Detention of Motorist after a Motor Vehicle Stop Without Further Probable Cause Is Unlawful United States Supreme Court Says.

Prepared as a public service by the law office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

In Rodriguez vs. United States decided on January 21, 2015, the United States Supreme Court held that detaining a motorist after a motor vehicle stop has been concluded violated the motorist’s Fourth Amendment rights to unreasonable search and seizure and all the narcotics seized would have to be suppressed.

In this case Mr. Rodriguez refused to consent to have a drug sniffing dog walk around his vehicle. Accordingly, the police officer on the scene called for backup. The court following Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 407 (2005) held that the authority for the police to seize a motor vehicle during a motor vehicle stop for a traffic infraction ends when it did, or reasonable should have ended.  In Illinois v. Caballes the court held that it is permissible to have a drug sniffing dog sniff the exterior of the automobile during the automobile stop.

However, in Rodriguez v. United States the court held that permitting such K9 sniffing can only occur during the period of time of the automobile stop period, which must be a reasonable time period.  In other words, as long as it was reasonable to make the stop, obtain driving credentials, and issue the motor vehicle summons.  Any delay without further probable cause would be unreasonable and therefore unlawful.  The Fourth Amendment does not permit unrelated investigations that lengthen the roadside detention.  Waiting for a K9 dog sniff would be such a prolonged further investigation that is not permitted unless further reasonable suspicion or probable cause can be found.

In this case the patrol officer who conducted the motor vehicle stop had in his patrol vehicle a K9 drug sniffing dog.  After the motor vehicle ticket was issued, the officer asked Rodriguez whether he would permit his K9 to walk around his vehicle.  Rodriguez said no.  Because of the refusal the officer called for back-up, and in about 8-minutes a second officer arrived and the K9 walk around took place.  The court held that without consent the 8-minute wait for the second officer was unreasonable and the CDS (controlled dangerous substances) found in Rodriguez vehicle was suppressed.  What is very remarkable in this case is that the court said that only an 8-minute delay was unreasonable.

This case is very helpful to the defense because often local and State police departments will detain motorist for long time periods in order to secure to scene of the motor vehicle stop drug sniffing K9 unit.  This case is clear and sets forth a bright line rule that any detention outside the normal motor vehicle stop is no longer permitted.  This case however does not address the issue as to how long that period of time would be if the police have additional reasonable suspicion or probable cause to detain the motorist.

The Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

277 North Broad Street

P.O. Box 261

Elizabeth (Union County), NJ 07207

(908) 354-7006

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

New Jersey Supreme Court Affirms Right of Defense Counsel To Examine Alleged Crime Scene

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

On September 24, 2014, the New Jersey Supreme Court in State in the Interest of A.B., affirmed the trial court in allowing defense counsel to examine and take photographs of the victim’s home where it was alleged that a sexual assault occurred.

The Supreme Court affirmed that a criminal defendant has a right to a fair trial and that defense counsel has the right to inspect and examine all the evidence which the State has access to.  In other words, New Jersey courts have the “inherent power to order discovery when justice so requires.”  State ex rel. W.C., 85 N.J. 218, 221 (1981)

The court began its discussion with the proposition that New Jersey trial courts have the power to order discovery beyond that mandated by the court rules when doing so will further the truth-seeking function or ensure the fairness of a trial. In the Matter of W.C., 85 N.J. at 221. In

exercising its discretion, a court must weigh the accused’s need for a particular species of discovery against the impact the discovery request may have on the privacy and lives of witnesses and alleged victims.

As the court noted, a criminal trial where the defendant

does not have “access to the raw materials integral to the

building of an effective defense” is fundamentally unfair. Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 77, 105 S. Ct. 1087, 1093, 84 L. Ed. 2d 53, 62 (1985).

In fact the court noted that visiting the crime scene can be critical in preparing a defense and that failure to visit the crime scene when required can be ineffective assistance of counsel. Thomas v. Kuhlman, 255 F. Supp. 2d 99, 109, 112 (E.D.N.Y. 2003)  See, also, 32 New Jersey Practice, Criminal Practice and Procedure § 20:1, at 481 (Leonard N. Arnold) (2010-2011 ed.)

