New Jersey Supreme Court-Elements of Obstruction the Administration of Justice

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

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

(908) 354-70076

March 13, 2019, State v. Fede, New Jersey Supreme Court.

The court reversed the defendant’s conviction for the D.P. charge of obstruction the administration of justice.  Specifically, in this case, the tenant living in a multi-family residential building refused to unchain his front door upon demand by the police.  In this case the police did not have a warrant, but were dispatched to the location when police dispatch reported a call of domestic violence in that apartment. 

The police attempted to gain entry to search the apartment under the “community caretaker” exception to the warrant requirement.  When tenant refused to unchain the front door the police knocked the door in, and arrested the tenant.

The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the municipal court conviction for obstruction to the administration of justice.  Note, there was nobody else in the apartment when the police searched the apartment.

The court held that the police did have the right to break down the door under the community caretaker exception, however, the charge and conviction of obstruction to the administration of justice could not be affirmed because in order to be found guilty of that statute the defendant must take an affirmative step in obstruction the administration of justice.  The court held that the failure to act, to wit, removal of the chain lock, was not an affirmative step. 

Note, if the tenant had got in the officers way, or pushed the officer, or attempted to stop them physically from entering, the conviction would have been affirmed.

If you are charged with a Superior Court or Municipal Court criminal charge seek the counsel of an experienced criminal defense attorney who has been practicing for 29-years.  Experienced, qualified, integrity, and dedication to the practice of criminal defense.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

Rare Appellate Division Case Which Debunks Often Used Municipal Court Rational for Finding Defendant Guilty of Traffic Violation

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

A very interesting case was recently decided by the appellate division, State v. Duque, (unpublished decided April 6, 2015), in which the panel held that the rational used to find the defendant guilty of a traffic violation was incorrect, and accordingly, reversed the conviction.

In this case the Bergenfield municipal judge found the defendant guilty because he found the police officer credible.  Specifically, the municipal court judge held that he was familiar with the officer from other cases and because the officer had no motive to issue an erroneous charge against the defendant.  However, the municipal court judge did not address the fact that the police officer might have been mistaken, and why the evidence presented by the defendant, through testimony, and pictures was not persuasive.  As the court held, “The first of these reasons was an improper consideration by the trial court, and the second not sufficient by itself to reach a credibility determination in favor of the officer.”

In appellate panel went on to state that the defendant in this case, “had neither an opportunity to challenge the officer's testimony in other cases nor the ability to prove herself also a credible witness in the judge's eyes over the course of a number of different matters. In addition, the fact that a charge was brought by the officer does not in itself lend credibility to the testimony that supports that charge. Such a basis for judging credibility flies in the face of the presumption of innocence and the prosecution's burden to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. Dively, 92 N.J. 573, 585 (1983).”
This is a great decision because municipal court traffic attorneys have experienced hundreds of cases in which the municipal court judge seeking away to find a defendant guilty in spite of overwhelming evidence that the police officer was lying or mistaken, would simply use these two standard excuses to find the defendant guilty.

The Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq., is not a high-volume practice.  Attorney Sanzone does not accept every case, because I am personally responsible for all aspects of each case.  I take a limited number of clients, so that each criminal and traffic case receives the time and attention needed to produce the best legal work possible. Also, by only taking a limited number of cases at any given time, provides me the opportunity to explain the legal process, the law, an the strategies with which each aspect of the process will be addressed.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

(908) 354-7006

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

YourCivilRights@gmail.com

Defendant’s Right to Remain Silent at Sentencing In Municipal Court

It has been a custom is many municipal courts in New Jersey for the judge to turn to the defendant at the time of sentencing and ask the defendant as to his prior driving history.

This often occurs in the context DWI sentences, in which the prosecutor will inform the court that a search of the defendant’s abstract does not reveal any prior driving while intoxicated offenses.  Often the court will than turn to the defendant, whose represented by counsel, rather that is correct, and whether the defendant has been convicted of any DWI offenses in this or any other state. 

