Choosing the Right Attorney to Handle Your Motor

Like anything else choosing the right attorney to handle your motor vehicle summons might make all the difference in the world.  Choosing an attorney with many years of experience might make the difference between a fantastic disposition of the motor vehicle charges as opposed to an adequate result.

Like all areas of the law the handling of motor vehicle summons in municipal court takes a level of experience and skill which is acquired over many years of practice. 

Attorney Sanzone has handled thousands of motor vehicle cases in his 26-years of practice and has achieved many very favorable dispositions.

Just last week for example Attorney Sanzone achieved the complete dismissal of a CDS in a motor vehicle charge and possession of CDS in municipal court, (Somerset County) after filing a motion to suppress evidence.  On the same day, in Hudson County, in other case municipal court achieved a complete dismissal of the charge of leaving the scene of the accident in which property damage was allegedly made.

In this time of attorney direct mailings it is important the client research carefully the attorney’s track record and years of experience before retaining an attorney to handle your motor vehicle case.  Like all decisions, choosing the attorney who has the lowest price might not be the smartest decision. 

Today, yes, even motor vehicle convictions can have adverse consequences on obtaining a good paying job, not to mention the collateral consequences of having a bad driving record. 

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

A criminal defense attorney in New Jersey who handles motor vehicle case in all cities and towns in New Jersey, including Bayonne, Jersey City, Kearny, and all other cities in Hudson County.

Elizabeth New Jersey Office, (908) 354-7006
Bayonne, New Jersey Office, (201) 240-5716

 

 

High School Chaperones Cannot Be Prosecuted In New Jersey For Oversees Class Trip In Which It Was Alleged That They Engaged In Sexual Contact With Students.

Prepared as a Public Service by the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., a New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney.

In a recent New Jersey Supreme Court case, State v. Sumulikoski, the court held that alleged criminal activity conducted oversees on a class trip could not be prosecuted in New Jersey.  In this case both the trial court and appellate division held that N.J.S.A. 2C:1-3(a)(1) conferred such jurisdiction.  Reversing, the Supreme Court held that because all of the alleged actions occurred oversees the proper jurisdiction, if any, should be Germany, and not New Jersey.

It is strange how this case had to be correctly decided by the Supreme Court, both the trial court and appellate division were dead wrong in holding that N.J.S.A. 2C:1-3(a)(1) conferred jurisdiction to the New Jersey courts for a crime that allegedly had been committed in Germany.  This is especially troubling because Germany's criminal laws are dis-similar to the criminal laws of New Jersey?  For example, in Germany the age for consensual sexual contact is 14-years of age, while New Jersey it is 18-years of age.  Further, the nightmare for defense counsel trying to investigate the alleged crime scene, interview witnesses, or call witnesses to testify at trial would be impossible.  All of these procedural issues would of course deny the defendant a fair trial.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said that he did not do justice, he just did the law.  Isn't that the real problem with our legal system.  Often law and justice work at cross-purposes, one thing has nothing to do with the other.  Law without authentic justice is a game, charade or a tool for social injustice for the poor and marginalized. 

If you have been charged with a sexual crime in Essex, Union, Hudson, Somerset, Morris, Ocean, and Monmouth County you must consult an experienced criminal defense attorney.

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

Attorney and Counselor of Law for the Criminal Defense

277 North Broad Street

P.O. Box 261

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

(908) 354-7006

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Quote of the Day:  “For every wise owl you may expect a few cuckoos.” Rev. George William Rutler

The Best Thing to Do If You Are Contacted By the Police to Discus a Criminal Matter.

Prepared by the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., a New Jersey criminal defense attorney.

Most people would be shocked at the number of people who voluntarily speak to the police when confronted about their possible involvement in a disorderly person’s offense, traffic offense or crime.

Most people are under the false impression that they can talk their way out of being charged or arrested for a crime which they may or may not have committed.

