Tweet By Defendant Can Be Admissible in a Criminal Case

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

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
CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Detention of Motorist after a Motor Vehicle Stop Without Further Probable Cause Is Unlawful United States Supreme Court Says.

Prepared as a public service by the law office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

In Rodriguez vs. United States decided on January 21, 2015, the United States Supreme Court held that detaining a motorist after a motor vehicle stop has been concluded violated the motorist’s Fourth Amendment rights to unreasonable search and seizure and all the narcotics seized would have to be suppressed.

In this case Mr. Rodriguez refused to consent to have a drug sniffing dog walk around his vehicle. Accordingly, the police officer on the scene called for backup. The court following Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 407 (2005) held that the authority for the police to seize a motor vehicle during a motor vehicle stop for a traffic infraction ends when it did, or reasonable should have ended.  In Illinois v. Caballes the court held that it is permissible to have a drug sniffing dog sniff the exterior of the automobile during the automobile stop.

However, in Rodriguez v. United States the court held that permitting such K9 sniffing can only occur during the period of time of the automobile stop period, which must be a reasonable time period.  In other words, as long as it was reasonable to make the stop, obtain driving credentials, and issue the motor vehicle summons.  Any delay without further probable cause would be unreasonable and therefore unlawful.  The Fourth Amendment does not permit unrelated investigations that lengthen the roadside detention.  Waiting for a K9 dog sniff would be such a prolonged further investigation that is not permitted unless further reasonable suspicion or probable cause can be found.

In this case the patrol officer who conducted the motor vehicle stop had in his patrol vehicle a K9 drug sniffing dog.  After the motor vehicle ticket was issued, the officer asked Rodriguez whether he would permit his K9 to walk around his vehicle.  Rodriguez said no.  Because of the refusal the officer called for back-up, and in about 8-minutes a second officer arrived and the K9 walk around took place.  The court held that without consent the 8-minute wait for the second officer was unreasonable and the CDS (controlled dangerous substances) found in Rodriguez vehicle was suppressed.  What is very remarkable in this case is that the court said that only an 8-minute delay was unreasonable.

This case is very helpful to the defense because often local and State police departments will detain motorist for long time periods in order to secure to scene of the motor vehicle stop drug sniffing K9 unit.  This case is clear and sets forth a bright line rule that any detention outside the normal motor vehicle stop is no longer permitted.  This case however does not address the issue as to how long that period of time would be if the police have additional reasonable suspicion or probable cause to detain the motorist.

The Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

277 North Broad Street

P.O. Box 261

Elizabeth (Union County), NJ 07207

(908) 354-7006

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Rare Appellate Division Case Which Debunks Often Used Municipal Court Rational for Finding Defendant Guilty of Traffic Violation

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

A very interesting case was recently decided by the appellate division, State v. Duque, (unpublished decided April 6, 2015), in which the panel held that the rational used to find the defendant guilty of a traffic violation was incorrect, and accordingly, reversed the conviction.

In this case the Bergenfield municipal judge found the defendant guilty because he found the police officer credible.  Specifically, the municipal court judge held that he was familiar with the officer from other cases and because the officer had no motive to issue an erroneous charge against the defendant.  However, the municipal court judge did not address the fact that the police officer might have been mistaken, and why the evidence presented by the defendant, through testimony, and pictures was not persuasive.  As the court held, “The first of these reasons was an improper consideration by the trial court, and the second not sufficient by itself to reach a credibility determination in favor of the officer.”

In appellate panel went on to state that the defendant in this case, “had neither an opportunity to challenge the officer's testimony in other cases nor the ability to prove herself also a credible witness in the judge's eyes over the course of a number of different matters. In addition, the fact that a charge was brought by the officer does not in itself lend credibility to the testimony that supports that charge. Such a basis for judging credibility flies in the face of the presumption of innocence and the prosecution's burden to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. Dively, 92 N.J. 573, 585 (1983).”
This is a great decision because municipal court traffic attorneys have experienced hundreds of cases in which the municipal court judge seeking away to find a defendant guilty in spite of overwhelming evidence that the police officer was lying or mistaken, would simply use these two standard excuses to find the defendant guilty.

The Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq., is not a high-volume practice.  Attorney Sanzone does not accept every case, because I am personally responsible for all aspects of each case.  I take a limited number of clients, so that each criminal and traffic case receives the time and attention needed to produce the best legal work possible. Also, by only taking a limited number of cases at any given time, provides me the opportunity to explain the legal process, the law, an the strategies with which each aspect of the process will be addressed.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

(908) 354-7006

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

YourCivilRights@gmail.com

High School Chaperones Cannot Be Prosecuted In New Jersey For Oversees Class Trip In Which It Was Alleged That They Engaged In Sexual Contact With Students.

Prepared as a Public Service by the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., a New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney.

In a recent New Jersey Supreme Court case, State v. Sumulikoski, the court held that alleged criminal activity conducted oversees on a class trip could not be prosecuted in New Jersey.  In this case both the trial court and appellate division held that N.J.S.A. 2C:1-3(a)(1) conferred such jurisdiction.  Reversing, the Supreme Court held that because all of the alleged actions occurred oversees the proper jurisdiction, if any, should be Germany, and not New Jersey.

It is strange how this case had to be correctly decided by the Supreme Court, both the trial court and appellate division were dead wrong in holding that N.J.S.A. 2C:1-3(a)(1) conferred jurisdiction to the New Jersey courts for a crime that allegedly had been committed in Germany.  This is especially troubling because Germany's criminal laws are dis-similar to the criminal laws of New Jersey?  For example, in Germany the age for consensual sexual contact is 14-years of age, while New Jersey it is 18-years of age.  Further, the nightmare for defense counsel trying to investigate the alleged crime scene, interview witnesses, or call witnesses to testify at trial would be impossible.  All of these procedural issues would of course deny the defendant a fair trial.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said that he did not do justice, he just did the law.  Isn't that the real problem with our legal system.  Often law and justice work at cross-purposes, one thing has nothing to do with the other.  Law without authentic justice is a game, charade or a tool for social injustice for the poor and marginalized. 

If you have been charged with a sexual crime in Essex, Union, Hudson, Somerset, Morris, Ocean, and Monmouth County you must consult an experienced criminal defense attorney.

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

Attorney and Counselor of Law for the Criminal Defense

277 North Broad Street

P.O. Box 261

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

(908) 354-7006

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Quote of the Day:  “For every wise owl you may expect a few cuckoos.” Rev. George William Rutler

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

Federal District Court Anne Thompson Grants Writ of Habeas Corpus for Racketeering Case.

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

On March 5, 2003 a criminal jury in the Superior Court, Monmouth County, convicted alleged racketeer, Ray Cagno.  Cagno was found guilty of conspiracy to commit racketeering and the murders of victims Angellino and Randazzo.  The first trial (2002) ended in a mistrial when the witness for the State, Salvatore Lombardino refused to testify against Cagno.  However, the State alleged that while leaving the courtroom at the first trial, Lombardino gave Cagno a “thumbs up sign”, and stated to Cagno, “hang in there kid.”  At the second trial Lombardino was not called as a witness, but two detectives for the New Jersey State Police testified as to their observations of Lombardino at the first trial.  In summations the prosecutor asked the jury to infer that the witness’ silence; and his prior in-court conduct constituted evidence of Cagno’s guilt of the conspiracy between them.  The case went all the way to the New Jersey Supreme Court which affirmed the conviction with one justice dissenting, Justice Albin.

