WHEN YOU DECIDE TO TESTIFY OR CALLED TO THE STAND AS A WITNESS

1.      Most Important, always tell the truth. This is the most important advice any witness should remember. If you are called to testify as a witness in a criminal case before you begin your direct testimony from the attorney that calls you to he stand you will be first required to take an oath or affirmation to tell the truth. When you take the oath or affirmation, say "I do", and look the jury or the judge straight in the eye.   When you are asked a question, every true fact should be readily admitted. Do not guess, and if you are not sure of the answer say you are not sure.  Testimony before a judge or jury is no time to wing your answers.  Never pause before you answer to decide whether your answer will help or hurt either side. Just answer the questions to the best of your memory.  If you do not remember say you do not remember, and if you do not understand the question do not be afraid to say that you do not understand the question.   

2.      Be prepared prior to your testimony. Review any statements or reports that you may have made regarding the incident.  You should attempt to refresh your recollection regarding times, dates and time periods prior to your testimony. Before you testify, think about the incident and what happened, so that you can recall the details accurately when you are asked in court. Do not simply agree with the questions posed of the attorney, either on direct or cross, with a simple correct, unless it is the right response to say correct.  If the question is about distances or time, and if your answer is only an estimate, be sure you say it is only an estimate. Beware of suggestions by attorneys as to distances or times when you do not recall the actual time or distance. Do not readily agree with their estimate unless you independently arrive at the same estimate.

3.      Speak in your own words. Use simple words and sentences. Don't attempt to  memorize what you are going to say, or use words to impress the judge or jury.  Speaking plainly and simply will go a long way and conveying to the judge or jury what you know, and don’t know about a particular case.  If you attempt to give long winded answers you might give the impression that your testimony is d rehearsed and accordingly, your testimony will be unconvincing.  Rather, just be yourself and stay calm. Prior to the trial or hearing, go over in your own mind those matters about which you will be questioned.

4.      Dress as if you were going to an important event.  Men should never wear a hat in the courtroom, unless it is religiously necessary.  There is no required dress code in a courtroom. However, testifying before a jury or judge is very formal and important, and you give credence to your testimony when you dress as if the mater is important to you. Further, it is important to have a neat appearance, and to dress in a manner that shows respect for the courtroom proceedings, and your presence before a jury or a judge.

5.      Avoid distracting mannerisms or actions that will distract the jury or judge. Never chew gum, candy, or other objects that may make you difficult to understand. Present your testimony clearly, slowly, and loud enough so that the juror seated farthest away from you can easily hear and understand everything you say.  If is better to speak with a firm and voice which can be heard by everyone in the courtroom without difficulty.  Not all jurors have the same hearing ability.  Older jurors, attorneys and judges might have difficulty in hearing so speak loud enough for all to hear.

6.      Never speak to jurors or discuss the case outside of the courtroom. While in public places outside the courtroom unbeknownst to you there may be jurors present who are part of the jury in which you will be testifying.  Accordingly, for that reason you are never permitted to discuss the case with anyone, including the attorneys unless you are in a private secured location.. Remember, too, that jurors may have an opportunity to observe you outside the courtroom. If you see a juror, you are not allowed to speak to the juror, even to say hello.

7.      Also conduct yourself in a dignified and respectful manner. From the moment that you enter the courtroom or courthouse, your behavior must be consistent with the, and appropriate to the seriousness of the proceedings. When you are called into court for any reason, be serious and avoid saying anything about the case until you are actually on the witness stand. Also, do not read in the courtroom, unless asked to do so by the judge or the attorneys.

8.      Never exaggerate or guess in your testimony. Don't make overly broad statements that you may have to correct. Be particularly careful in responding to a question that begins, "Wouldn't you agree that...?" The explanation should be in your own words. Do not allow an attorney to put words in your mouth. Give positive, definite answers when at all possible. Avoid saying "I think," "I believe," or "In my opinion." If you do not remember certain details, it is best to say that you don't remember. If you don't understand the question, say so. Don't make up an answer.