The theory which most people hold, is that their explanation, or side of the story, will convince law enforcement that they are mistaken.  Whether or not, this is true, means little to the questioning officer.  In other words, the suspect being questioned never knows, or is never told by the police officer, whether the suspect is the person who they believe committed the crime, and convinced of the suspect’s guilt.  In that case, no matter what he or she says, he or she will be arrested after he or she speaks.  Stated differently, the interrogating officer holds all the playing cards and the officer will not reveal his cards, or what he is thinking.  Most suspects erroneously believe that by speaking to the officer that the officer will reveal his thoughts and evidence against him.  This is simply false, and the experienced interrogating police officer understands this.  Therefore, the suspect being interrogated will gain absolutely nothing by presenting the suspect’s side of the story.

Of course, it goes without saying, but some stupid suspects believe that they can male it up as they go along.  Not only is this a crime under federal law, intentionally lying to a federal law enforcement is a federal crime, but stupid because most suspects do not have a photographic memory and will not remember what facts they told 10-minutes prior, if asked the same question differently again.

In summary the best way to handle any questioning by law enforcement is to simply state to any law enforcement office that seeks information from you regarding your possible involvement in a crime, disorderly person’s offense or serious traffic infraction is the following:  “At this time I have decided to consult with my criminal defense attorney before I proceed further with any further questions.” 

In summary the best practice when faced with an allegation by law enforcement is to assert your constitutional right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This constitutional right is yours, do not give it away.  For further information on criminal defense in New Jersey go to: criminaldefensenj.com

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Raymond Building

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

Office Phone: (908) 354-7006

Cell Phone:   (201) 240-5716

Dated: February 20, 2015

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Federal District Court Anne Thompson Grants Writ of Habeas Corpus for Racketeering Case.

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

On March 5, 2003 a criminal jury in the Superior Court, Monmouth County, convicted alleged racketeer, Ray Cagno.  Cagno was found guilty of conspiracy to commit racketeering and the murders of victims Angellino and Randazzo.  The first trial (2002) ended in a mistrial when the witness for the State, Salvatore Lombardino refused to testify against Cagno.  However, the State alleged that while leaving the courtroom at the first trial, Lombardino gave Cagno a “thumbs up sign”, and stated to Cagno, “hang in there kid.”  At the second trial Lombardino was not called as a witness, but two detectives for the New Jersey State Police testified as to their observations of Lombardino at the first trial.  In summations the prosecutor asked the jury to infer that the witness’ silence; and his prior in-court conduct constituted evidence of Cagno’s guilt of the conspiracy between them.  The case went all the way to the New Jersey Supreme Court which affirmed the conviction with one justice dissenting, Justice Albin.

In Cagno v. Warren (N.J. District Court, 2014) the federal district court for the District of New Jersey, Judge Thompson, granted the habeas relief holding that Cagno’s Fourteenth Amendment due process rights were violated when he was convicted of conspiracy to commit racketeering at Petitioner’s second trial because the state should not have been allowed to present evidence of Salvatore Lombardino’s refusal to testify at Petitioner’s first trial.  Hence, Cagno’s Sixth Amendment right to confront all witnesses against him was violated.  Citing, Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415 (1965).  In New Jersey the statute of limitations is an absolute bar to the prosecution of the offense. State v. Short, 131 N.J. 47, 55 (1993)

Further, because the State offered no other evidence to support a finding that the racketeering conspiracy continued beyond the statute of limitations period, which was five-years, the conviction could not stand.  Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979); In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970).  Both of those cases standing for the well settled proposition, that it is a violation of a defendant’s due process rights, for a conviction to be entered unless the state proves its case beyond a reasonable doubt, as to each and every element of the crime.

Although federal courts rarely grant a Writ of Habeas Corpus, this case is a good example in which the federal district court exercised its authority and granted such a motion.  The Writ of Habeas Corpus is usually the last line of defense to an unlawful conviction, unless the defendant is lucky enough to discover newly discovered evidence which would have proved his or her innocence if had been discovered at trial.  In that case, the defendant can reopen the process up again at the state court level, starting with the trial court.