In Cagno v. Warren (N.J. District Court, 2014) the federal district court for the District of New Jersey, Judge Thompson, granted the habeas relief holding that Cagno’s Fourteenth Amendment due process rights were violated when he was convicted of conspiracy to commit racketeering at Petitioner’s second trial because the state should not have been allowed to present evidence of Salvatore Lombardino’s refusal to testify at Petitioner’s first trial.  Hence, Cagno’s Sixth Amendment right to confront all witnesses against him was violated.  Citing, Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415 (1965).  In New Jersey the statute of limitations is an absolute bar to the prosecution of the offense. State v. Short, 131 N.J. 47, 55 (1993)

Further, because the State offered no other evidence to support a finding that the racketeering conspiracy continued beyond the statute of limitations period, which was five-years, the conviction could not stand.  Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979); In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970).  Both of those cases standing for the well settled proposition, that it is a violation of a defendant’s due process rights, for a conviction to be entered unless the state proves its case beyond a reasonable doubt, as to each and every element of the crime.

Although federal courts rarely grant a Writ of Habeas Corpus, this case is a good example in which the federal district court exercised its authority and granted such a motion.  The Writ of Habeas Corpus is usually the last line of defense to an unlawful conviction, unless the defendant is lucky enough to discover newly discovered evidence which would have proved his or her innocence if had been discovered at trial.  In that case, the defendant can reopen the process up again at the state court level, starting with the trial court.

Thoughts on Truth:  Veritas Quo, “Where truth is found.” 

A moral wrong can never be a civil right.

The further society deviates from the truth the more a society will hate that truth.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Elizabeth, N.J.

Tel. No. (908) 354-7006

Dated: September 11, 2014

Post-Conviction Relief, Writ of Habeas Corpus, Union Essex, Hudson, Morris, Bergen, Middlesex, Ocean, Monmouth, County Criminal Defense Attorney, Jersey City, Newark, Elizabeth, New Brunswick, Freehold, Toms River.

In a Criminal or Quasi Criminal Case Including DWI the Defendant Never Has the Burden of Alerting The Prosecutor to Missing Evidence

Prepared as a Public Service by Criminal Defense Attorney of New Jersey, Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

Although a fundamental principal of the criminal justice system and corollary principals of procedural due process the defendant in a criminal case never has the obligation to alert the prosecution to any deficiencies in its case.

This attempt to shift the burden to the defense arises more frequently in New Jersey cases involving driving while intoxicated cases.  In these cases the municipal judge will often ask defense counsel prior to trial as to whether the defense is satisfied that the State has provided the necessary Alcotest discovery.  This question is improper because defense counsel has no obligation to confirm or deny whether the State has provided discovery and/or evidence to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.  In seminal case State v. Collins, 262 N.J. Super. 230 , 237-238 (App. Div. 1993), the appellate division made it clear that the defense attorney has no obligation to help the State prove its case by calling attention to any missing element of the offense before the State rests.

This equally applies to the admission of a laboratory certificate offered by the State.  In this case defense counsel has no obligation to present conflicting evidence regarding the report prior the submission of said report at trial by the laboratory analysis.  N.J.S.A. 2C:35-19 imposes no such burden on the defendant, and such a shifting would be unconstitutional. State in the Interest of J.H., 244 N.J. Super. 207, 217 (App. Div. 1990)

Attorney Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., has handled hundreds of criminal and quasi-criminal cases in New Jersey for the last 25-years, in Union, Hudson, Essex, Middlesex, Bergen, Somerset, Morris, Ocean and Monmouth counties.

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: February 2, 2015

Quote of the day and words of Wisdom.

“Benedictus qui venit in nomine domini”- Latin for “blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord”

To be complacent in evil is always wrong, to commit and accept evil even for the alleged good is always morally wrong.

C.S. Lewis, “We do not need more Christian Lawyers, we need more lawyers who are Christian.”

Press Release Hudson County Superior Court, December of 2014.

