Tips Strategy and Best Practices in Trying Your Criminal Case In New Jersey

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

The first thing every New Jersey criminal defense attorney must think about before he presents his case to the Jury is how will he present the defendant’s theory of the case.  This is not a simple question and requires must thought and preparation.

The first thing that the criminal defense attorney must do is known each and every fact of the case.  Also, the attorney must spend a considerable amount of time with the client to understand facts which are not revealed in discovery and only the client knows about.  Remember, the client does not know which facts are important, therefore, you must stress to the client that every fact know to the client, good of bad, must be revealed to the attorney.

It is well settled both in federal and New Jersey state law that the defendant has the absolute right to present his side of the story to the jury, or otherwise known as his theory of the case.  In Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967), our United States Supreme Court held that under the Sixth Amendment to the United States constitution, the defendant has the sixth amendment right to compulsory process to have witnesses testify on the defendant’s behalf.  See also, Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (1974). Further, the defense has the right to present a meaningful defense. Holmes v. S.C., 126 S.CT. 1727 (2006)  The right of the defense to present its theory of the case is so strong, even to the point of allowing the defense the opportunity to present hearsay, i.e., declaration against interests, “I killed the cop”, Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973)

The Defendant is denied a fair trial if he cannot present his theory of the case.

In essence there are basically three types of defenses.

1.   She did not do it.

2.   She did it but government cannot prove it.

3.   She did something but what she did is not a crime.

In assessing the Government’s or State case the question must be asked.  What is the Government Ignoring?

Points to Remember:

1.   What has the government neglected?

2.   What has the government ignored?

3.   What has the government refuse to recognize?

4.   Which are also known as negative evidence and an acceptable means of disproving a criminal case?

5.   Negative evidence is important.

Accordingly the defendant has the absolute right to present our defense, and the Government cannot prevent or tell us how to proceed.  Cast shadows on innocence’s. 

6.   If the Government attempts to prove intent by circumstantial evidence, why isn’t the defense entitled to show that circumstantial evidence which does not show intent?

7.   Absence of evidence when it should be there.

8.   Deconstructing evidence what the government wants to show-prove.

9.   What are they not saying?

10.  What are they ignoring?

11.  What is lacking?

12.  Idea of deconstruction. 

13.  Put it into proper form for the jury to understand.

14.  Use demonstrative evidence to show the negative evidence.

15.  What about the government’s theory doesn’t make sense?

16.  Have they used any resources to find the truth?

17.  To find this negative evidence?

18.  Evidence that they don’t have, which would prove that he is guilty of the crime?

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

277 North Broad Street

P.O. Box 261

Elizabeth (Union County), New Jersey 07207

Tel: (908) 354-7006

NJ Criminal Lawyers, NJ Criminal Defense Lawyer, Newark Criminal Lawyers, Elizabeth Criminal Lawyers, NJ Union County Criminal Lawyers

The Role of a “Criminal Justice Lawyer.” Time to Reform the Criminal Justice Jury System and Permit the Jurors to Hear All The Truth.

A philosopher once wrote that the only true test of any law is whether it manifests itself in the giving of justice. Everybody talks about justice, but do we really understand what justice means, and does justice have any place in the criminal justice system? 

Many cynics would say that justice usually goes to the highest bidder or the wealthy litigant or defendant.  There is much truth to that. 

Justice of course can be defined in many ways, most notably in the way it is defined.  Justice for one is not necessarily justice for another, and justice can be defined by an individual’s subjective ideas of right, wrong, good and evil.  Of course, any of these principals can be influenced by ones particular religious ideas, or lack of, prejudices, bias, educational, mental, psychological or physical disabilities. Accordingly, if you had a room filed with a hundred men of women of different political, ethic, religious, economic and racial backgrounds, you would get a difference opinions of what is justice as it applies to any given set of facts and circumstances.  Justice for someone would be injustice to others.  The hedge fund or banker in the group would in many cases believe that he was “entitled to make millions”, and it was justice that he earn that salary, while the day laborer would shake his head an say it was injustice that he should make the minimum wage to support his family of four.