Thoughts on Truth:  Veritas Quo, “Where truth is found.” 

A moral wrong can never be a civil right.

The further society deviates from the truth the more a society will hate that truth.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Elizabeth, N.J.

Tel. No. (908) 354-7006

Dated: September 11, 2014

Post-Conviction Relief, Writ of Habeas Corpus, Union Essex, Hudson, Morris, Bergen, Middlesex, Ocean, Monmouth, County Criminal Defense Attorney, Jersey City, Newark, Elizabeth, New Brunswick, Freehold, Toms River.

In a Criminal or Quasi Criminal Case Including DWI the Defendant Never Has the Burden of Alerting The Prosecutor to Missing Evidence

Prepared as a Public Service by Criminal Defense Attorney of New Jersey, Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

Although a fundamental principal of the criminal justice system and corollary principals of procedural due process the defendant in a criminal case never has the obligation to alert the prosecution to any deficiencies in its case.

This attempt to shift the burden to the defense arises more frequently in New Jersey cases involving driving while intoxicated cases.  In these cases the municipal judge will often ask defense counsel prior to trial as to whether the defense is satisfied that the State has provided the necessary Alcotest discovery.  This question is improper because defense counsel has no obligation to confirm or deny whether the State has provided discovery and/or evidence to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.  In seminal case State v. Collins, 262 N.J. Super. 230 , 237-238 (App. Div. 1993), the appellate division made it clear that the defense attorney has no obligation to help the State prove its case by calling attention to any missing element of the offense before the State rests.

This equally applies to the admission of a laboratory certificate offered by the State.  In this case defense counsel has no obligation to present conflicting evidence regarding the report prior the submission of said report at trial by the laboratory analysis.  N.J.S.A. 2C:35-19 imposes no such burden on the defendant, and such a shifting would be unconstitutional. State in the Interest of J.H., 244 N.J. Super. 207, 217 (App. Div. 1990)

Attorney Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., has handled hundreds of criminal and quasi-criminal cases in New Jersey for the last 25-years, in Union, Hudson, Essex, Middlesex, Bergen, Somerset, Morris, Ocean and Monmouth counties.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

(908) 354-7006

YourCivilRights@gmail.com

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Dated: February 2, 2015

Quote of the day and words of Wisdom.

“Benedictus qui venit in nomine domini”- Latin for “blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord”

To be complacent in evil is always wrong, to commit and accept evil even for the alleged good is always morally wrong.

C.S. Lewis, “We do not need more Christian Lawyers, we need more lawyers who are Christian.”

New Jersey Appellate Division Rejects Waterfront Commissions Legal Definition of “Inimical Association” as it Applies to an “Association” with an Alleged Organized Crime Figure

In the Matter of Commission Proceeding on Revocation of License of Pasquale Pontoriero, ____ N.J. Super. _____ (App. Div. 2015, the New Jersey Appellate Division on January 7, 2015, although affirming the license revocation of Pasquale Pontoriero, to work as a longshoreman hiring agent, the Appellate Division nevertheless held that the Waterfront Commission erred in that case holding that a longshoreman’s associate with a known organized crime figure is ipso facto inimical to the Waterfront Act.





For a full copy of the decision to to:

http://www.criminaldefensenj.com/images/Pontoriero_Decision.pdfhttp:/

In this case the Administrative Law Judge for the Waterfront Commission adopted a strict liability standard and revoked the Waterfront registration of Mr. Pontoriero because of Pontoriero’s alleged association with known organized crime figure Tino Fiumera and Steven DePiro. In that case the Administrative Law Judge and the Waterfront Commission held that regardless of the facts or circumstances that if a longshoreman, checker, or maintenance personnel associate with a known organized crime figure that it is automatic revocation of his or her license.

