New Jersey Now Requires All Police Departments to Have Dashboard, or Dash-Cam MVR Tapes Installed in All Patrol Vehicles

Prepared for the People as a Pubic Service from the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

September 11, 2014, finally Governor Christi signed the Dash-Cam law which will require all New Jersey police departments to install these devices in their patrol vehicles.  These dash-cams, or also known as MVR video recording devices, will video tape everything in front of the patrol vehicle when activated. 

This new law is good news for anyone who is stopped by a police officer, since the video will now video all activity from the vantage point of the patrol vehicle front windshield.  Normally, the device is set up to record back 30-seconds, prior to the activation of the device.  The device continues to record until manually turned off, or the siren or overhead lights are turned off.  Normally, by default, the dash-cam will activate once the overhead and/or siren is activated.  However, the MVR tape can be activated manually, and can also be turned off manually.

Hopefully the new law will prevent police departments and its officers from falsely claiming that the video was not working or not installed in the particular patrol vehicle.  Most often aggressive and dishonest police officers will patrol in patrol vehicles without dash-cam devices for the purpose of making unlawful DWI stops and arrests, claiming that the motorist committed a moving violation and than failed field sobriety tests.  Further, if the sobriety field tests are done in view of the cameras, it might help eliminate perjured police testimony when the officer falsely claiming that the motorist failed the sobriety field tests, when in fact the motorists passed.  Further, the law will now allow a jury to objectively view the dash-cam tape to refute or confirm a police officers allegation that the suspect motorist engaged in eluding of the officers during an automobile stop.

For years most police departments in New Jersey have fought fiercely not to have these devices in their vehicles.  Newark, Jersey City and Elizabeth, to name a few, have refused to install such devices, and none of their patrol vehicles have any of these devices in patrol vehicles.  Further, these MVR tapes will help eliminate police beatings and other abuses of errant police officers, because a patrolman driving a patrol vehicle with such a device will think twice before he commits these types of illegal activities on a motorist. 

Of course some errant and dishonest police officers will find away around this new law by turning off the device, claiming it was inoperable, destroying the tape, or manually turning the device to the side, so that it does not depict the interaction between the motorist and police officer.  Another trick that the dishonest cop will use, which I have seen multiple times with field sobriety tests, the dishonest police officer will move the suspect outside the view of the tape, in which case, the motorist cannot prove that the officer is lying and that he/she passed the field sobriety tests.  Further, if the dishonest police officer wants to engage in an illegal search or beating of the motorist he will move the suspect out of range of the camera, since the cameras view depicts only what transpires in front of the patrol vehicle.  Of course, the dishonest cop (which has occurred repeatedly in many municipal court and superior court cases) will tell the judge and/or jury that they moved the suspect outside the view of the camera for his or the motorists safety, but of course that story is likewise bogus, because the officer can pull his vehicle behind the motorists vehicle in such a way as to give a wide shoulder view of road in which the tests will ultimately be performed.

Lastly, the new law will only be applied to every new or used or leased police vehicle or otherwise acquired on or after the effective date (of this bill) which is primarily used for traffic stops shall be equipped with a mobile video recording system.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Elizabeth, N.J.

Tel. No. (908) 354-7006

Dated: September 11, 2014

Union Essex, Hudson, Morris, Bergen, Middlesex, Ocean, Monmouth, County Criminal Defense Attorney, Jersey City, Newark, Elizabeth, New Brunswick, Eluding, Carjacking, Drugs, Guns, Weapons, Assault

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.

Governor Christie Likely to Sign Bill Allowing First time Offenders Conditional Discharge for Disorderly and Petty Disorderly Offenses in Municipal Court

For the first time, if the governor signs the bill, persons charged with municipal court offenses will have the opportunity to apply for conditional discharge or PTI (as known in Superior Court).  Under the proposed bill first time offenders, if approved by the prosecutor will have the opportunity to be admitted into a diversionary program and a period of probation, of up to one-year, in which after successfully completing the program will have the case dismissed.  This will be a great boast to individuals who might have an immigration problem because of their legal status by pleading guilty to a disorderly person’s offense.  Also, this proposed law will be helpful for individuals whom have professions or jobs which would disqualify them from employment if convicted of any disorderly person’s offense.

Under the propose law only individuals who have never had PTI or a previous conditional discharge are eligible.  Further, this new alternative diversionary program is not available to persons charged with DWI, among other charges.

This is a public service blog provided to the people from the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

August 1, 2013

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

277 North Broad Street

P.O. Box 261

Elizabeth, New Jersey

Telephone No. (908) 354-7006