Likewise, some in the group would not think twice about judging as a juror in a criminal trial of finding a poor inner city young man or woman guilty of selling a small quantity of drugs, arguing that they were performing justice.  They might argue that they did this in the name of justice knowing that the consequence of that judgment would send that person to prison for many years or even decades, because “he got what he deserved”, not understanding that the human being which they have righteously judged never had the chance that they did in life.

In truth the factual situations are endless in which people disagree in the most fundamental way in which they agree or disagree in their concept of justice.

In truth how can anyone judge anyone else?  We see an action, but we never see a motive.  The reason why people act or fail to act in any given situation can depend on countless factors.

Does the jury system promote justice?  How can jury have any say in the justice system if juries are never told the entire truth, the full truth, of every case, and about the people to whom they are to judge.  Why in the criminal justice system are criminal juries never told the punishment and sentence of their guilty verdict?  Juries are never told, and under New Jersey cannot be told, that the defendant who is found guilty will be exposed to, such as extended terms of imprisonment, or periods of parole ineligibility if they determine someone is guilty of the charges.  Juries are told that they can only be judges of the facts.  Why should the jury not be told that if they believe the law to be unjust under the particular circumstances, that they can render a not guilty verdict?  Is it not right and just to education the jury to the full consequences of their decision?  Should the jury in a criminal case not know everything about the fellow human being in which they are to judge?  To isolate the jury with limited knowledge renders their decision making process inadequate and flawed.  In such a flawed system it renders the jury to be a mere tool of the State, and not true judges of the facts, which the law is meant to be.  Giving lip service to justice with words only is not justice.    I

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

PO Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

908-354-7006

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

YourCivilRights@gmail.com

Lawyers in Elizabeth NJ, Attorneys in Elizabeth NJ, Elizabeth Criminal Lawyers, NJ Criminal Justice Lawyers, NJ Lawyers, NJ Criminal Lawyers

Prior to Trial Defense Counsel Must Force the Prosecutor to State Whether it Intends to Introduce Evidence of Uncharged Criminal Conduct, and Disclose to the Defense any Evidence to Support this Alleged Criminal Conduct

All to often at the time of trial the prosecutor will attempt to introduce what is commonly known in New Jersey criminal practice as “other crime evidence”, or Rule 404(b) evidence against the defendant.  This typically is evidence of other crimes or wrongs allegedly committed by the defendant.  This evidence is not admitted to prove that the defendant had a propensity to commit the instant offense which he is on trial for, but rather to prove another relevant issue of the case, such as to prove motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge or absence of mistake or accident, when such evidence is relevant to a material issue at trial. 

This evidence is probably the most damaging type of evidence offered against a criminal defendant because the jury hears that the defendant had committed another crime or wrong before, and often it is difficult if not impossible for the jury not to use this evidence improperly.

Therefore, it is essential in every criminal case that defense counsel in his initial discovery request demand that the prosecutor state whether it intends to introduce evidence of uncharged criminal conduct, when the State presents its case, or during the State’s cross-examination of the defendant, if he or she testifies.

Further, the letter should demand that if the State intends to proffer this type of evidence that it immediately disclose the specific wrongful acts, and that the State furnish to the defense during discovery any and all evidence to support such evidence, which includes, but not limited to any and all evidence that is relevant to such uncharged criminal conduct.

Lastly, defense counsel should make it clear that in the event that this information is not disclosed to the defense during discovery that the defense will object to the State’s attempt to introduce such evidence at the time of trial, because the defense would clearly be prejudiced by such a delay in disclosure.

On June 6, 2011, Mr. Dominique Strauss-Kahn appeared for his arraignment in New York Supreme Court at the criminal courts building in Manhattan to enter his plea of not guilty.  In connection with that plea the first thing that his defense attorneys (Taylor and Brafman) did by way of discovery to the prosecutor, was to demand from the prosecutor that it disclose to the defense any uncharged criminal conduct which might include allegations of other victims that Mr. Strauss-Kahn engaged in other sexual crimes or wrongs with these women. 

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

277 North Broad Street, P.O. Box 261, Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

(908) 354-7006

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

YourCivilRights@gmail.com

Dated:  June 7, 2011

New Tool By Law Enforcement to Avoid Obtaining a Search Warrant and Abrogate the Fourth Amendment in Searching a Home.