In rejecting the Waterfront’s strict liability standard in Pontoriero the Appellate Division held that the commission must analyze the factors found in the New Jersey casino control case,  In re Staluppi, 94 N.J.A.R. 2d, 31 (1993).  The factors are:  (1) The nature and sensitivity of the licensee’s position; (2) The time elapsed since the licensee’s last interaction with the associate; (3) The duration and frequency of the association; (4) The purpose and nature of the association; (5) Whether the association was attenuated through third-parties; (6) The associate’s character and reputation; (7) The licensee’s knowledge or reasonable efforts to determine the associate’s character and reputation; (8) If there is more than one associate, the number of associates, and the relationship amongst them; (9) Termination of the association, if any; (10) The reason for any such termination; and, (11) Any other relevant facts or circumstances.  Apply these factors to the Pontoriero case the appellate division held that since Mr. Pontoriero was a hiring agent, a highly sensitive to corruption and that Pontoriero had invoked the his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent when asked would he favor hiring a Genovese family associate over a non-Genovese associate.  Under these facts it was reasonable for the Commission to hold that a reasonable observer could conclude that Fiumara and DePiro held inappropriate influence over Mr. Pontoriero, and hence, the revocation of his license by the Commission was proper.  It was undisputed on the record that Fiumara and DePiro were members of the Genovese crime family.

In the final analysis this is a good case and helpful to the license workers at the New Jersey and New York docks whom decide to litigate their case in New Jersey courts. Further, the case is helpful because the New Jersey courts for the first time expressly defined the term “inimical associate” as it applies to the Waterfront Commission Act.  The definition that was previously used by the Commission in all of their cases pre-Pontoriero has now been rejected.  The definition of strict liability used by the Waterfront Commission in pre-Pontoriero cases was overly broad and permitted the Waterfront Commission to act in an arbitrary and capricious manner, and thus, unfairly treated longshoreman, checkers and maintenance personnel, when proceedings were brought against them by the Waterfront for associating with an organized crime figure.  Now under the Pontoriero case it will be much hard for the Waterfront to revoke a license for “inimical association”, with a organized crime figure.

This is a public service blog provided by the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq., and is not intended to give any specific legal advice regarding any specific case now before the Waterfront Commission or any case in the future.

If you have a case before the Waterfront Commission you are invited to contact the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., an experienced New Jersey-New York Waterfront lawyer who has represented numerous International Longshoreman Members, and longshoremen, checkers and maintenance personnel before the Waterfront Commission, for a consultation to discuss your case.

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

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

New Jersey New York Waterfront Attorney-Lawyer for the hardworking ILA members, longshoreman, checkers, maintenance men, who will protect your rights and fight and help you retain your job.

---

Press Release Hudson County Superior Court, December of 2014.

Defendant charged and indicted by a Hudson County Grand Jury with official misconduct (second degree) and theft (third degree).  Defendant facing a state prison sentence as follows.  For the official misconduct a consecutive sentence of 5-10 years to run consecutive to the third degree theft of 3-5 years. Total maximum state prison exposure of 15-years in state prison.

Appropriate pre-trial motions filed to the Superior Court Judge and the official misconduct count of the indictment is dismissed by court prior to trial. 

After a five day criminal jury trial in which the case was given to the jury for deliberation, and while the jury is still deliberating, the Hudson County Prosecutor offers the defendant PTI (pre-trial intervention program), without the payment of any restitution.

Final results: After a period of one-year the theft charge will be dismissed and the Defendant will move to have his arrest for these charges expunged, and he will have absolutely no criminal record of the arrest or of the charges which were dismissed.

The Defendant who was not guilty is vindicated by Attorney Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq. For a further review of the numerous criminal defense victories for Attorney Sanzone go to CriminalDefenseNJ.com

The Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., providing competent and vigorous criminal defense representation for 25-years in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Hudson, Essex, Union, Somerset, Bergen, Passaic, Monmouth, Ocean, Middlesex counties.