9.      Expect that after you give your testimony you will be subject to cross –examination.   In every criminal case both sides have a chance to question every witness.  Never underestimate the power of the skill of a criminal attorney in cross-examination.  Lawyers you practice criminal law, both defense and prosecution, are highly skilled in the art of cross-examination.  Everything that you say on direct will be subject to cross-examination.  If you lied, or gave half-truths, mistaken, or gave prior inconsistent statements the skilled attorney who is trained in cross-examination will often expose your direct testimony as not believable.  Remember questions asked by both sides have the same goal - to find out what is true.  Always remember that the purpose of cross-examination is to raise doubts about the accuracy of your testimony. If you feel you are being doubted in cross-examination, remember that to raise doubt is the defense counsel's job. Try not to take questions personally or be upset by an attorney's questions. Always be courteous, even if the lawyer questioning you appears discourteous. A witness who is angry or upset may appear to be less than objective. Do not appear to be a “smart ass” or "wise guy" or you will lose the respect of the judge and the jury.

10.  Jurors are ordinary people, just like you. Remember it is the jury that you are speaking to, therefore, always look at the attorney asking the question, but turn to the jury and speak to them when you are giving your response.  They want to see your voice and see that you are looking them in the eye when you answer the questions. Although you are responding to the questions of a lawyer, remember that the questions and answers are really for the jury to hear because they will decide the case and not the lawyers.

11.  Listen first, think and answer.  Always listen carefully before you speak.  The brain works like this, you listen with the ear, you process with the brain and you speak with your mouth.  If you do not follow that order you will be a terrible witness.  Before you speak you must understand the question (have it repeated, if necessary), then give a thoughtful, considered answer. Do not give an answer without thinking about your answer. This is not a race.  Although answers should not be rushed, neither should there be an unnaturally long pause between the question and the answer since a long pause might give the judge and jury the impression that you are making up a response and not telling the truth.

12.  Answer the questions verbally the court reporter or microphone cannot record nods of the head. Do not nod your head for a "yes" or "no" answer. Speak out loud, so that the court reporter can hear the answer. For the same reason, try to avoid words like "yah," "nope," and "uh-huh."

13.  Answer only the questions asked and never volunteer information. Do not volunteer information which has not actually been asked of you. If you don't understand the question asked by one of the attorneys, ask the attorney to repeat or rephrase the question so that you understand exactly what is being asked.

14.  Always testify to the facts. A witness unless he or she is an expert witness can only testify to the facts, opinions of fact witnesses are never permitted.  Opinions of witnesses as to character are sometimes allowed.  The judge and the jury are interested in the facts that you have observed or about which you have personal knowledge. Therefore, don't give your conclusions and opinions, and don't state what someone else told you, unless you are specifically asked, and the judge approves it.  Hearsay is generally not permitted of any witness unless the judge and the attorneys agree that it is permissible under the rules of evidence.

15.  Mistakes happen sometimes happen, if you do make a mistake during your testimony correct it as soon as possible.  If you make a mistake with one of your answers do not wait for the attorney to ask you a question to correct it.  Simply correct it before you answer the next question posed.  Remember iI this happens to you, don't get flustered. Just explain honestly whey you were mistaken. The jury understands that people make honest mistakes, and will appreciate that you corrected it before you were cross-examined on it.

16.  Follow the judge's instructions at all times, and if there is an object immediately stop your response. Stop instantly when the judge interrupts you, or when an attorney objects to a question, and wait for the judge to tell you to continue.

17.  Don't start to answer a question until the question is finished. If you haven't heard the entire question, you don't really know what you are being asked. In addition, sometimes an attorney may raise an objection to the question being asked. "Objection" is a legal term that means one of the attorneys feels you are being asked an improper kind of question. When you hear a lawyer say "objection," simply stop speaking and wait for the judge to rule on the objection. If the judge decides the question is proper, he or she will overrule the objection. If the judge decides the question is not proper, he or she will sustain the objection. You will be told either by the judge or the attorney whether to go ahead and answer the question. Sometimes the judge and attorneys will need to talk just amongst themselves. A "sidebar" is when the judge and the attorneys meet at the judge's bench to discuss various matters, including technical disputes over the Federal Rules of Evidence. They meet at the judge's bench so that the jury cannot hear their discussion.