Defendant charged and indicted by a Hudson County Grand Jury with official misconduct (second degree) and theft (third degree).  Defendant facing a state prison sentence as follows.  For the official misconduct a consecutive sentence of 5-10 years to run consecutive to the third degree theft of 3-5 years. Total maximum state prison exposure of 15-years in state prison.

Appropriate pre-trial motions filed to the Superior Court Judge and the official misconduct count of the indictment is dismissed by court prior to trial. 

After a five day criminal jury trial in which the case was given to the jury for deliberation, and while the jury is still deliberating, the Hudson County Prosecutor offers the defendant PTI (pre-trial intervention program), without the payment of any restitution.

Final results: After a period of one-year the theft charge will be dismissed and the Defendant will move to have his arrest for these charges expunged, and he will have absolutely no criminal record of the arrest or of the charges which were dismissed.

The Defendant who was not guilty is vindicated by Attorney Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq. For a further review of the numerous criminal defense victories for Attorney Sanzone go to CriminalDefenseNJ.com

The Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., providing competent and vigorous criminal defense representation for 25-years in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Hudson, Essex, Union, Somerset, Bergen, Passaic, Monmouth, Ocean, Middlesex counties.

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

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

(908) 354-7006

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Ipse dixit, which is translated from Latin to English, “we already decided you are bad.”  Why do the police and/or prosecutor always decided that the defendant committed the crime without knowing all the facts of the case?  Willful blindness is never justice.  Authentic Justice requires that before anyone is charged with a crime that the charging authorities honestly and fairly investigate the alleged unlawful activity.  All too often law enforcement rushes to judgment “to put a feather in their cap” and close a file.

Another Perspectives and Overlooked Fact in the Eric Garner Case; are the talking heads correct?

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

Anyone that is familiar with marshal arts and self-defense knows that a choke hold to someone’s neck in which the carotid artery is restricted will cause the person to pass out in 5-seconds or less. It is without dispute that a well performed martial arts choke (restricting blood flow) will result in unconsciousness within 3-5 seconds, and if applied longer, 30-seconds or longer, death.

It is also without dispute that the air or blood choke hold will prevent the person from speaking.  Therefore, it can be argued that when Eric Garner spoke the words, “I can’t breathe,” he in fact was able to breathe, because someone who is unable to breath would not be able to utter those words.

I am not saying that excessive force was not used against  Eric Garner in July of 2014, however, based on well settled principals of marshal arts and medical physiology, it was not the choke hold that killed him.  Mr. Garner was properly having trouble breathing because all of the force that was exerted to his back while on the ground, but the cause of death could not have been caused by the choke hold.  An independent autopsy and opinion by a forensic pathologist hired by the defense, I believe, would come to the same conclusion.

The forensic pathologist Dr. Michael Baden, who was hired by the Garner family, was dead wrong when he opined on Fox News that Garner would be able to say eleven times “I can’t breathe”, while the choke hold was being applied.  Further, Dr. Baden was dead wrong when he stated that the medical examiners found hemorrhaging of the blood vessels to the neck of Mr. Garner, this finding was also not made by the autopsy.

Baden also failed to point out that Garner had a number of

pre-existing medical conditions, such as obesity, asthma and possible heart disease, which could have been the actual cause of his cardiac arrest in the ambulance on the way to the hospital.

There has been a lot of hype and hyperbole on both sides of the debate regarding Mr. Garner; sadly, both sides seem to have no regard for the real facts of this case.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth (Union County), New Jersey 07207

(908) 354-7006

Quote of the day:  “All of humanity’s problems stem from man’s inability to sit quietly in a room alone.”

Blaise Pascal (1662), the great Catholic mathematician and philosopher who concluded that the easiest and most secure bet one can place on himself in his lifetime is the bet on God and the teachings of his Holy Catholic Church.  Pascal was the father of modern casino table games, and created the calculus of probabilities.  He knew that betting against God’s Church was a bad bet.  This wager is referred to as the famous Wager ('Pascal's Wager') in which he held:

"If Jesus does not exist, the non Christian loses little by believing in him and gains little by not believing. If Jesus does exist, the non Christian gains eternal life by believing and loses an infinite good by not believing.”  This is why someone who does not believes makes the most foolish bet of his or her life.

