing he was armed without first ordering him to throw down the knifes and come out peacefully?   Did the police even have the authority to enter the home based on a disorderly person’s complaint filed by his wife?  This is of great significance because no one was at the home but Mr. Cespedes, and there appeared to be no emergency for them to enter the house.  Further, if the wife had informed the police that her husband was intoxicated why were the officers not prepared to deal with an intoxicated individual, bring to the scene non-lethal disarming devices?  It appears from the evidence presented thus far that they acted with deliberate indifference and excessive force.   

There are many questions that must be honestly investigated and answered by the Essex County Prosecutor’s Office in this case before these three police officers should continue to hold a badge and firearm.  Unfortunately, the evidence presented thus far shows that these three police officers were trigger happy and not competent to carry a deadly firearm.

And up-date to this blog on December 11, 2013 the Star Ledger published that the wife of the slain victim Dante Cespedes filed a wrongful death suit against the Belleville Police Department and police officers, Angelo Quinn, Charles Mollineaux, Matthew Dox and Jack Baumgartner.  The law suit claims that Quinn and Molineaux each fired 14 times, while Dox fired twice.
It is amazing that 30 shots were fired at this distraught man, with no indictments of the cops.  

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Arrested or Charged with A Crime by the Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office

Arrested or charged with a crime or disorderly person’s offense in

Middlesex County, Superior Court, New Brunswick, N.J. 

Of course not every defendant who is charged with a crime in Middlesex County has his or case dismissed by the Middlesex County Prosecutor’s Office, or obtains a not guilty verdict after a jury trial.  In fact, the percent of these defendants’ who obtain such results are small compared to the percentage of defendants who accept pleas or obtain not guilty verdicts.

Nonetheless, these facts should not deter someone accused of a crime in Middlesex County to give up.  Statistically, it has been proven over and over again, that the defendant’s who retained experienced criminal defense counsel are more likely to obtain a not guilty verdict, dismissal of his or her case, or a favorable plea.  Ultimately such results do not come easy, and such results are obtained because the attorney handling the case has a reputation in the criminal defense community of knowledge of the law, proven trial experience, and preparation of the case, which includes independent investigation of the case, which includes interviewing potential witnesses.

If you have been charged with a crime of disorderly person’s offense in Middlesex County you should consult Attorney Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr. (CriminalDefenseNJ.com) who has a reputation in Middlesex County for hard work and successful results.

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

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

Tel.     (908) 354-7006

Cell     (201) 240-5716

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

New Jersey State Trooper William Billingham Loses Appeal

Detective Sergeant William Billingham of the New Jersey loses appeal when the Superior Court Appellate Division overrules the trial court in holding that Billingham’s medical records are subject to subpoena in assault by auto case charges against him.

In this interesting case in which the State Police were again caught covering-up criminality of one of their own, the New Jersey Appellate Division ruled in State v. Billingham that trooper Billingham’s blood test results  are subject to a Dyal subpoena in the State’s prosecution and investigation of the trooper to determine whether Billingham was driving while intoxicated and be charged with assault by auto when he struck the rear end of another automobile at a red light.

In this case his fellow troopers whom arrived on the scene of the accident covered up Billingham’s intoxication.  However, after further investigation by the Star-Ledger it was learned that the State Police covered-up Billingham’s real identity, falsely stating to the victim that his name was “Gillespie”, his assumed undercover name.

The Star-ledger also uncovered that Billingham’s fellow troopers not only covered-up his intoxication but provided the victim with false, fictional and incomplete insurance information regarding Billingham a/k/a Gillespie.

The appellate division held that Billingham’s blood test results performed at hospital when he went to hospital for treatment after his automobile accident are subject to subpoena notwithstanding the patient-physician privilege created by N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-22.2.

In State v. Dyal the New Jersey Supreme Court in 1984 held that such a subpoena, what is now known as a “Dyal Subpoena” is not subject to the patient-physician privilege if there is sufficient evidence of intoxication.

Before the police can obtain a Dyal subpoena for blood records at the hospital the police should apply to the municipal court judge for a subpoena duces tecum, upon a showing by the police that they have a reasonable basis to believe the defendant was operating a motor vehicle while under the influence.  These facts can be facts or evidence obtained at the scene or fact uncovered shortly thereafter.

In the Billingham case there were sufficient facts to warrant such a subpoena such as the fact that Billingham had attended a party in which alcohol was served, he claimed he fell asleep at the wheel, speeding, engaged in an accident which was clearly his fault, the first responders smelled alcohol in the ambulance while he was in their vehicle.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

277 North Broad Street

P.O. Box 261

Elizabeth (Union County), New Jersey 07207

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Office Phone No. (908) 354-7006

Cell Phone No.   (201) 240-5716

Dated: January 11, 2013

Best Middlesex County Criminal Lawyers, criminal attorneys New Brunswick, criminal lawyers New Brunswick, criminal lawyers Princeton NJ, best criminal lawyers Middlesex county, best criminal lawyers New Brunswick, criminal defense attorney Middlesex county