Jury Selections are Open to the Family and Public

The trial judge cannot bar the public or family members or friends from criminal jury trials during jury selections, and if so, calls for automatic reversal.

The New Jersey appellate division has held repeatedly that barring the public from the court room, even during jury selections is impermissible and calls for an automatic reversal in the event of a conviction.  In numerous occasions, criminal convictions have been reversed when this happens.  State v. Cuccio, State v. Clark Simon, (which was a case which I tried and was reversed for this reason by the appellate division) to name a few.

Rule 1:8-3(g) provides that the trial judge must allow the public access to the court room during all stages of the proceedings.  The rule provides in pertinent part:

(g) Jury Selection Must be Conducted in Open Court. Subject to (1) and (2) below, the public must be provided reasonable access to the courtroom during the jury selection portion of the trial. (1) Exclusion of Public from Courtroom; Compelling Reasons; Alternatives. The trial judge may not exclude the public from the courtroom unless there is a compelling need to do so. In making that determination, the trial judge shall first consider reasonable alternatives, such as holding jury selection in a larger courtroom, if one is available. If there are compelling reasons to exclude the public from the courtroom, the judge shall consider alternative ways to permit observation, including electronic means. The trial judge shall issue a statement of reasons for limiting or denying public access to jury selection. (2) Voir Dire of Individual Jurors. The requirement of public access.

Prepared as a public service by the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq. Fighting for the criminal accused for 29-years.

What Happens If I am Arrested by the Feds: Federal Agents Must Take Arrestee/Suspect before Magistrate Judge within Six-Hours.

It is well settled that and common knowledge that anyone arrested has the legal right not to speak to anyone, until he or she consults with a criminal defense attorney.  Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1964)

What is not well known, however, is that the federal authorities must promptly bring the arrested person before a magistrate or district court judge within six-hours of the arrest.

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 3501(c), a person arrested by federal authorities must be brought before a judicial officer   within six-hours (with some flexibility for distance, transportation and availability of Judge) of the arrest.

In the Supreme Court case, Corley v. United States, 556 U.S. 303 (2009) our Supreme Court held that a 29-hour delay was unacceptable and that the confession made during that period was inadmissible. In McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 (1943); Mallory v. United States 354 U.S. 449 (1957), it was established that a confession which violates the prompt presentment requirement of F.R.C.P. 5(a) generally renders said confession inadmissible, even if the confession was made voluntarily.

If you have been arrested or charged with a federal crime you should immediately consult and retain an experienced federal district court criminal attorney to protect your rights.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq. (Elizabeth, N.J.)

Telephone: (908) 354-7006; Cell Phone (201) 240-5716
CriminalDefenseNJ.com

 

Know Your Rights, a Civil Forfeiture Answer Can be Used by the Prosecutor as Evidence Against the Criminal Defendant a Judge Held In Hudson County Criminal Division.

Written as a Public Service to the People by the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.
Served with a forfeiture civil complaint while criminal charges are pending, be careful what you say, you might have waived your fifth amendment right to remain silent.
In a case recently decided by one trial judge, a Hudson county criminal judge held that the admissions made in the civil answer is admissible as to the defendant’s guilt in the underlying criminal case.
In a case of first impressions a New Jersey trial judge says a defendant's answer to a civil forfeiture complaint is admissible in a criminal prosecution arising from the same facts.
The fact alleged by the prosecution is that the CDS found in the defendant’s mother’s apartment in a Hudson County apartment as a result of a search warrant was being possessed with the intent to distribute.  However, along with the drugs was cash in the amount of $3,293.00 which the defendant claimed belonged to him.  The defendant made that admission when he filed a civil forfeiture answer to the prosecutor’s forfeiture civil complaint to forfeit the money.
The State had no evidence directly linking the drugs and money to defendant other than the defendant’s admission in his answer.
The trial court refused to bar the admissions under United States v. Simmons, 390 U.S. 377 (1968),http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/390/377/ which held that a criminal defendant cannot be forced to choose between his Fourth (illegal search) and Fifth (right to remain silent) amendment rights.  In other words nothing that the defendant says in a motion to suppress can be used against him at trial by the government, unless the defendant testifies and only by way of impeachment.
I am not so sure that this case would stand constitutional muster if the New Jersey Supreme Court was presented this issue.
Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.,Esq.                    P.O. Box, 277 North Broad Street, Elizabeth (Union County), N.J. 07207

Telephone: (908) 354-7006                                  E-Mail, YourCivilRights@gmail.com

Quote of the day:

"Three things I cannot escape: the eye of God, the voice of conscience, the stroke of death. In company, guard your tongue. In your family, guard your temper. When alone guard your thoughts." - Venerable Matt Talbot

Dated: November 21, 2013