The Falsely Accused and Wrongly Convicted: Opening and Closing Statements and What the Jury Must Know About Reasonable Doubt

There is no firm statistic on the number of people sent to prison who were falsely accused and wrongly convicted for crimes which they were innocent.

In today’s society and our criminal justice system in the United States it takes nothing more than the words of one accuser.  In contrast under ancient Jewish law found in the Talmud, going back many thousands of years a conviction could not be sustained without the independent testimony of at least two independent witnesses, who could testify independently and consistently as to what they witnessed.  Remember the biblical story of Susanna in the Book of Daniel who was accused of adultery by two wicked men because she would not have sex with them. In this story Daniel saves the young girl's life when he requests that the judge questions each of the men separately to hear their story.  When the judge asked them what kind of tree did they see the young girl have sex under each of the men gave a different story.  Both men were put to death by the judge for perjury and Susanna was set free.

Today, our legal system does not afford this basic protection, under modern law, anybody can accuse anybody of anything and that in the majority of cases is enough probable cause for the police and prosecutors to have someone arrested and stand trial.  The single word of a single witness will suffice, and there is rarely, if ever, any penalty or prosecution for perjurous

testimony.

It has been estimated by some that anywhere from five to ten percent of the people convicted of crimes, included people who take pleas, because they are forced to, are actual innocent.  Ohio State University did a study and came to the conclusion that approximately ten-thousand people per year in the United States have been wrongly convicted after trial or plead guilty when they were innocent.

Accordingly, it is without argument that the system does fail, and that anyone that believes that the system is without failure simply is ignorant of the truth.  Although most jurors understand the importance of applying the reasonable doubt standard, that is, that no juror can vote for conviction unless the prosecutor proves its case beyond a reasonable doubt, some do not understand the true meaning of this very important legal concept.  Under the law in every state including federal court, if there is any reasonable doubt, the defendant get’s the benefit of the doubt, and they (the jurors) have the legal and moral obligation to vote not guilty. If in every case this concept was truly accepted and applied properly by the jury there would be less innocent people convicted of crimes that they did not commit.

The concept of reasonable doubt is the only protection that the accused has against a false allegation.  The concept of reasonable doubt is more than words, or a theoretical legal concept it is a physical shield to protect all people accused of a crime.  The concept of reasonable doubt applies to all faced with criminal prosecution, it does not, or should not, discriminate because of race, religion, gender, ethic background, or financial/community status.

If a jury refuses to accept, or dilutes the reasonable doubt standard the system fails.  The doubt as to someone’s guilt can never weigh in favor of the prosecution, since a jury that does that raises the probability that they have participated in a grave injustice, an injustice which is gravely immortal.   A jury must understand that the law requires and they must accept that a person may not be innocent, but still not guilty of the crimes charged.  In other words a jury is not charged with decided guilt or innocence’s that would be an impossible task for mere mortals.  The law requires only that the jury applies the reasonable doubt standard.  When the jury gets its verdict sheet at the end of the case while in deliberation, nowhere on that sheet will they see a check off for innocent.  The concept and distinction is subtle but very important.

Sadly in recent history we have seen a large proportion of people convicted of sexual crimes based on the sole testimony of the accuser.  These types of cases must be examined even more carefully since there is usually no evidence to substantiate the accusers claim, other than  the words of the accuser. Motives for such false accusations are numerous and varied and is beyond the topic of this article.

An example of false claims can be found in the accusations against the Catholic clergy.  A high proportion of clergy have been falsely charged and wrongly convicted of sexual assault charges in which they were innocent.  Because of media hype and yellow journalism many in the press are so happy and eager to publish and endorse the account of the accuser that there is no such thing as unbiased journalism when it comes to covering these types of cases.  Following this biased media hype unfortunately juries in criminal cases involving Catholic Priests are to often interested in convicted a Catholic Priest because he is simply a Catholic Priest. 