18.  Do not talk about your testimony with other witnesses in the case.  In all cases the judge will impose a sequestration order.  That means that you are never permitted to talk about your testimony with other witnesses in the case.  Accordingly, after a witness has testified in court, he or she should never tell other witnesses what was said during the testimony until after the case is over. Do not ask other witnesses about their testimony, and do not volunteer information about your own. Sometimes an attorney may ask if you have talked to anybody about the case. It is perfectly proper for you to have talked to people before you testified, such as the prosecutor or your family or friends, and you should respond truthfully to this question.

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

Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Streetr

Elizabeth (Union County), New Jersey 07207

(908) 354-7006

Promises by Law Enforcement for Leniency Leads to a Remand for Evidentiary Hearing.

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

State v. Carl Hreha, New Jersey Supreme Court, decided May 15, 2014.

Defendant, Carl Hreha, asserted that he waived his Miranda rights and confessed to a crime because the arresting State Police detectives had made promises of leniency to him, thus making his confession not knowingly or voluntary.

Specifically, the officers had promised lenient treatment in exchange for his confession. It was alleged that promises had included that he would not be handcuffed when he was removed from the Hughes Justice Complex, would not be jailed for the week-end, would be admitted to PTI, and would not lose his job with the Attorney General’s Office.

Under New Jersey law, promises of leniency are not per se unlawful, and do not render a subsequent confession involuntary, but such promises under the totality of the circumstances may render such a confession involuntary, and hence, inadmissible.  In other words, based on the promises made, and other factors, the trial court can determine that the confession was not knowingly and voluntary.

It is well settled however, that before any suspect under custody can be questioned, that the suspect be advised of his Miranda Rights.  However, once a defendant has been so advised, the defendant may waive his or her Miranda rights and confess, but that waiver must be “voluntary, knowing, and intelligent.”

In New Jersey, the State shoulders the burden of proving

beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant’s confession was

actually volunteered and that the police did not overbear

the will of the defendant. See, State v. Galloway, 133

N.J. 631, 654 (1993). Determining whether the State has met that burden requires a court to assess “the totality of the circumstances, including both the characteristics of the defendant and the nature of the interrogation.”

Although not a bright line rule, after a 104 hearing, the trial court can conclude that a defendant’s confession was involuntary if the interrogating officers extended a promise so enticing as to induce that confession. See, State v. Fletcher, 380 N.J. Super. 80, 89 (App. Div. 2005)

In the Hreha case it was determined that the trial court improperly gave undue weight to the credibility of the detective and mis-characterized the testimony of the State police detective.

The Supreme Court took issue with the fact that the trial court mis-characterized the testimony provided by the detective.   The trial court determined that the detective’s testimony directly contradicted defendant’s version of events, and the trial court chose to credit the detective’s testimony over defendant. However, the detective only testimony regarding such promises was provided in response to questions by defense counsel during cross-examination. Instead of denying that the officers had extended any such promises, he merely asserted that he could not recollect whether any promises had been made.

Further, the Supreme Court took issue with the trial court explained that defendant’s audio-recorded statement included no mention of any promises of leniency, and defendant denied being subjected to coercion or 21 threats. That statement, however, captured only eight minutes of a lengthy interrogation; defendant alleges that he was offered leniency long before he provided the recorded statement. Moreover, although defendant twice denied having been coerced or threatened, the officers did not ask whether he had been offered leniency in exchange for his confession.

Based on the foregoing the Supreme Court remanded the case back to a new judge to determine whether the facts warrant a suppression of the confession.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth (Union County), New Jersey

(909) 354-7006

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney with 24-years experience in defending people accused of crimes in Union, Essex, Bergen, Hudson, Middlesex, Monmouth, Ocean, Somerset Passaic, Warren, Camden, Atlantic Counties.