On May 16, 2011, the United Supreme Court held in Kentucky v. King, that police officers arriving at a home, and suspecting that evidence is being destroyed can bust down the door and proceed to search the house if they believe that evidence is being destroyed. This rule only applies if the police first knock and announce their presence and did not create the exigent circumstances.

In the Kentucky v. King case police officers in Lexington, Kentucky, suspecting what they believed to be a hand to hand drug transaction in a parking lot, rushed into an apartment complex to arrest the suspect. However, while in the apartment they smelled the odor of burnt marijuana coming from one of the apartments. Suspecting that evidence was being destroyed, they knocked down the door and searched the apartment finding cocaine and marijuana. It was later learned that the apartment which they entered was the wrong apartment.

The lower court suppressed the evidence citing the Fourth Amendment and search warrant requirement to enter a home in the absence of exigent circumstances.

As Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., writing the majority opinion wrote. “... the exigent circumstances rule should not apply where the police, without a warrant or any legally sound basis for a warrantless entry, threaten that they will enter without permission unless admitted.”

Justice Alito also wrote that if the defendant Hollis D. King had opened the door and refused admittance to the officers the officers would have needed a search warrant, because at the stage he was not destroying evidence. However, defendant King decided to ignore the knocks by the officers and engaged in destruction of evidence. Thus the Court in essence affirmed New Jersey case law which holds that police officers cannot enter a home under the basis of the “plain smell” rule without a search warrant.

It is unlikely that this decision will have much effect in New Jersey in State criminal prosecutions because our New Jersey Supreme Court has continually ruled that the application of the Fourth Amendment in home searches is more protective than federal law.

A motion to suppress is a key tool by every defendant charged with processing contraband in any criminal case. If you are charged with such a crime and for more information regarding your rights you are urged to seek the legal advise of an experienced New Jersey criminal defense lawyer, Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., an attorney who has represented and been successfully in suppressing evidence seized by police without a search warrant for many of his clients.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.
CriminalDefenseNJ.com
P.O. Box 261, 277 North Broad Street, Elizabeth, N.J.
(908) 354-7006
Yourcivilrights@gmail.com

New Jersey Drug Court Program Its Pitfalls and Benefits.

There is no argument in the medical community that drug addition is a medical malady, no different than any other serious medical condition that takes sustained and prolonged medical treatment.

Often in the struggle to overcome addition the addict has periods of sometimes many months in which he is cured of his addiction. However, more often than not, the person addicted relapses into his drug dependency.

In New Jersey the Drug Court Program or “special probation”, requires the defendant to remain drug free throughout the program which can last up to five years. Ascertaining whether the defendant is drug free is done by having the defendant give weekly urine samples which are tested by a State approved lab.

The defendant who tests positive on a second or subsequent test is subject to the revocation of the special probation drug court program and a sentence to jail.

N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14(g) states that a person in special who is subject to drug court revocation can be sentenced by the judge to a limited time of incarcerated from 30 days to 6 months. However, to often judges facing a defendant with more than one positive test are too quick to discharge the defendant from the program and immediately send the defendant to a state prison sentence.

In deciding whether to discharge the defendant from the drug court program the judge must take into account any recommendations of the defendant’s medical or treatment providers. It is imperative that drug court judges understand the great difficulty that defendants with drug addictions have and understand that his is a life time struggle of each defendant who often falls, before the final cure.

There is no argument that a key component of the drug court program is accountability. However, accountability component must be measured with the reality that in most cases there will be slips in the process, and that a quick decision to terminate and jail the defendant does not serve the interest of justice.

In the event that the defendant is terminate from special probation he or she is entitled jail credit for all the time that he or she spent in any impatient facility.

If you are facing the prospects of entering or being terminated for the drug court program you are strongly advised to contact the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr. who has over 21 years in the practice of criminal law in the State of New Jersey, and has handled and counseled many defendants in the New Jersey Drug Court Program.

April 29, 2011

Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

(908) 354-7006

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

YourCivilRights@gmail.com

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

277 North Broad Street

P.O. Box 261

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207