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.

New Jersey Supreme Court-Elements of Obstruction the Administration of Justice

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

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

(908) 354-70076

March 13, 2019, State v. Fede, New Jersey Supreme Court.

The court reversed the defendant’s conviction for the D.P. charge of obstruction the administration of justice.  Specifically, in this case, the tenant living in a multi-family residential building refused to unchain his front door upon demand by the police.  In this case the police did not have a warrant, but were dispatched to the location when police dispatch reported a call of domestic violence in that apartment. 

The police attempted to gain entry to search the apartment under the “community caretaker” exception to the warrant requirement.  When tenant refused to unchain the front door the police knocked the door in, and arrested the tenant.

The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the municipal court conviction for obstruction to the administration of justice.  Note, there was nobody else in the apartment when the police searched the apartment.

The court held that the police did have the right to break down the door under the community caretaker exception, however, the charge and conviction of obstruction to the administration of justice could not be affirmed because in order to be found guilty of that statute the defendant must take an affirmative step in obstruction the administration of justice.  The court held that the failure to act, to wit, removal of the chain lock, was not an affirmative step. 

Note, if the tenant had got in the officers way, or pushed the officer, or attempted to stop them physically from entering, the conviction would have been affirmed.

If you are charged with a Superior Court or Municipal Court criminal charge seek the counsel of an experienced criminal defense attorney who has been practicing for 29-years.  Experienced, qualified, integrity, and dedication to the practice of criminal defense.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

Trial Court Allowing State’s Expert To

State v. Yasin Simms, decided March 15, 2016 by New Jersey Supreme Court.

In this case the prosecutor presented the testimony of Detective Lockett of the Atlantic County Prosecutor’s Office as an expert “in the field of narcotics use and distribution as well as the accompanying aspects of narcotics distribution.”

At trial the prosecutor posed a lengthy hypothetical question to the detective which included the assumed fact that Detective Ruzzo actually observed defendant hand a buyer ten packets of heroin for cash. That assumed fact, however, was not based on Ruzzo’s testimony, because the detective observed only an unidentified object in defendant’s hands.

The expert also testified that the co-defendant conspired with defendant to distribute drugs, which was another way of saying that defendant conspired with the co-defendant. Defendant did not object to the hypothetical question or to the response, and he did not present any witnesses.

The jury convicted defendant of possession of heroin, possession of heroin with the intent to distribute, however, the New Jersey Court reversed holding that well established case law holds that ultimate questions of guilt or innocence is for the jury to decide and not the state’s so-called expert.  Furthermore, it was impermissible for the so-called expert to testify to facts, i.e., that the detective saw Heroin being transferred since this was not a fact that was even in evidence.

 

In defending a CDS/narcotics case it is important to know what evidence offered by the prosecutor is objectionable.  An experienced criminal defense attorney would have known that this type of testimony is inadmissible.

If you are charged with a narcotics, CDS or other drug related offense you must consult an experienced criminal defense attorney.  Attorney Sanzone has been practicing criminal law and defending against narcotics offenses for 26-years.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.        

CriminalDefenseNJ.comwww.criminaldefensenj.com (908) 354-7006    

277 North Broad Street, (Union County) Elizabeth, N.J

 

 

 

New Jersey’s New Expungement Law Change

On April 19, 2016, the law in New Jersey will radically change its expungement law allowing most non-violent felonies to be expunged after waiting five-years after released from incarceration or completion of probation.  However, the public interest standard still applies, and this is still at the discretion of the judge.
Without a public interest need the petitioner will still have to wait 10-years, after his or her release from jail or completion of probation which ever comes last.

Disorderly person’s offenses (or municipal court cases) the waiting period has been reduced from 5-years to 3-years.  Also, the new law allows certain people to expunge their successful completion of the drug court program, and the underlying conviction which facilitated their participation in the program.

Lastly, the new law allows judges to immediate expunged and seal all records regarding cases in which the defendant was a victim of identity theft.  This would also apply to the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) which must seal and expunge all division of motor vehicle records in which the motorist received the charge because his or her I.D. was stolen or forged.  In addition, the prosecutor can petition the court with the request of his or her criminal defense attorney, to rule that the defendant or motorist, was in fact, “factually innocent.”

It is important to note that there is no waiting period for the sealing of these records.  It is important to note that the expungement process can be complicated, and you are urged to consult an experienced criminal defense attorney.  Attorney Sanzone has 25-years of experience as a New Jersey criminal defense attorney.

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

P.O. Box 261, 277 North Broad Street
Elizabeth, N.J. 07207]
Tel: (908) 354-7006

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Dated: January 29, 2016

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.

