Showing posts with label NJ Criminal Lawyers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NJ Criminal Lawyers. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 6, 2014
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
Monday, April 28, 2014
Jail Credits-Department of Corrections Failure to Lodge Detainer for Out-of-Court Sentence for New Jersey Sentence
The New Jersey Department
of Corrections routinely decides that all out-of-court sentences that are being
served out-of-state must run consecutive unless ordered otherwise by the
courts.
Accordingly, when a
defendant is release from custody from an out of state sentence the defendant
will be brought back to New Jersey
to start or continue serving his New
Jersey sentence.
However, the law in New
Jersey is to the contrary. In New
Jersey it is not the New Jersey
Department of Corrections (DOC)
that can make that decision but the New Jersey Superior Court which can only
determine whether out of state sentence is to run concurrent or consecutive to
a New Jersey Sentence.
In a recent case a
defendant was released by the Department of Corrections of Pennsylvania
and was free for six months. After six
months the defendant was picked up on a warrant in which he was brought back to
New Jersey
to continue his New Jersey
sentence in which he escaped.
The defendant brought a
motion to compel the DOC
to give him credit for the six months in which he was free because the DOC
failed to properly lodge a detainer while the defendant was in custody in Pennsylvania. In the alternative the defendant requesting
that his entire Pennsylvania
sentence run concurrent to his New
Jersey sentences. The Superior Court in Union County
ruled that the defendant was entitled to the six months that the defendant was
free since New Jersey
filed to properly lodge the detainer while the defendant was in custody in Pennsylvania.
The controlling case with
his issue is Breeden v. New Jersey Department of Corrections, 132 N.J.
457 (1993), which held that issues of comity between states as to whether
sentences should run concurrent or consecutive must be decided by the original New
Jersey sentencing court. Breeden v. New
Jersey, 132 N.J. at 459. Further, the time limits set forth in R.
3:21-10
do not apply for the relief the Defendant seeks. Breeden v. New
Jersey, 132 N.J. at 470; See,
Pressler & Verniero, 2014 N.J. Court Rules, Comment 3:21-10(2.5). As the court in Breeden held under no
circumstances shall the New Jersey Department of Corrections (“DOC”)
decide whether a sentence is concurrent or consecutive. Breeden v. New
Jersey, 132 N.J. at 469
The defendant argued in
his motion that the defendant is entitled to jail credit for the time served
under the Pennsylvania
sentence under the general principals of comity. Further, the sentence in Pennsylvania
served the penal interest of New
Jersey.
In Clark v. Floyd,
80 F.3d 371 (9th Cir. 1996), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held
on an appeal from a denial of the defendant’s writ of habeas corpus that the defendant was entitled to jail credit from
the time that the defendant was at
large after being
erroneously released by state officials after his completion of his sentence. This rational has been followed in the Third
Circuit in Vega v. United States, 493 F.3d 310 (3rd. Cir.
2006).
Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.
Tip of the Day: In the plea agreement write, concurrent and coterminous. Coterminous is defined as "coextensive in time or meaning." Black's Law Dictionary 374 (8th Ed. 2004). Sentences that have been ordered to be served coterminously have been understood to "coterminate" or end at the same time as the previously imposed sentence. See Joiner v. State, 625 So.2d 1173 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993)
Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.
Office No. (908) 354-7006
Cell No. (201) 240-5716
277 North Broad Street
P.O. Box 261
Elizabeth, (Union County) N.J. 07207
Friday, December 6, 2013
Tips Strategy and Best Practices in Trying Your Criminal Case In New Jersey
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?
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
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
The Need to Keep Quiet When Questioned By Police
Although I have written
previous blogs on the need for defendants to keep quiet when being questioned
by police, I do so again.
The New Jersey Supreme
Court in a recent decision affirms that scared Fifth Amendment right when it
scolded a municipal court judge’s decision who took into account the defendant’s
silence in its decision finding the defendant guilty.
In State v. Stas,
Mr. Stas and his friend (Mr. Putz), were involved in a motor vehicle accident in
which Mr. Stas’ friend claimed he was the driver. While Putz was claiming he was the driver of
the vehicle, Stas said nothing. After
failing field sobriety tests, Putz was arrested for DWI, and Stas was charged
and arrested for allowing an intoxicated driver (Putz), drive a vehicle in
which he had custody and control over in violation of N.J.S.A.
39:4-50(a).
A joint trial was held in
which both Stas and Putz were found guilty: surprised? However, at trial, Stas said that he was the
driver of the vehicle and not Putz, and Putz stated that he had lied to the
police and was not the driver.
The municipal court judge
found that Stas was not credible because he had remained silent while Putz lied
to the police, and said nothing. Both
the law division judge in the trial de
novo, and appellate court on appeal, held that the municipal court
committed no plain error in using Stas’ silence against him.