The court noted that familiarity with a crime scene may be essential for an effective direct or cross-examination of a witness.  Further, it might be helpful in ascertaining

and presenting exculpatory evidence. For example, the inability of a witness to have observed an event because of the layout of the area can break a case.  In order words,

in many instances the defense will not be on an equal footing with the prosecution if it is barred from a crime scene to which the prosecutor has access.

In summary this is a great case for the defense, is a case which was long overdue by the court and this case should be in the arsenal of all competent New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorneys.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

September 25, 2014

277 North Broad Street

P.O. Box 261

Elizabeth, New Jersey

Telephone No. (908) 354-7006

New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney, Essex, Newark, Elizabeth, Union, Monmouth, Middlesex, Hudson, Federal District Court of New Jersey, Passaic, Bergen, Somerset, Jersey City, New Brunswick, Toms River, Hackensack, Somerville, NJ Criminal Trial Lawyers, Attorneys, Sexual Assault Attorney, Criminal Practice and Discovery, Inspection of Crime Scene

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

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

Assistant County Prosecutor and his Investigator Caught Suppressing Exculpating Evidence: Will Justice Prevail?

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

According to press releases and other legal documents, former Camden County Prosecutor, Harry S. Collins and his Camden County Prosecutor investigator, Matthew Woshnak, conspired to suppress exculpatory evidence, which shed serious doubt on the reliability and credibility of the State’s sole witness in a murder prosecution.  After the defendant was unjustly sent to prison he filed a post-conviction relief motion.  

In response to that motion, an honest prosecutor from that office, Teresa Garvey provided to the defense a note which she found in the file which stated in relevant part, “Per [investigator Falco], his witness B-Nice (resident of Camden Jail) stated that my witness was paid $$ by the Puerto Rican to identify my [defendant] as the shooter.”

More troubling is the undisputed fact that this alleged witnesses account of events was the only piece of evidence against the defendant, and as stated by the Camden County Prosecutor, “there was never any other evidence, physical nor testimonial, directly implicating”, the defendant.

This is one example how sometimes the system does not work and how some prosecutor’s and their investigators engaged in willful misconduct in order to convict a person who they personally believe is guilty, in spite, of the objective evidence, to the contrary.  If true, not only should this prosecutor be disbarred but should be criminally prosecutor.  Likewise the investigator should be criminally charged for official misconduct and be barred from ever holding a law enforcement position again in New Jersey. The clear message that must be sent is that the judicial system will not accept conduct of prosecutors that are deceitful, dishonest, and was the caused of a defendant to either take a plea or convicted after a jury verdict.

Most likely the Camden County Prosecutor and State Attorney General will bring no criminal charges or ethic violations against Collins and Woshnak.  This sends the wrong message since prosecutors who have the highest duty to insure that justice be done will not be deterred from committing this type of outrageous behavior. 

The majority of county, state and federal prosecutors have no interest convicting innocent defendants, and will disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense when discovered.  However, unfortunately this is not the case with all, and by the system condoning this type of conduct without prosecution will only send the wrong massage.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Raymond Building

Elizabeth (Union County), New Jersey 07207

(908) 354-7006

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Quote of the day:

Wrote by George Bernard Shaw, but made famous by President John F. Kennedy. "Some people see things as they are and say why?  I dream things that never were and say, why not?"

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.

United States Supreme Court Holds No Canine Sniff of Front Porch without Warrant.

Prepared by the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq., as a public service.

The facts of Florida v. Jardines (2013) are simple and straight forward.  The police in Florida took a drug-sniffing canine to the front porch of the defendant’s home to see whether the dog would make a positive hit for drugs.  The dog did, and based on the that positive hit, the police obtained a search warrant to search the home.  In searching the home pursuant to the warrant the police discovered marijuana plants, and the defendant was charged with trafficking in CDS.

