No Expungement for Endangering Convictions in New Jersey (sexual or non-sexual convictions).

BAD NEWS FOR PERSONS CONVICTED OF ENDANGERINNG CHARGES OF A SEXUAL OR NON-SEXUAL NATURE.

In the recent decision, State of New Jersey v. N.T. (December 4, 2019), the Appellate Division in a decision affirmed the denial of a petitioner seeking an expungement for an endangering the welfare of a child (Title 9, non-sexual conviction).  The denial of an expungement is pursuant to statute, and until the New Jersey legislature amends the law, persons convicted of these offenses are barred from obtaining an expungment of the conviction.

The decision is troubling because it also bars the expungement of a non-sexual endangering conviction (Title 9), as well as sexual endangering convictions.  In this case the defendant was intoxicated on the beach and went into the water where she was having trouble in the water because of her intoxication.  The prosecutor charged her with endangering because her intoxication and her inability to swim without assistance, caused her “child distress.”  Hence, the basis of the endangering charge. (Give me a break what a frivolous charge by the county prosecutor).

The defendant entered the drug court program which allows expungement of arrest and conviction after successful graduation of the program, the trial court denied the expungement which was affirmed by the appellate court in this decision.

This criminal law information was provided as a public service by the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.  A competent and experiences New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney and trial lawyer with proven results for dismissals and acquittals, and not guilty verdicts.  Providing best practices legal defense and serving all counties in federal, state and municipal court.  Elizabeth, Newark, Jersey City, New Brunswick, Paterson, Hackensack, Trenton, Toms River, Freehold, Somerville, Mount Holly.

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

(908) 354-7006

criminaldefensenj.com

YourCivilRights@gmail.com

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

Defending the Intent to Distribute CDS Charge in New Jersey Superior Court

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

There is a term in Latin, Ipse Dixit, which means, “He, himself, said it.”  In essence describes a statement made by person in so-called authority, which is arbitrary and dogmatic and has no basis in fact or reality other than because the person who said it says so.  In other words the statement is a bare assertion fallacy.

Intent to distribute experts who testify for the prosecution in intent to distribute cases is in essence nothing more than a ipse dixit witness. 

These witnesses give their personal opinion testimony in the form of a hypothetical answer based on a hypothetical question, which is based on the facts of the case.

To begin with they are giving opinions based on nothing more than their personal opinions based on the discovery in the case posed in a hypothetical question.  Of course common sense tells us that no person can say what the intent of someone else is, or predict what someone else will do, i.e., whether they possessed the CDS with intent to distribute or possessed the CDS for personal use.  However, our Supreme Court in New Jersey says that this bare assertion fallacy is permissible in New Jersey.  The courts attempt to get around this ipse dixit logical fallacy by arguing that the average juror is unable to use his or her common sense and hence a police officer must testify that for example two pounds of marijuana was possessed not for personal use but with intent to distribute. 

Why this testimony has no basis in logic or reason is simple.  First, and foremost, it is the State or Government in a federal CDS criminal case, that most prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person in possession of the CDS possessed it with intent to distribute.  If the State cannot prove it beyond a reasonable doubt with real, valid and convincing evidence, there must be a not guilty verdict and the jury must come back with a verdict of guilt for possession only.  Second, most juries are sophisticated enough to draw the proper inferences based on all the real evidence in the case whether the person possessing that amount of marijuana possessed same for personal use or with intent to distribute. Third, what you [police expert witness] is really saying in this hypothetical example is that it could have been possessed with intent to distribute, not that it was possessed with intent to distribute?

It is unfair to allow the State or Government to supplement their lack of real evidence in these types of possession cases with phony ipse dixit testimony and New Jersey criminal defense attorneys must continue to fight to keep this evidence out and through cross-examination and again in summations argue that this testimony is nothing more than bare assertion fallacy testimony.

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

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth (Union County), New Jersey 07207

(908) 354-7006

Dated: December 15, 2013

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Monmouth, Essex, Union, Middlesex, Bergen, Hudson, Somerset County Criminal Defense Attorney, NJ Criminal Lawyers, NJ Criminal Defense Lawyers, Attorneys

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

Why The System Is Not Even Close To Fair Especially Fair For the Middle Class

Why Do Criminal Defendants with lots of Money usually win their entire case outright, or obtain a very favorable result? Money. I know this is not a novel thought, but let's look at some of the reasons why the money works. Fallacy number one is that the defendant who has money hires the best lawyer. Not so, most of the "marquee" criminal defense lawyers who command the big bucks, usually know less law, and are often ineffective trial litigators with little passion and zeal for their client. But if that is so, why do they sometimes achieve more favorable results than average attorney? The answer is, support staff, investigators, expert witnesses, and their ability to work full time and many hours on the client's case.

You see, very few working middle class defendants, who earn a living and do not qualify for the services of the public defender, and their ancillary services, such as expert witnesses, investigators, etc. , can afford to hire a lawyer who will provide them with a competent vigorous defense. You see, most middle class defendants shop around for the cheapest lawyer, negotiating like they are shopping for a new or used automobile. Why because they do not know how the legal system works, and they do not understand the time and effort it takes for a criminal defense attorney to win their acquittal. Instead they shop for the cheapest lawyer, and when that cheap lawyer gives them little or no defense, or forces them to take a plea for which they are innocent, they act surprised.

Unfortunately, the legal system works on money, and it is no different than any other fact of life. Money does buy justice, and until the system changes, beware of the cheap lawyer. Also, beware of the lawyer you guarantees, any lawyer who guarantees a victory is unethical, and the client should run away. Many clients do not understand that even with the most simple criminal trial, lasting only a few days, that a competent effective attorney must devote 30 to 40 hours of outside court trial preparation, such as preparation of opening and closing statements, the review of police reports, and the preparation of cross-examination of each potential witness for the state, as set forth in each police report. Not to mention, the review of the applicable case law and jury instruction.

Remember, in closing, for any indictable criminal charge, which requires a trial, any attorney who charges less than $10,000.00 as his retainer is not doing his client a service, but rather a disservice, because such an attorney, unless right out of law school, with no experience, can not afford to put his best efforts in time and talent in his client's trial.

Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.
Elizabeth, New Jersey

CriminalDefenseNJ.com
YourCivilRights@gmail.com