The Supreme Court reversed
and held that every defendant-suspect has the absolutely right to remain silent
and that silence cannot be used as substantive evidence against him or her in
determining quilt. The Supreme Court
reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial.
This case is another good
example of the need for a suspect in a criminal or traffic investigation to
remain silent when being questioned by police.
It is not even necessary for the defendant to state that he wants to
speak to a lawyer or has consulted with a lawyer; it is none of the cops
business. The suspect should simply
remain silent and says that he has nothing to say at this time. As fisherman say, “A fish doesn’t get caught
until it opens its mouth.”
Law Office of Vincent J.
Sanzone, Jr.
October 2, 2012
P.O.
Box 261
277
North Broad Street
Elizabeth, New
Jersey 07207
Office Phone No. (908)
354-7006
Cell Phone No. (201) 240-5716
Elizabeth Criminal Defense
Attorney, Union County Criminal Defense Lawyers, Newark Criminal Defense Lawyers,
Newark Criminal Attorneys, Essex County Best Criminal Lawyers, Hudson County
Best Criminal Lawyers, Best NJ Trial Attorneys, Union County Defense Lawyers,
Best Union County Criminal Lawyers, Bayonne Criminal Attorneys, Elizabeth
Criminal Lawyers, Hackensack Criminal Attorneys, Best Bergen County Criminal
Lawyers, NJ Super Criminal Defense Lawyers, NJ Super Criminal Lawyers, Hudson
County Criminal Lawyers
Thursday, October 6, 2011
The Increasing Power of State and Federal Prosecutors.
The balance of powers between our legislative, executive and judicial branches of government is increasingly shifting to the power of the executive branch of government. This is increasingly evident in the power of the executive branch when it comes to criminal law. Increasing our legislative elective officials who continue to pander to themselves in the hope of getting re-elected continue to pass criminal laws which continue to give more and more power to prosecutorial authorities, which is part of the executive branch.
In New Jersey for example, the county prosecutors, through the largess of our elected officials, wheel tremendous amount of power in almost every aspect of criminal prosecution and procedure.
Because of these powers the judicial branch of government, the role of our judges in the system is increasingly abrogated. Accordingly, to a large extend the hands of the judges to dispense justice is thwarted by the decisions of the prosecutors. Many legal scholars agree that under the current system prosecutors have more power than the judges themselves.
For example in New Jersey the decision to grant or deny a defendant’s admission into the pre-trial intervention program exclusively rests with the prosecutor. Under New Jersey State law unless the defendant can prove that the prosecutor abused its discretion in denying admission (and almost impossible burden), the judge hearing an appeal for denial of admission cannot overturn the prosecutors decision.
Even more frightening is the power of the prosecution to extract guilty pleas from defendants who for many reasons should be having their cases decided by an impartial jury. However, because of legislatures desire to pass more and more get tough on crime laws, such as mandatory sentencing, extended terms, eighty-five percent period of parole disqualification, and other harsher penalties, many defendants have no choice but to plead to a crime which they have not committed, because the risk of losing a trial is just to great. The implicate warning to defendants; if you dare to go to trial and lose, you will pay the consequences.
In New Jersey like most States this is referred to as the “trial penalty”, an unspoken word in the criminal justice system which defendants understand all to frequently. If you have the nerve to go to trial and lose you will receive the trial penalty which is the high costs of going to trial and lose.
It is no secret that legislatures starved of money to fuel the criminal justice costs are quick to make it easy for prosecutors to obtain convictions without the costs of having defendants to go to trial. In affect it matters little if the person charged with a crime is innocent or guilty. What matters instead and is often the most controlling and deciding factor; does the defendant have the courage to spend many years in prison to prove their innocence, when they can receive a probationary term or flat sentence of a few years?
In many cases because of mandatory extended term sentences an innocent defendant will spend many decades or life imprisonment for relatively minor offenses, or more serious crimes, if they opt to go to trial, as opposed to taking a plea of a few years.
These mandatory sentences are universally imposed on defendants charged with offenses involving handguns, drugs, repeat offenders, and intent of distribution near a school zone, park, or public housing complex.
The danger in a democracy which relies upon the balance of powers to check the tyranny from any one branch of government is that increasingly more and more power is given to prosecutors which often lead to abuse, unfairness, and arbitrary decisions.
In New Jersey jurors are told during the trial that they are to decide guilt or innocence’s, and it is the judge that decides the sentence. However, in reality that is not true, because in many respects it was the prosecutor and legislative branch that decided the sentence long before the trial even started. Accordingly, in New Jersey jurors should be told of these mandatory minimum sentences that the defendant faces with a verdict of guilty.