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

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

(908) 354-7006

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Ipse dixit, which is translated from Latin to English, “we already decided you are bad.”  Why do the police and/or prosecutor always decided that the defendant committed the crime without knowing all the facts of the case?  Willful blindness is never justice.  Authentic Justice requires that before anyone is charged with a crime that the charging authorities honestly and fairly investigate the alleged unlawful activity.  All too often law enforcement rushes to judgment “to put a feather in their cap” and close a file.

Another Perspectives and Overlooked Fact in the Eric Garner Case; are the talking heads correct?

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

Anyone that is familiar with marshal arts and self-defense knows that a choke hold to someone’s neck in which the carotid artery is restricted will cause the person to pass out in 5-seconds or less. It is without dispute that a well performed martial arts choke (restricting blood flow) will result in unconsciousness within 3-5 seconds, and if applied longer, 30-seconds or longer, death.

It is also without dispute that the air or blood choke hold will prevent the person from speaking.  Therefore, it can be argued that when Eric Garner spoke the words, “I can’t breathe,” he in fact was able to breathe, because someone who is unable to breath would not be able to utter those words.

I am not saying that excessive force was not used against  Eric Garner in July of 2014, however, based on well settled principals of marshal arts and medical physiology, it was not the choke hold that killed him.  Mr. Garner was properly having trouble breathing because all of the force that was exerted to his back while on the ground, but the cause of death could not have been caused by the choke hold.  An independent autopsy and opinion by a forensic pathologist hired by the defense, I believe, would come to the same conclusion.

The forensic pathologist Dr. Michael Baden, who was hired by the Garner family, was dead wrong when he opined on Fox News that Garner would be able to say eleven times “I can’t breathe”, while the choke hold was being applied.  Further, Dr. Baden was dead wrong when he stated that the medical examiners found hemorrhaging of the blood vessels to the neck of Mr. Garner, this finding was also not made by the autopsy.

Baden also failed to point out that Garner had a number of

pre-existing medical conditions, such as obesity, asthma and possible heart disease, which could have been the actual cause of his cardiac arrest in the ambulance on the way to the hospital.

There has been a lot of hype and hyperbole on both sides of the debate regarding Mr. Garner; sadly, both sides seem to have no regard for the real facts of this case.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth (Union County), New Jersey 07207

(908) 354-7006

Quote of the day:  “All of humanity’s problems stem from man’s inability to sit quietly in a room alone.”

Blaise Pascal (1662), the great Catholic mathematician and philosopher who concluded that the easiest and most secure bet one can place on himself in his lifetime is the bet on God and the teachings of his Holy Catholic Church.  Pascal was the father of modern casino table games, and created the calculus of probabilities.  He knew that betting against God’s Church was a bad bet.  This wager is referred to as the famous Wager ('Pascal's Wager') in which he held:

"If Jesus does not exist, the non Christian loses little by believing in him and gains little by not believing. If Jesus does exist, the non Christian gains eternal life by believing and loses an infinite good by not believing.”  This is why someone who does not believes makes the most foolish bet of his or her life.

Don’t Plea to a Sandy Hook Beach Lewdness Charge Without Consulting with an Experienced Sandy Hook Criminal Defense Attorney

The collateral consequences of pleading guilty to a lewdness offense can be significant.  Although thousands of visitors take advantage of the clothing optional beach located at the Gateway National Park, Sandy Hook, (Monmouth County, Town of Highlands) New Jersey, the U.S. Park Police Rangers have a zero tolerance for any activity which would constitute lewdness under federal or New Jersey state law.  Accordingly, many visitors to the beach might engage in conduct that would appear innocuous to the visitor, but illegal in the eyes of the rangers.  For example any inappropriate touching of the private parts by the visitor or his or her guest will be considered illegal and subject the violator to immediate arrest and summons to the federal district court in Newark for prosecution by the United States Attorney of New Jersey.

Therefore, if you have been charged with such an offense or any related or other charges at the Sandy Hook National Park, you are strongly advised to consult the services of an experienced New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney who has handled many such cases (24-years of experience) with satisfactory results for the alleged offender.

