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

Police Dispatcher Misidentifying Detained Suspect Calls for the Suppression of Evidence from the Wrongly Arrested Suspect

On April 26, 2011 the New Jersey Supreme Court in State v. Handy suppressed narcotics seized from a defendant who was wrongly identified by a police dispatcher has having an open warrant.

The facts of the case were that a Millville Police Officer requested from the police dispatcher the confirmation of identities of a number of individuals detained and not possessing any identification.  The police dispatcher advised the officer that Mr. Handy had an open warrant and Mr. Handy was arrested.  A search incident to the arrest revealed that Mr. Handy was in possession of CDS and was charged with that offense.  The dispatcher advised the officer that Mr. Handy had a warrant notwithstanding that Mr. Handy had given the officer his date of birth which was different than the one listed on the warrant.

The Supreme Court reversed the conviction holding that the Appellate Division erred in holding that the officer acted reasonably and good faith.  This case by the Supreme Court for the first time holds that a police dispatcher is an integral part of law enforcement and that errors made by a police dispatcher either intentionally or negligently will be visited upon the police officer relying on such erroneous information.  Accordingly, such an arrest is an illegal arrest and any evidence seized by such erroneous information, leading to an illegal arrest, will be suppressed.

For more information regarding the suppression of contraband in any criminal case in New Jersey you are invited to consult the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., at CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

(908) 354-7006

Dated: May 24, 2011

New Jersey Victims of Crime Compensation Office and the Defendant’s Right to Know.

The New Jersey Victims of Crime Compensation Office pays millions of dollars a year to victims and sometimes fraudulent victims who claimed that they have been injured by defendants.

The VCCO pays a maximum claim of $25,000.00 for various bills and expenses incurred by a crime victim, such as medical expenses, child care, and loss of earnings, and another possible $35,000.00 for rehabilitative services for victims claiming catastrophic injuries. In New Jersey this amounted to approximately 9.5 million in 2010.

The New Jersey Rules of Criminal Procedure require that every presentence report state the amount that the alleged victim has been paid from the VCCO.

N.J.S.A. 2C:44-6(3) provides that every presentence report shall include a report on any compensation paid by the VCCO, in my practice of criminal law for over 21 years, not one presentence report has contained that mandatory information.

The question arises as to why the VCCO payment or application information is not automatically made discoverable to the defense for purposes of cross-examination as to a possible motive in why the alleged victim made the charges against the defendant?

Therefore, in every applicable case it is mandatory that defense counsel request the information through a court order, if the prosecuting attorney is not willing to provide that information voluntarily. Even if the information is not helpful during trial, it nevertheless needs to be disclosed on the presentence report.

The criminal defense attorney who is involved in such a case and suspects that the victim might be falsely pursing the charges for a monetary gain must be diligent in being aware of that issue, for purposes of impeaching the credibility of the alleged victim.

Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., has been involved in many criminal cases in which the credibility of the alleged victim revolved around a monetary motive for bring the false charges against the defendant. In a number of cases this information led to the ultimate dismissal of the charges by the prosecutor’s office, through pretrial disposition, or after a verdict of acquittal by the jury.

Sanzone Firm

Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

YourCivilRights@gmail.com

(908) 354-7006