Another way that prosecutors unfairly extract pleas in New Jersey is to overcharge the defendant and to indict him or her on charges which simply do not fit the facts of the crime, in other words over charge the defendant with more serious crimes. For example charging a defendant with intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance when the defendant is only carrying a few grams of the substances.
Because of this imbalance in the criminal justice system in New Jersey fever and fever defendants risk the uncertainty of a trial. New Jersey like most states do not publish the percentage of felony cases that go to trial but according to nine States that publish such information only one in forty cases go to trial. In the federal system it is even less only three percent of the criminally accused decided to go to trial. The United States Bureau of Justice Statistics found that between the years 1986 to 2006 the ratio between pleas and trials doubled. This is no surprise because last year there was only one acquittal for every 212 guilty pleas and trials in federal court. Thirty years ago there was one acquittal for every 22 cases. There is no doubt that with those numbers that many innocent federal defendants are opting for a plea.
Because of these abuses prosecutors are quick to believe the police officers who initially investigate and bring and make the arrests. Because of this power, that is, everything they say will be believed by the prosecutor, errant law enforcement officers are more likely to be involved in arrests of innocent people or be engaged in willful police misconduct and abuse.
It is time that our legislative elected officials stop pandering to themselves and their reelection hopes and start reining in the power of the executive branch and allowing the courts and judges to dispense justice. This unfair imbalance of power is also taking a toll on many criminal defense attorneys, who must languish and suffer with their clients over the decision as to whether or not to take a plea from a defendant which the attorney might seriously and honestly believe is innocent, but cannot afford the risks of going to trial.
Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.
Dated: October 5, 2011
NJ criminal lawyer, NJ criminal defense attorney, NJ criminal sentencing, NJ plea bargaining, Union county criminal lawyers, nj criminal attorneys, essex county nj criminal lawyers
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Mistaken Identification and Rush To Judgment
On December 26, 1862 the Dakota Indian named We-Chank-Washta-don-pee, or also known as “Chaska”, was sentenced to death by a military court of justice. Prior to the execution of sentence President Abraham Lincoln pardoned Chaska. However, his jailers confused him with another Dakota Indian and hanged him anyway. Of course everyone would agree that this was a tragic example of mistaken identification.
To often in the rush to close a case and go to the next open case the police will make a prudential judgment as to the guilt of a suspect without any evidence other than a hunch.
In a recent case that came to my office this week, a prior arrest free African-American female college student was accused of stealing a pocket book from the doctor’s office in which she had been sent for an IME by an insurance company. Inside the pocket book were numerous credit cards and other identifying information.
The same day the pocket book was stolen, a Black female was observed attempting to purchase a large amount of expensive merchandise at the Short Hills Mall with the stolen credit cards. Having nothing to go on but a grainy video of this individual purchasing these items with the stolen credit cards, the police decided to charge this college student on a hunch.
The college student is innocent and it appears that the police did nothing to really attempt to solve this crime and catch the real perpetrator of the crime. If the cops in this case had engaged in real honest police work they would have learned quickly that the college student was innocent and should never have been charged. Clearly this is a case of mistaken identity.
Again a rush to judgment on a hunch is unethical, unfair and dishonest and does nothing in the pursuit of justice. Unfortunately, this type of shoddy police work is more the rule than the exception and causes me great concern as a criminal defense lawyer in New Jersey.
As Pope John Paul I was quoted as saying, “If you want peace work for Justice.”
Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.
Elizabeth, New Jersey
(908) 354-7006
Dated: June 22, 2011
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
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
Dated: June 7, 2011
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Star Ledger Feature Story on the “Teflon Tenant”, Mark Newton
May 15, 2011, the Star Ledger did their Sunday first page cover story on the non-attorney, Mark Newton, of Newark, New Jersey, who pro se, has waged hundreds of court battles against landlords and others over the last 19 years. Mr. Newton has availed himself to every legal procedure and technique to avoid paying rent, and has costs landlords through Essex County hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees trying to defend themselves against these frivolous lawsuits and complaints.
Attorney Sanzone successfully defended one landlord in Newark Municipal Court who was falsely charged by Newton. As Attorney Sanzone was quoted in the Star Ledger today:
“He’ll use every legal maneuver that he can possibly think of to try and tie up a case until the litigants that are against him give up … Vincent Sanzone who faced Newton in a case involving a landlord. He has a lot of time and resources to tie people up … This guy is the Teflon tenant, said Sanzone the Attorney who represented Young on the criminal charges.”
For a full text of the interesting article go to:
If you are faced with criminal charges and want further information regarding the legal services of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., go to Criminaldefensenj.com
Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.
277 North Broad Street
Elizabeth, N.J. 07207
(908) 354-7006
YourCivilRights@gmail.com
Friday, April 29, 2011
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
Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.
277 North Broad Street
P.O. Box 261
Elizabeth, N.J. 07207
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)