New Jersey Criminal Defense Lawyer Client Recommendation

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr. CriminalDefenseNJ.com

All attorneys appreciate letters from clients attesting to the Attorney’s skill and dedication. Enclosed is a letter of recommendation which my client wished me to publish as a token of his appreciate to me for the work that was accomplished on the criminal charges which were unfairly charged against him.

"I would highly recommend Attorney Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., to anyone in need of a New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney.
Mr. Sanzone through his honesty, high level of skill, dedication and experience in the field of criminal defense, has saved me not once, but twice.
There is no doubt in my mind that no other attorney would have been able to achieve the results which he obtained for me in having numerous criminal charges against me dismissed.
Lastly his fees are fair and modest for an attorney of his skill and repudiation and I was very lucky in finding him when I needed a good criminal attorney.
Because of Mr. Sanzone’s skill efforts and dedication I can go on with my life knowing that I have received a second chance.
You were a blessing to me, God Bless you and your work."

/S Steven Degani
Steven Degani
Dated: May 6, 2014 

Quote of the Day:  "All paths of glory but lead to the grave."
Thomas Gray

New Jersey Supreme Court Rules that When You Move from Your Home or Apartment Make Sure that You Remove Your Illegal Drugs

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

In the recent New Jersey Supreme Court case, State v. Hinton, the court ruled that when a tenant is evicted or moves permanently from their apartment that the tenant no longer has any reasonable expectation of privacy.

In this case Mr. Hinton was legally removed from his apartment based on a warrant of removal.  When the court officer arrived to change the locks and do a safety inspection it was discovered that Mr. Hinton had left his stash of heroin and cash in his bedroom.  Upon discovering this, the court officer notified the local police you entered the apartment without a warrant. 

Although the Appellate Division suppressed the drugs, on the basis that the police violated the defendant’s reasonable expectation of privacy, the Supreme Court reversed holding that the tenant no longer had this privacy right.

Although on its face this case appears to be an innocuous decision limited to the facts; it appears, however, that this case is of concern to the defense bar.  This is the first case in many years which refused to follow the automatic standing rule with all personal property.

Under Governor Christi’s Supreme Court appointment, the court is becoming more conservative and a clear shift in the slow evisceration of the constitutional protections previously afforded defendants in this state.

Quote of the Day: “There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”  President James Madison

Law Office of Vincent J.Sanzone, Jr.

Elizabeth (Union County) New Jersey

(908) 354-7006

NJ Criminal Defense Attorney, Newark Criminal Attorneys, Elizabeth Criminal Attorneys, Hudson County Criminal Attorneys, Middlesex County Criminal Lawyers, Ocean and Monmouth Criminal Lawyers.

New Jersey Supreme Court Takes Step Backwards In Protection of the Accused Right to Effective Assistance of Counsel.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

In State v. Miller, the New Jersey Supreme Court took a step backwards in defense of the accused right to effective assistance of counsel by affirming a conviction in which the public defender, on the day of trial, met the defendant-client.

The Supreme Court in a tortuous ruling held that because this was “a simple case”, for whatever that means, because no case in which the defendant is facing state prison sentence is simple, that it was not ineffective for the public defender not to have discussed the case prior to the trial date.  This decision is amazingly naive to the realities of a criminal trial.  How could a criminal defense attorney competently defend a defendant without knowing the facts of the case, as told by the defendant?  How would the attorney know which witnesses needed to be subpoaned?  How would the attorney know what strategy to use?  How would the attorney know what motions needed to be filed?  How would the attorney know anything about the client’s personal history, for example, possible affirmative defense, insanity, intoxication, self-defense, etc? 