One case is particularly troubling is the false accusation and wrongful conviction of the Catholic Priest Father Gordon MacRae.  A summary of this appalling case can be found at:  

 

http://araminthethicket.blogspot.com/2013/10/justice-and-priests-right-of-defense-in.html

The concept of reasonable doubt was not applied in this case, and Father MacRae was convicted because he was a Catholic Priest, and tried and convicted before the trial by the media.  The accuser in that case committed a massive fraud on the criminal justice system, and every legal scholar who has examined this case has come to the conclusion that Father MacRae was unjustly convicted for crimes in which he did not commit.

The wrongful conviction of Father MacRae must be overturned.  Father Gordon MacRae has already served over 26-years in prison in New Hampshire for a crime which he did not commit. Justice for this falsely accused Priest is long overdue.

New Jersey Appellate Court Gives a Brake to Unlicensed New Jersey Drivers Caught Driving Without a Driver’s License.

Brought to you as a public service from the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

On August 11, 2014, the New Jersey Appellate Division held in State v. Armando Carreon that any person convicted of being an unlicensed driver while driving can only be sentenced to a jail sentence or fine but not both.  This is good news for never licensed drivers because most municipal court judges will interested in getting a fine from the convicted motorist.  If so, the municipal court judge will not be foreclosed for also giving a custodial term sentence pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:3-10.

In this particular case which the appellate division reversed the sentence, because the defendant was a third time offender he was sentenced to a fine of $756.00, plus court costs, and a ten-day jail sentence.

For people who have been previously licensed to drive the statute states that the defendant will be either fined or custodial term, but not both, for violators who have previously been licensed to drive.

If you have been charged with a motor vehicle offense you should consult with an experienced New Jersey criminal defense attorneyhttp://www.criminaldefensenj.com to help optimize the chances of obtaining a favorable result for your case.

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

Don’t Plea to a Sandy Hook Beach Lewdness Charge Without Consulting with an Experienced Sandy Hook Criminal Defense Attorney

The collateral consequences of pleading guilty to a lewdness offense can be significant.  Although thousands of visitors take advantage of the clothing optional beach located at the Gateway National Park, Sandy Hook, (Monmouth County, Town of Highlands) New Jersey, the U.S. Park Police Rangers have a zero tolerance for any activity which would constitute lewdness under federal or New Jersey state law.  Accordingly, many visitors to the beach might engage in conduct that would appear innocuous to the visitor, but illegal in the eyes of the rangers.  For example any inappropriate touching of the private parts by the visitor or his or her guest will be considered illegal and subject the violator to immediate arrest and summons to the federal district court in Newark for prosecution by the United States Attorney of New Jersey.

Therefore, if you have been charged with such an offense or any related or other charges at the Sandy Hook National Park, you are strongly advised to consult the services of an experienced New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney who has handled many such cases (24-years of experience) with satisfactory results for the alleged offender.

This blog is a public service to the people from the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., and is not intended to give any specific legal advice to any specific client since each case stands or falls on the particular facts of the case.

Dated: July 9, 2014

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

(908) 354-7006

277 North Broad Street

P.O. Box 261

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

YourCivilRights@gmail.com

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT SITTING INSIDE HIS AUTOMOBILE FIVE OR SIX HOUSES AWAY WAS UNLAWFUL SINCE THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS FOR THE HOME AND NOT HIS AUTOMOBILE

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

In another defense victory the Supreme Court ruled that a search warrant being executed of a suspect’s home does not authorize the police to conduct a search of the suspect’s vehicle parked some distance away from the house.  In this case the search warrant authorized the search of the house and all people present in the house reasonably believed connected to the premises or involved in the alleged illegal activity.