This blog is a public service to the people from the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., and is not intended to give any specific legal advice to any specific client since each case stands or falls on the particular facts of the case.

Dated: July 9, 2014

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

(908) 354-7006

277 North Broad Street

P.O. Box 261

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

YourCivilRights@gmail.com

CriminalDefenseNJ.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

Driving While Intoxicated; Refusal to Submit to Breath Test; Field Portal Breath Testing; Leads to Possible Affirmative Defense under the Confusion Doctrine

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

More and more local police departments are using portable field breath testing devices for probable cause to arrest DWI /DUI suspects.  Although the New Jersey Supreme Court has not approved such  devices, and they are not admissible in court to prove probable cause or the offense of driving while intoxicated or impaired.  However,  more and more police department are using these machines to test suspect’s breath at the scene of the motor vehicle stop.  For years the Coast Guard and New Jersey State Police have been using these devices to test operators of vessels and boats in New Jersey waterways for probable cause to arrest the boater.  However, not until recently are these devices being used by more local police departments.

The use of these portable breath machines at the scene, pre-arrest, might be fertile ground for the affirmative defense under the confusion doctrine.  Under established New Jersey law a defendant who is confused regarding whether he can remain silent (i.e., after being given his/her Miranda rights), and whether because of said rights he must submit to the breath test at the station can raise some interesting issues.  Under State v. Leavitt, 107 N.J. 534, 542 (1987), the New Jersey Supreme Court addressed this issue.    Normally, refusal to submit to the alcohol breath machine (Alcotest), at the station cannot be justified, and someone who refused to submit to the test will be charged with refusal which carries the same penalties and driving while intoxicated.  However, the Supreme Court has held that it is possible, under the right fact pattern, for the defendant, to offer the affirmative defense of confusion, under very limited circumstances, if applicable to the facts of the case. 

This doctrine of confusion seems to be more relevant than before based on the fact that police officers who use the portal machines at the scene to test breath might be creating confusion on the part of the motorist.  For example if the motorist submits to the portable test and is arrested, and than given his Miranda rights to remain silent.  Such actions on the part of the police might cause confusion on the part of the motorist who again is asked to submit to a (station house official Alcotest) test, after he/she has already been given his Miranda rights to remain silent.  By requesting the motorist to submit too a second  test, one at the scene, and one at the station has the potential in creating confusion on the part of the motorist, who, in most cases because of the consumption of alcoholic beverages might have less  cognitive ability to begin with. 

In a recent case in Union County, the use of the two machines did create confusion on the part of the motorist who was arrested for both DWI, and refusal.  Because the motorist submitted to the portable test at the scene, arrested, then given his Miranda rights to remain, silent, and then asked to submit to a second test at the station, created a mix which lead, in that case to the dismissal of the refusal charge, and the defendant having plead only to the none-per se, 3-months loss of license DWI charge.  In that case the culmination of these facts caused the defendant to be confused and had no intent to refuse the test at the station.  Because the prosecutor looking at the facts fairly and objectively recognized the problem, and realized that in good faith that he could not prove the refusal beyond a reasonable doubt, and accepted the plea.

 

If you have been arrested or charged for DWI or driving while impaired you are advised to seek the consultation and retention of an experienced criminal defense attorney Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq., (CriminalDefenseNJ.com) who has many years of experience in defending people accused of this serious motor vehicle defense.

Your decision in choosing a New Jersey criminal defense lawyer is important, make that choice wisely.  I invite you to look at the proven results of Attorney Sanzone. CriminalDefenseNJ.com

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

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth (Union County), New Jersey 07207

Tel: (908) 354-7006

YourCivilRights@gmail.com

Why Innocent Defendants Take Plea Bargains?

This is blog is presented as a public service and for general criminal legal information by the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq. 