The evidence was suppressed by the lower courts in Florida and affirmed by the Florida Supreme Court.  The United States took certiorari and our highest court agreed that the police had no right to bring the drug-sniffing dog on the defendant’s porch without a warrant.  That any search of a home or its curtilage without a warrant was a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.  Following Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 180 (1984), which held that any area immediately surrounding and associated with the house is part of the home for purposes of Fourth Amendment protection.

If you have been arrested as result of a search of your home, office or motor vehicle without a warrant you must seek competent legal advice from an experienced criminal defense attorney, to see if your fourth amendment rights have been violated and your chances of obtaining a dismissal based on a motion to suppress the evidence illegally seized.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Elizabeth, New Jersey

(908) 354-7006

Criminal Defense Attorney in New Jersey, Union County, Federal Court, Newark, Elizabeth, Jersey City, New Brunswick, Hackensack, Morristown, Somerville, Bayonne, Union City, Clifton, Roselle Park, Clark, Westfield, Union, Short Hills, Milburn.

Dated: December 26, 2013

Quote of the day:  “Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope.” Robert Kennedy

“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

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.

Belleville New Jersey Cops Acted With Excessive Force in Firing 30 Shots at Dante Cespedes for Allegedly Lunging with Knifes

In what appears to be another insistence of excessive force and poorly trained police officers, three Belleville Township police officers gunned down a man with a knife.  The police officers allege that the Cespedes a chef at a New York City hotel lunged at them with two knifes, when they entered the house to execute an arrest based on a municipal court complaint by his wife.

The question is why did they fire 30 rounds of bullets at Cespedes at close range, in which 24 rounds were pumped into his body?  Why didn’t the three police officers attempt to disarm him and dislodge the weapon first with a night stick, by hitting his arms or hand with the night stick or mental flash light?  Why didn’t they attempt to stop him by firing non-lethal shots to the legs or arms?  Why did they find it necessary to pump 30 bullets into his body and in essence execute this man on the spot?  Why didn’t they first attempt to retreat before they decided to use deadly force?   Why didn’t they attempt to teaser him or mace him first?  Why did they enter the house knowing he was armed without first ordering him to throw down the knifes and come out peacefully?   Did the police even have the authority to enter the home based on a disorderly person’s complaint filed by his wife?  This is of great significance because no one was at the home but Mr. Cespedes, and there appeared to be no emergency for them to enter the house.  Further, if the wife had informed the police that her husband was intoxicated why were the officers not prepared to deal with an intoxicated individual, bring to the scene non-lethal disarming devices?  It appears from the evidence presented thus far that they acted with deliberate indifference and excessive force.   

There are many questions that must be honestly investigated and answered by the Essex County Prosecutor’s Office in this case before these three police officers should continue to hold a badge and firearm.  Unfortunately, the evidence presented thus far shows that these three police officers were trigger happy and not competent to carry a deadly firearm.

And up-date to this blog on December 11, 2013 the Star Ledger published that the wife of the slain victim Dante Cespedes filed a wrongful death suit against the Belleville Police Department and police officers, Angelo Quinn, Charles Mollineaux, Matthew Dox and Jack Baumgartner.  The law suit claims that Quinn and Molineaux each fired 14 times, while Dox fired twice.
It is amazing that 30 shots were fired at this distraught man, with no indictments of the cops.  

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Shocked At Racist Comments

Shocked At Racist Comments

As a civil rights and criminal defense attorney I am currently involved in federal civil rights case in which I represent an African-American, Aundrey Green, who was brutally beaten by three New Jersey State Police Officers. During the beating Mr. Green was handcuffed and unarmed. Mr. Green was kicked and punched numerous times, and his head was split open by one of the troopers metal flashlights. Much of the beating, not all, was audio-video taped by the Motor Vehicle Recording tape, which was on the dashboard of the troopers’ vehicle. To expose this brutal beating and the officers involved, the MVR tape was posted on Youtube and can be seen with the following link, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rul6AtlvxW0.

To date, there have been 32,000 view of the Youtube video and 301 comments to same. What is shocking to me, and has opened my mind to the racism against African-Americans, is some of the horrendous and shocking racist comments made against Mr. Green because of his race. When will this hatred come to an end?

Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.
CriminalDefenseNJ.com
YourCivilRights@gmail.com