Initially, the trial court denied the motion to suppress the 30-bags of crack cocaine which was found on the suspect while sitting in his automobile.  The Appellate Division reversed citing, Bailey v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 103 (2013) which held a search of a suspect who has left the search warrant “spatial area”, cannot be detained or searched unless justified by some other reason other than the search warrant of the premises.  In this case there was no evidence that the suspect was fleeing the area, or was identified as being connected to the house.

A motion to suppress evidence sometimes is the most valuable weapon in the arsenal of a criminal defense attorney.  Make sure that before you take a plea that you have an experienced criminal defense attorney analyzed or case to determine whether you have a chance to have the contraband seized suppressed.

Attorney Sanzone has been successful in many of his cases in which this was a viable issue, and has had many cases dismissed because of the suppression of evidence regarding various types of contraband.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

908-354-7006

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Gun Suppressed on Motion to Suppress When Cops Pull Motorist Over for Allegedly Failing To Dim High Beam Lights

This post as been prepared as a public service to the People by the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., a New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney, serving all the State of New Jersey.

N.J.S.A. 39:3-60 requires that any motor vehicle being driven at night on the road must dim its high beam lights upon the approach of oncoming vehicles.  In this case the patrol officer was parked on the side of road when he gave pursuit for a motorist failing to dim its lights. 

The appellate division in State v. Witt held that the police officer did not have probable cause to stop the vehicle because the patrol vehicle was parked on the side of the road and not traveling directly into the vehicle, which failed to dim its high beam lights.

In this case Mr. Witt was arrested for DWI when he allegedly failed field sobriety tests.  Arrested and handcuffed in the back seat of the patrol vehicle, the patrolman decided to do a warrantless search of the vehicle in search of an open container.  In searching the vehicle the officer found a handgun.

The appellate division held that under well established case law, State v. Pena-Flores, 198 N.J. 6 (2009), there were no exigent circumstances which permitted the search without a warrant, and that even if there were, the officer did not have probable cause to stop the automobile in the first place because Mr. Witt did not violate the high beam motor vehicle law.

Before you plead guilty to a crime in which an automobile was involved and a warrantless search was conducted you must consult an experienced New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney, to consult you as to whether you have a viable Fourth Amendment motion to suppress the evidence that might have been unlawfully seized.

Law Office ofVincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

(908) 354-7006

Arrested on the Beach-Sandy Hook, National Parks, and Gateway National Parks of Sandy Hook, Highlands, New Jersey

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

Summer is approaching and the ferry service from New York City to Sandy Hook Federal National Park is approaching with thousands of visitors from New York arriving every weekend.

Many visitors, however, are unaware, that this federal beach is patrolled by the National Park Police and that this law enforcement agency has a zero tolerance for inappropriate and illegal conduct.  This is especially true for visitors of Gunnison Beach (“the nude beach”).  Although the park service has permitted this clothing optional beach for decades, going back to when Sandy Hook was a federal army base, the park police will not tolerate public lewd conduct (36 C.R.R. 7.29c), the possession and use of illegal substances such as marijuana and other illegal substances, sexual contact and other disorderly person’s offenses. 

In the event that you have been arrested on this federal national park you will be prosecuted in the Federal District Court, located in Newark, New Jersey.  The attorneys representing the government will be assistant United States Attorneys, who are experienced in prosecuting these types of crimes or disorderly person’s offenses.  If the case is classified as a disorderly person or misdemeanor case it will be heard before the magistrate judge who is assigned part-time to handle all of these cases.

The Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., has 24-years of experience in representing people accused of disorderly persons offenses and federal misdemeanor offense in this federal park.  In many of those cases Attorney Sanzone has been able to get the cases dismissed outright for lack of evidence, or successfully convinced the assistant United States Attorney to allow the offender to be admitted into the federal diversionary program, in which case the offender, would have no criminal record after successfully completing the program.