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

LawOffice of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

277 North Broad Street

P.O. Box 261

Elizabeth, New Jersey

Telephone No. (908) 354-7006; Cell No. (201) 240-5716

It is without dispute that the State may not exert an unnecessary price for defendants that exercise their constitutional right to a jury trial.  United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570 (1968); Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967); Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, (1965)

That is the law, but the reality is that innocent defendants, both in State and Federal court often take a plea for something that he or she did not do, just to avoid losing at trial and doing double or triple the jail time after conviction.  Although legally the trial sentencing cannot impose a “trial tax”, upon the defendant after conviction, the reality of the situation is that with the draconian sentencing laws and guidelines, such as discretionary or mandatory extended terms, parole ineligibility, consecutive sentences, etc., defendants who refuse plea offers and lose at trial in most cases go to jail for a very long time.  The pressure to take a plea is so strong that very few defendants, whether innocent or guilty, will take the risk at losing at trial.  The cards are stacked against the defendant to such a large degree that taking a plea is the only option. 

The prosecutors in criminal cases have all the cards; they deal them as they choose.  They make the final decisions, they offer the pleas, and sometimes they are given on a take it or leave it basis.  They know their power and they use it to extract pleas.  Even judges sometimes are frustrated with the position that the prosecutors take, but they are powerless and cannot force to the prosecutor to be reasonable.  Often many good judges will attempt to 

appeal to the sensibilities and to the notion of fairness with the prosecutor, but those attempts are often futile.  Because the separations of powers, the executive and judicial branch are co-equals and neither branch can interfere with the other, most of the time the judge must remain silent.  Not to say that there are not some good prosecutors who attempt to do the right thing; however, in most cases prosecutors get their instructions from a chain of command, such as trial supervisors, reviewing committees etc.

Plea bargains it is argued, keeps the system alive because without plea bargains the judicial system could not function.  Because 95% of the criminal cases result in plea bargains and the system could not survive without the plea bargain system, plea bargains are a necessary evil which is necessary for the system to work.   This is true at the lower level, and begs the question.  The real question is who is controlling the plea bargain system, and why do the prosecutor’s have all the cards.  Why not equally penalize the prosecutor office if they lose at trial, in the form of a monetary settlement to the acquitted defendant or at lease a payment of his or her attorney fees.  As the system stands now the prosecutors have zero downside and all the upside.  If there was a penalty imposed when the prosecutor lost a case they would be more careful in pursuing only the meritorious cases and offering plea agreements that were fair. 

As it stands now every legislative body in ever State is making it more and more difficult for sentencing judges.  Every politician that wants to be reelected wants to pander to the public that he or she is hard on crime.  There is no end in sight.  Let’s be fair, and make the constitution work for all, even the criminally accused. 

Nobody knows when the table will be turned on them, and be unjustly accused of a crime.  Did Governor Christie or Lieutenant Governor Kim Guadagno ever thing just a few months ago that they would be accused of something, if true, would be the criminal charge of official misconduct?

Quote of the Day:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

The Post-Conviction Relief (PCR) Motion an Analysis of New Jersey Criminal Law, Through the Michael Skakel Case.

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

Defendant Michael Skakel was indicted for the murder of Martha Moxley in Connecticut in 1975.  Twenty-seven years (2002) later Mr. Skakel was convicted of the crime and has been incarcerated ever since.  In spite of legal fees and costs paid to his defense attorney Michael Sherman in the amount of approximately, $1,200,000.00 (one-million two-hundred thousand dollars).

On October 23, 2013 the Honorable JTR Bishop ruled that Attorney Sherman’s representation was deficient and ineffective and thus, Mr. Skakel was entitled to a new trial. 

The opinion of Judge Bishop is very informative and educational not only for the experienced criminal defense attorney, but also for individuals charged with crimes because it is a text book example of a “high profile” or “marquee defense attorney”, who simply didn’t know the law, did not adequately prepare for trial, and simply didn’t do his homework, as stated by Judge Bishop.