I am surprised that in many cases the defense attorney does sits quite without objecting to this line of questioning by the judge.  The defendant at the time of sentencing does not give up his 5^th amendment right to remain silent.  Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2B:25-5.1 it is the prosecutor’s obligation to research the defendant’s prior driving record and report that information to the court.  Neither, defense counsel, or the defendant has any obligation to waive his  Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, or for the attorney to violate his attorney client privilege with his client to the court.

This blog is prepared as a public service by the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq., and is not intended to provide any specific legal opinion or advice to anyone reading this blog.

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

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

CriminalDefensenj.com

Yourcivilrights@gmail.com

 

“If you want peace work for justice.”

“Justice” in the Red Bank New Jersey Municipal Court; Is there a double standard in the Red Bank Municipal Court for Police Officers?

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

On May 14, 2007, Red Bank municipal court judge, William Himelman (case was transferred to Red Bank for possible conflict) found the Wall Township Police Chief, Bernard Sullivan not guilty of driving while intoxicated.  The evidence against the police officer, as testified by the arresting officer, was that the chief was driving recklessly by failing to maintain lane, going through a red light, reckless driving and failing a breathalyzer test, blowing double the legal limit.  Sullivan admitted having four to five beers when stopped, but contested that he failed the field sobriety tests that were administered to him at the scene.

After the verdict the Star Ledger quoted Red Bank Municipal Prosecutor James N. Butler as saying he was shocked by the judge’s decision, and stated, “To me, it set the criminal justice system back a long way, because what it said is, Don't arrest a cop.” 

In the judge’s oral decision he stated, "I didn't see (Sullivan) staggering, I didn't see him falling, I saw him walking around," Himelman said. "What I saw on that surveillance tape was a man who had five beers, not someone who had 10 beers."  However, as this judge knows whether someone can handle their liquor is no defense to a DWI charge, and rarely if ever, will a municipal court judge find a defendant not guilty when he fails the field sobriety tests?  Sullivan’s failure on the field sobriety tests was also witnessed by superior officer Lancellotti who was called to the scene.

Further, the municipal court judge completely ignored the testimony of Patrolman Verrecchia who testified that when he pulled Sullivan over at 12:35 a.m. after he saw Sullivan's car, headed north on 16th Avenue in the West Belmar section of town, run a red light at Route 35, nearly colliding with a car on the highway.  Further, he testified that Sullivan continued across Route 35 and headed up Belmar Boulevard toward his Wall home on the wrong side of the road until Verrecchia pulled him over near Marconi Road, Verrecchia testified.

Further, the municipal court judge completely ignored officer Verrecchia testimony that Sullivan breathalyzer reading was for the first test .19 and for the second test, .20 (double the legal limit for that time).

According to the Asbury Park Press interview of the judge after the verdict, Himelman was not embarrassed to say that it was the first not guilty verdict he has made in the last five years in a DWI case while sitting on the bench in Red Bank. I wonder how many individuals were found guilty in Red Bank by him and how many lost their jobs because of their loss of a driver's license?

This unfortunately is not an isolated incident and further reinforces the need for municipal courts in New Jersey to be consolidated in joint municipal courts in which a number of towns join their municipal courts into a joint municipal court.  Further, that these joint municipal court judges be appointed by the governor as Governor Christi has proposed. Not only will this save taxpayers money, by consolidation, but also eliminate some of the conflict of interest, which is rampant in municipal courts throughout the state.  Specifically, because the municipal court judge receives his or her paycheck from the town in which he must generate revenue, and hence, the inference that he or she must find everyone guilty to generate revenue.  Or as this judge admitted never find anyone not guilty in the last five years in every DWI case, except in one case in which an law enforcement is charged with DWI, notwithstanding all the evidence against the police officer?  Nobody is questioning the integrity of the municipal court judge in this case, however, it surly makes you wonder.  Is there any justice in municipal court in Red Bank?

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

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