These types of cases, especially, the public lewdness cases pursuant to 36 CFR 7.29 are difficult and if arrested for this charge you are urged to contact an experienced attorney in this area of criminal practice. 

Some Sandy Hook Results:

United States v. M.C., Dismissal of lewdness charge.

United States v. S.Z., Charged with Marijuana possession. Order of Dismissal entered after successful completion of Pretrial Diversion Program, under Rule 48(a).

United States vs. V.A. Charged with Lewdness. Order of Dismissal entered after successful completion of Pretrial Diversion Program, under Rule 48(a).

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

Sandy Hook Lawyers, Sandy Hook NJ Attorneys, New Jersey Sandy Hook Criminal Attorneys

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

Prepared as a Public Service to the People by Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

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.

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

277 North Broad Street

Raymond Building

Elizabeth (Union County), New Jersey 07207

(908) 354-7006

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

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?"

Why Innocent Defendants Take Plea Bargains?

This is blog is presented as a public service and for general criminal legal information by the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq. 

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

LawOffice 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

It is without dispute that the State may not exert an unnecessary price for defendants that exercise their constitutional right to a jury trial.  United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570 (1968); Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967); Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, (1965)

That is the law, but the reality is that innocent defendants, both in State and Federal court often take a plea for something that he or she did not do, just to avoid losing at trial and doing double or triple the jail time after conviction.  Although legally the trial sentencing cannot impose a “trial tax”, upon the defendant after conviction, the reality of the situation is that with the draconian sentencing laws and guidelines, such as discretionary or mandatory extended terms, parole ineligibility, consecutive sentences, etc., defendants who refuse plea offers and lose at trial in most cases go to jail for a very long time.  The pressure to take a plea is so strong that very few defendants, whether innocent or guilty, will take the risk at losing at trial.  The cards are stacked against the defendant to such a large degree that taking a plea is the only option. 

The prosecutors in criminal cases have all the cards; they deal them as they choose.  They make the final decisions, they offer the pleas, and sometimes they are given on a take it or leave it basis.  They know their power and they use it to extract pleas.  Even judges sometimes are frustrated with the position that the prosecutors take, but they are powerless and cannot force to the prosecutor to be reasonable.  Often many good judges will attempt to 

appeal to the sensibilities and to the notion of fairness with the prosecutor, but those attempts are often futile.  Because the separations of powers, the executive and judicial branch are co-equals and neither branch can interfere with the other, most of the time the judge must remain silent.  Not to say that there are not some good prosecutors who attempt to do the right thing; however, in most cases prosecutors get their instructions from a chain of command, such as trial supervisors, reviewing committees etc.

Plea bargains it is argued, keeps the system alive because without plea bargains the judicial system could not function.  Because 95% of the criminal cases result in plea bargains and the system could not survive without the plea bargain system, plea bargains are a necessary evil which is necessary for the system to work.   This is true at the lower level, and begs the question.  The real question is who is controlling the plea bargain system, and why do the prosecutor’s have all the cards.  Why not equally penalize the prosecutor office if they lose at trial, in the form of a monetary settlement to the acquitted defendant or at lease a payment of his or her attorney fees.  As the system stands now the prosecutors have zero downside and all the upside.  If there was a penalty imposed when the prosecutor lost a case they would be more careful in pursuing only the meritorious cases and offering plea agreements that were fair. 

As it stands now every legislative body in ever State is making it more and more difficult for sentencing judges.  Every politician that wants to be reelected wants to pander to the public that he or she is hard on crime.  There is no end in sight.  Let’s be fair, and make the constitution work for all, even the criminally accused. 

Nobody knows when the table will be turned on them, and be unjustly accused of a crime.  Did Governor Christie or Lieutenant Governor Kim Guadagno ever thing just a few months ago that they would be accused of something, if true, would be the criminal charge of official misconduct?

Quote of the Day:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.