How to Defend Your Criminal Case in New Jersey Superior Criminal Courts.

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

Most people have watched the reality show, “The First 48-Hours”, in which the theme of the show is the necessity of law enforcement to solve the crime in the first 48-hours of the alleged crime.  Statistics show on average that if the crime is not solved within the first 48-hours, the chance of capturing a suspect goes down with each passing day.

The reason for this is that witnesses’ memories fade, evidence is lost or destroyed; important and essential witnesses’ disappear or cannot be found because they have left the area. 

Although not all crimes are solved within this time frame, most are.  Unfortunately, law enforcement is not always right and sometimes charges the wrong person.  Most people are not aware (more than we will admit) that a percentage of the people who are actually charged are innocent.  The rule is in law enforcement, once a person is charged with a crime, the investigation stops and the file is closed.

Just as it is important for law enforcement to attempt to get a jump on the crime within 48-hours in the attempt to solve the crime, it is even more important for an arrested individual to retain an experienced New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney to begin to conduct his own investigation to determine whether law enforcement has gotten its facts right.  Also, it is important that the suspect obtain an attorney to send/fax various evidence preservation letters to the law enforcement agencies that investigated the crime, or the place or jurisdiction where the alleged crime took place to prevent law enforcement from destroying evidence. 

For example the City of Jersey City Police Department has a policy, which is illegal and against state law, to destroy dispatcher communication audio tapes after 30-days, even when there is pending criminal case or quasi-criminal case which is evidence and relates to the case.  However, Jersey City Police Department, like many other towns and cites in New Jersey continue to violate state law and tape-over and/or destroy these audio tapes, thus making it difficult to prove that the officer lied as to what happened, e.g., motion to suppress, eluding case, etc.

Therefore, it is mandatory that someone charged with a crime or serious motor vehicle offense retain an experienced NJ Criminal Attorney to investigate and immediately put law enforcement on notice that they are not to destroy valuable evidence, evidence which often exculpates and proves that the suspect is in fact innocent.

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

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

(908) 354-7006

WHY CASEY ANTHONY WAS FOUND NOT GUILTY OF MURDERING HER DAUGHTER

The reason why Casey Anthony was found not guilty of the murder of her daughter Caylee had absolutely nothing to do with the skill or lack of skill or experience of her defense attorney.  In fact her attorney an inexperienced attorney having been admitted to the Florida Bar since 2005 made major trial errors in his defense of Ms. Anthony.  In his opening defense counsel knowing that his client would most likely never take the stand told the jury a factual scenario that the child was killed by an accident, knowing that the only way that he could prove that factual scenario was through the testimony of the defendant, Ms. Anthony, or other witnesses.  Defense counsel in his opening statement shocked veteran defense attorneys with promises that he knew he could not ever keep.  In most jury trials jurors do not forget promises made and not kept by defense attorneys and prosecutors and a jury will not hesitate to punish the respective sides for empty promises.

The reason why Ms Anthony was acquitted was for the simple reason that no reasonable jury following the law as given to them on reasonable doubt could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Anthony engaged in, or participated in the death of her daughter. 

     Under Florida law reasonable doubt is defined as:

A reasonable doubt is not a possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary or forced doubt. Such a doubt must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding conviction of guilt. On the other hand, if, after carefully considering, comparing and weighing all the evidence, there is not an abiding conviction of guilt, or, if, having a conviction, it is one which is not stable but one which wavers and vacillates, then the charge is not proved beyond every reasonable doubt and you must find the defendant not guilty because the doubt is reasonable. It is to the evidence introduced upon this trial, and to it alone, that you are to look for that proof. A reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant may arise from the evidence, conflict in the evidence or the lack of evidence.

In the Anthony case the State of Florida decided to indict Ms. Anthony on capital murder charge knowing that they had no evidence as to her guilt beyond the tenuous circumstantial facts regarding Ms. Anthony’s behavior during the period in which Caylee was missing.  The State of Florida hoped in getting a conviction of Ms. Anthony not through hard evidence but through the visceral hatred that people have when they see that a mother, who has not seen her child in thirty days, and lies about it, consoles her sorrows with drinking dancing and partying.

Unlike Florida in New Jersey the reasonable doubt jury charge and attempts to afford the defendant accused of a crime even more protection.

The prosecution must prove its case by more than a mere preponderance of the evidence, yet not necessarily to an absolute certainty.

The State has the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Some of you may have served as jurors in civil cases, where you were told that it is necessary to prove only that a fact is more likely true than not true. In criminal cases, the State’s proof must be more powerful than that. It must be beyond a reasonable doubt.