Judge Bishop made a number of finding of facts and conclusion of law which demonstrated that Attorney Sherman’s representation was substandard and therefore denied Mr. Skakel his Sixth Amendment to effective legal representation and a fair trial.

Although the court held that Attorney Sherman had made many trial errors, the court focused on the following five major errors.

First, there was overwhelming evidence that was in possession and knowledge of Attorney Sherman regarding the third-party culpability of Mr. Skakel’s older brother, T. Skakel.  However, instead of arguing to the jury that there was evidence that T. Skakel committed the murder and not his client, Attorney Sherman decided to argue and present evidence that someone else probability committed the murder, notwithstanding, that there was no credible evidence that this person was involved.  The court held that if the jury had heard this evidence at the trial (culpability of T. Skakel) that there was a likelihood that the jury would have harbored reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilty, and the resulting verdict would have been different.

Second, that Attorney Sherman failure to locate and present the testimony of an alibi witness for the defense was likewise ineffective.  This witness was a powerful witness and Attorney Sherman should have known the existence of this witness because his identity was testified to by another witness in the grand jury proceedings.  Again, if the jury had heard this testimony the resulting verdict would have been different.

Third, that Attorney Sherman knew or should have known with reasonable diligence of two witnesses whom would have refuted the alleged confession that Mr. Skakel had allegedly made to a key state witness Gregory Coleman.  The court held that Attorney Sherman’s “failure of judgment borne of an undeserved confidence in the impact of his cross-examination of Coleman ... This failure of judgment prejudiced the petitioner.”  Therefore, the court held that because these witnesses did not testify there is a reasonable likelihood that the outcome of the trial would have been different. 

Fourth, Attorney Sherman’s failure to provide expert testimony that any alleged admissions made by Mr. Skakel while a patient in the intensive inpatient drug rehabilitation facility (Elan Facility), should not be used for the truth.

Fifth, Attorney Sherman’s failure to attempt to rebut the prosecution’s allegation that Mr. Skakel engaged in recent fabrication of his story by asserting that he had masturbated on the victim prior to her murder because he was afraid that the recent discovery of DNA would have linked him to the crime and murder.  However, the truth was that Mr. Skakel had stated to state investigators in 1987 that he had masturbated on Ms. Moxley, four to five years before any law enforcement agency knew how to apply DNA testing to a crime scene investigation.

In summary this is a text book case of a high priced attorney who dropped the ball.  If you are faced with a serious crime you should consult a New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney who will fight for your defense.

Can You Expunge Federal Crimes and Misdemeanors in New Jersey? Answer No.

This blog was written as a public service to the People by Criminal Defense Attorney, Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

After a federal criminal case is dismissed the question is always asked by my clients is can I now get this arrest expunged?  Unfortunately, the answer is no.  Because a federal arrest or conviction in New Jersey comes under the jurisdiction of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, it is currently not possible to expunge a federal crime or misdemeanor in New Jersey, even if the case is ultimately dismissed.

Unfortunately, the federal third circuit has held that anyone arrest or convicted of a crime, including all persons that had their cases dismissed, either by a dismissal by the United States Attorney or acquittal by a jury are not entitled to any form of expungement.  The Third Circuit covers, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware  and the U.S. Virgin Islands.  Therefore, anyone arrested by federal authorities and charged, even if the case is dismissed cannot obtain an expungement of that arrest or dismissal. United States v. Dunegan, 251 F.3d 477, 478 (3d Cir. 2001); United States v. Rowlands, 451 F.3d 173 (3d Cir. 2006)

As usual, the United States Congress is not interested in seeking justice and allowing even people who have had there cases dismissed receive an expungement order.  Therefore, former defendants, even innocent ones, are forced to cope with the continued injury to their reputations, and difficulty in obtaining employment, even when the charges are dropped.  It is estimated that 80% percent of American employers conduct background checks for criminal records.  This statistic comes from a study by the Society for Human Resource Management.  In many cases employers will use arrests, even ones that lead to a dismissal of the charges as an excuse not to hire the applicant.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.