Defendant’s Right to Remain Silent at Sentencing In Municipal Court

It has been a custom is many municipal courts in New Jersey for the judge to turn to the defendant at the time of sentencing and ask the defendant as to his prior driving history.

This often occurs in the context DWI sentences, in which the prosecutor will inform the court that a search of the defendant’s abstract does not reveal any prior driving while intoxicated offenses.  Often the court will than turn to the defendant, whose represented by counsel, rather that is correct, and whether the defendant has been convicted of any DWI offenses in this or any other state. 

I am surprised that in many cases the defense attorney does sits quite without objecting to this line of questioning by the judge.  The defendant at the time of sentencing does not give up his 5^th amendment right to remain silent.  Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2B:25-5.1 it is the prosecutor’s obligation to research the defendant’s prior driving record and report that information to the court.  Neither, defense counsel, or the defendant has any obligation to waive his  Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, or for the attorney to violate his attorney client privilege with his client to the court.

This blog is prepared as a public service by the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq., and is not intended to provide any specific legal opinion or advice to anyone reading this blog.

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

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

CriminalDefensenj.com

Yourcivilrights@gmail.com

 

“If you want peace work for justice.”

New Jersey Now Requires All Police Departments to Have Dashboard, or Dash-Cam MVR Tapes Installed in All Patrol Vehicles

Prepared for the People as a Pubic Service from the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

September 11, 2014, finally Governor Christi signed the Dash-Cam law which will require all New Jersey police departments to install these devices in their patrol vehicles.  These dash-cams, or also known as MVR video recording devices, will video tape everything in front of the patrol vehicle when activated. 

This new law is good news for anyone who is stopped by a police officer, since the video will now video all activity from the vantage point of the patrol vehicle front windshield.  Normally, the device is set up to record back 30-seconds, prior to the activation of the device.  The device continues to record until manually turned off, or the siren or overhead lights are turned off.  Normally, by default, the dash-cam will activate once the overhead and/or siren is activated.  However, the MVR tape can be activated manually, and can also be turned off manually.

Hopefully the new law will prevent police departments and its officers from falsely claiming that the video was not working or not installed in the particular patrol vehicle.  Most often aggressive and dishonest police officers will patrol in patrol vehicles without dash-cam devices for the purpose of making unlawful DWI stops and arrests, claiming that the motorist committed a moving violation and than failed field sobriety tests.  Further, if the sobriety field tests are done in view of the cameras, it might help eliminate perjured police testimony when the officer falsely claiming that the motorist failed the sobriety field tests, when in fact the motorists passed.  Further, the law will now allow a jury to objectively view the dash-cam tape to refute or confirm a police officers allegation that the suspect motorist engaged in eluding of the officers during an automobile stop.

For years most police departments in New Jersey have fought fiercely not to have these devices in their vehicles.  Newark, Jersey City and Elizabeth, to name a few, have refused to install such devices, and none of their patrol vehicles have any of these devices in patrol vehicles.  Further, these MVR tapes will help eliminate police beatings and other abuses of errant police officers, because a patrolman driving a patrol vehicle with such a device will think twice before he commits these types of illegal activities on a motorist. 

Of course some errant and dishonest police officers will find away around this new law by turning off the device, claiming it was inoperable, destroying the tape, or manually turning the device to the side, so that it does not depict the interaction between the motorist and police officer.  Another trick that the dishonest cop will use, which I have seen multiple times with field sobriety tests, the dishonest police officer will move the suspect outside the view of the tape, in which case, the motorist cannot prove that the officer is lying and that he/she passed the field sobriety tests.  Further, if the dishonest police officer wants to engage in an illegal search or beating of the motorist he will move the suspect out of range of the camera, since the cameras view depicts only what transpires in front of the patrol vehicle.  Of course, the dishonest cop (which has occurred repeatedly in many municipal court and superior court cases) will tell the judge and/or jury that they moved the suspect outside the view of the camera for his or the motorists safety, but of course that story is likewise bogus, because the officer can pull his vehicle behind the motorists vehicle in such a way as to give a wide shoulder view of road in which the tests will ultimately be performed.

Lastly, the new law will only be applied to every new or used or leased police vehicle or otherwise acquired on or after the effective date (of this bill) which is primarily used for traffic stops shall be equipped with a mobile video recording system.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Elizabeth, N.J.

Tel. No. (908) 354-7006

Dated: September 11, 2014

Union Essex, Hudson, Morris, Bergen, Middlesex, Ocean, Monmouth, County Criminal Defense Attorney, Jersey City, Newark, Elizabeth, New Brunswick, Eluding, Carjacking, Drugs, Guns, Weapons, Assault

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

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

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?"

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

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

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. 

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

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.

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.

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

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.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

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.

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

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

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

YourCivilRights@gmail.com