In fact, this was not a simple case for the defendant because he was sentenced to 5-years in state prison after h is conviction.  In this decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision to move the trial calendar at the expense of the defendant’s constitutional rights guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution.  Every defendant, rich or poor, is entitled to vigorous and competent legal representation.  This is a sad day for the rights of the accused in New Jersey.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.www.criminaldefensenj.com

Elizabeth, New Jersey

(908) 354-7006

NJ Criminal Lawyer, NJ Criminal Defense Attorney, Jersey City Criminal Lawyers, Union County Criminal Lawyers, Essex County Criminal Lawyers, Hudson County Criminal Attorneys, Bayonne, Elizabeth, Hackensack, New Brunswick, Newark, Patterson, Morristown, Toms River, Freehold, Somerville, Passaic, East Orange, Orange, Irvington, Bayonne, Jersey City, Union City, North Bergen, Harrison, West Orange, Union, Clark

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

Tel.     (908) 354-7006

Cell     (201) 240-5716

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

The Ten Commandments as to Why You Should Remain Silent When Questioned By a Law Enforcement Officer

1.              It is only until recent times under western civilization in which someone had the right to remain silent.  Throughout history people confronted by the police were tortured until they confessed (even today in some countries, China, Iran, North Korea, among others) The constitution of the United States affords that scared privilege of remaining silent without torture, why give up that right.

2.              When police decide to question you that usually means they do not have enough evidence to arrest or charge you.  If they have sufficient probable cause for an arrest or charge most often they will just take you into custody.  If they start to ask you questions first that usually means that they do not have enough evidence and they are asking you to convict yourself out of your own mouth.

3.              Under federal law giving a wrong, false, or misleading answer to a federal agent in of itself is a crime.

4.              When someone starts talking they usually get carried away with themselves, get careless, become forgetful, and might even say something that might harm themselves.  In other words, false confessions are more common than we might think.  Even with an intelligent suspect under questioning by an aggressive police officer, there is a chance that an innocent suspect might say something that makes them sound guilty.

5.              Cops are trained to dominant the conversation during an interrogation, and if you begin talking and telling your side of the story, which they disagree with, they will cut you off, and not allow to speak about your innocence’s.  So in other words as long as you are talking about your guilt you are free to speak, when you speak about being innocent you will be ignored, interrupted and cut off.

6.              Words and the meaning of words are powerful tools.  Even when you give a confession in which you assert your innocence’s, the law enforcement officer taking down your statement will usually not give a word for word interpretation of what you are saying, but his opinion of what you are saying, which of course, will make you sound guilty, or hiding something.  Words are powerful and will bite you in the butt at trial or with a motion.

7.              Don’t fall for the bait that only innocent people remain silent, or the second bait trap that this is your time to give you side of the story.  When it is time to give your side of the story it will be at trial, or after speaking with your attorney. If you want to give your side of the story it will be on your terms not on the terms of aggressive interrogators on their turf and on their terms.  For mothers, don’t fool for the trap that the cop will call DYFS and have your children taken away if you don’t talk.  It is illegal for them to say that, but they use it all the time.

8.              If you are under arrest it is for a reason. After handling thousands of criminal cases for 23 years I never met a suspect that was able to talk him or her out of being arrested, charged and detained, by giving a statement.  In fact, it is usually the other way around, someone you enters the police station through the front door innocent without the police having any probable cause for an arrest, leave the back door in cuffs because of their big mouth.  Don’t be fool for the trick that we are looking to get your side of the story so that you can go home.

9.              Our law provides that anyone subject to police questioning has the right to consult a NJ Criminal Defense lawyer prior to questioning.  If you speak first, without consulting a lawyer, the damage might have already been done, and there might be very little the criminal defense attorney can do after the fact.

10.         Lastly, as all fishermen know, “I fish doesn’t get caught until it opens its mouth.”

I hope you have found my insights helpful and of course, I wish you good luck, and that justice be done with your not guilty verdict.

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

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

Office:  (908) 354-7006

Cell:    (201) 240-5716

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Dated: January 1, 2013

“If you want peace work for justice.” Pope John Paul, I

Newark Criminal Defense Attorneys, Elizabeth Criminal Defense Attorneys, Jersey City Criminal Lawyers, Bayonne Criminal Lawyers, Hackensack Criminal Lawyers, Bergen County Criminal Attorneys, NJ Criminal Lawyers, NJ Criminal Lawyers