A reasonable doubt is an honest and reasonable uncertainty in your minds about the guilt of the defendant after you have given full and impartial consideration to all of the evidence. A reasonable doubt may arise from the evidence itself or from a lack of evidence. It is a doubt that a reasonable person hearing the same evidence would have.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof, for example, that leaves you firmly convinced of the defendant's guilt. In this world, we know very few things with absolute certainty. In criminal cases the law does not require proof that overcomes every possible doubt. If, based on your consideration of the evidence, you are firmly convinced that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged, you must find [him/her] guilty. If, on the other hand, you are not firmly convinced of defendant's guilt, you must give defendant the benefit of the doubt and find [him/her] not guilty.

    

The bottom line is that Casey Anthony was very lucky that she was given a jury which took the reasonable doubt standard seriously, and applied the law without passion, prejudice or hatred.  Unfortunately, and this is no secret in the criminal defense bar, most juries do not hold the State to its proofs and adhere to the reasonable doubt standard as given by the trial judge.  Yes she was only 12 good jurors away from sitting on death row.  Although most people, including myself, believed that Ms. Anthony was probably guilty, the jury in the end did the right thing.  When all is said and done, a jury of 12 reasonable people is the only protection we have against the power of the government to prosecute and take another human beings life and liberty. 

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Elizabeth, New Jersey

(908) 354-7006

Criminal Defense Attorney in New Jersey, Union County, Federal Court, Newark, N.J., Jersey City N.J., New Brunwick, N.J.

Dated: July 8, 2011

Newark’s Mayor Cory Booker and His Continued Cover-up of the Newark Police Department and His Lack of Integrity as Mayor.

Since becoming Newark’s mayor, Cory Booker has done nothing to address the continued abuse and corruption prevalent in the Newark Police Department. 

On September 9, 2010, the American Civil Liberties Union brought a federal civil rights suit against the City of Newark and its police department alleging that over a period of two-and-a-half-year officers of the Newark Police Department engaged in various forms of police misconduct such as false arrests, violence and excessive force, and shake downs and various other forms of abuse and corruption.

When the suit was filed Mayor Booker called the suit “misleading and “manipulative.”  He further said himself or through his spokespersons that the petition was “frivolous” and “filed in bad faith”, and that Newark would use every means at their disposal to get it dismissed.  Such response by the Mayor shows at a minimum, that he was either ignorant of the pervasive corruption of city police force, or engaged in a cover-up.  Such behavior, either way, is unacceptable as the mayor for our largest city in this State. 

Instead of investigating the internal affairs department to ascertain whether the ACLU suit had any merit, Booker stated on a radio talk show, “We don’t need to be taken on wild chases that suck up time and energy, and take police officers away from their mission on Internal Affairs and their mission on public safety.”  This statement of Booker shows his ignorance of the essential and important function of a police internal affairs unit.

On May 14, 2011, eight months later, when the federal government announced that it would engage in its own investigation of the Newark Police Department, Booker said that it was on board with the fed’s from day one.  In fact, Booker lied to the press when he said that he was against the ACLU lawsuit because the ACLU lawsuit did not call for a federal investigation.  In fact, if he had read the ACLU Complaint the first line reads, “The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey respectfully requests that the Special Litigation Section, acting pursuant to its authority under 42 U.S.C. § 14141, commence an investigation into the Newark, New Jersey Police Department.”

For years experienced attorneys were aware that the internal affairs division in the Newark Police Department was virtually non-existent in practice and that any grievance that reached their desk was quickly dismissed with no real integrity or investigation.  In fact it was a common practice for citizens complaining about a Newark Police Officer to be threatened by members of the internal affairs department, with arrest, or with the threat of forcing the grievant to submit to a polygraph test, a violation of the Attorney General Guidelines.

Almost without exception, however, the grievance was simply dismissed as frivolous by the I.A. unit because in every case the officer’s version of events was deemed more credible than the grievant.  Notwithstanding, that often the same cops were being complained about over and over again, no integrity tests or other types of investigations were being undertaken against the suspected cops. 

Attorney Sanzone has had first hand experience and has in federal court confronted the corruption and police misconduct of police officers for the City of Newark in his civil rights cases against the city (CriminalDefenseNJ.com).  Likewise, in criminal cases Attorney Sanzone has successfully defended defendant’s charged with false allegation by Newark Police Officers and has obtained dismissals or acquittals because of various forms of police misconduct.

The Cory Booker cover-up unfortunately is not limited to him or his city.  Unfortunately, in almost every town and city in this State, mayors, police commissions and directors have internal affairs units which are a virtual joke.  Contrary to law and public safety, these police directors’ use their internal affairs units not to protect the public from bad and corrupt cops, but rather, as a device to quash and silence citizens from making valid complaints, with the purpose to discourage and dissuade them from filing grievances and complaints against police officers and police departments in the future. 

The federal government and state attorney’s general office has a daunting task in reforming police departments, but it is clear that left to their self policing they will continue to abuse and violate citizens’ constitutional rights with impunity.  It would benefit everyone including honest and hard working police officers to weed out cops who engage in corruption and police misconduct; why it does not happened I do not know.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Elizabeth, N.J.

Dated: June 1, 2011