The Evil of Moral Relativeness

In 1992, Justice Anthony Kennedy, wrote in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, that “at the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

That is the type of disordered thinking that can lead to the absurd judicial decision, to wit, the killing of the unborn child for any reason based on the subjective belief of the mother that the physical or mental wellbeing of the mother could be adversely affected.   Yes, even under the absurd pretext that it would cramp the mother’s life style.  Justice Kennedy should be reminded that our founding Fathers actually believed that the right to life is given to us in the Bill of Rights by our Creator, and not by the Supreme Court.

No Justice Kennedy, this type of thinking leads to moral relativeness, which means that there is no objective truth, that anyone can decide what is true, and it is for the individual to decide what is truth, no matter how absurd and evil that might be.  If everything is true, as Justice Kennedy says, there is no absolute truth.  No Justice Kennedy there is objective moral truth, and to turn ones back on objective moral truth will lead to the absolute destruction of a civilized society as we know it.

There is no question that this type of disordered thinking leads us down the road to moral destruction.  If we can kill the unborn baby because an individual decides that this is not a person and has (“defined one’s own concept of existence”), why not kill the infirmed, the mentally handicapped or the elderly.   For that matter anyone that does not follow one’s own concept of existence. 

A distorted view of the natural law as espoused by Justice Kennedy is simply a recital of the positive law concept espoused by dictators and tyrants, who have turned their backs on God and the natural law.  History has gave us a multitude of tyrants and evil dictators, especially in the 20^th Century who decided who was a person, and who was worth of having the protection of the state.  Wasn’t it Adolph Hitler who decides that people of the Jewish faith were none person, worthy to be only to be murdered by the State. 

Where does such disordered thinking end.  If our judges of the highest court in the United States ascribe to such nonsense is anyone safe?  What has the sexual revolution brought us but the seeing of another, not being of beauty made in the likeness and imagine of God, but rather an object to be used and sometimes sadly even abused.

Equally troubling is the dictatorship of the followers of this post-pagan hearses.  These proponents of such disordered thinking will not hesitate to demonize anyone who will not follow and subscribe to this type of pagan and destructive thinking.  They falsely label themselves as progressives and people of acceptance and inclusion, but in reality they are the ones who in the end will force all of us to accept, or be eliminated, if their “concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life,” is not accepted. The dictatorship of moral relativism is already upon us and few of us even know what is happening.

In a true democracy it is not so much as what we can do, but what we ought to do.  When we fail to do what is “right and justice” there can be no real true freedom.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.
Elizabeth, (Union County, Essex County) New Jersey
(908) 354-7006
CriminalDefenseNJ.com

WHEN YOU DECIDE TO TESTIFY OR CALLED TO THE STAND AS A WITNESS

1.      Most Important, always tell the truth. This is the most important advice any witness should remember. If you are called to testify as a witness in a criminal case before you begin your direct testimony from the attorney that calls you to he stand you will be first required to take an oath or affirmation to tell the truth. When you take the oath or affirmation, say "I do", and look the jury or the judge straight in the eye.   When you are asked a question, every true fact should be readily admitted. Do not guess, and if you are not sure of the answer say you are not sure.  Testimony before a judge or jury is no time to wing your answers.  Never pause before you answer to decide whether your answer will help or hurt either side. Just answer the questions to the best of your memory.  If you do not remember say you do not remember, and if you do not understand the question do not be afraid to say that you do not understand the question.   

2.      Be prepared prior to your testimony. Review any statements or reports that you may have made regarding the incident.  You should attempt to refresh your recollection regarding times, dates and time periods prior to your testimony. Before you testify, think about the incident and what happened, so that you can recall the details accurately when you are asked in court. Do not simply agree with the questions posed of the attorney, either on direct or cross, with a simple correct, unless it is the right response to say correct.  If the question is about distances or time, and if your answer is only an estimate, be sure you say it is only an estimate. Beware of suggestions by attorneys as to distances or times when you do not recall the actual time or distance. Do not readily agree with their estimate unless you independently arrive at the same estimate.

3.      Speak in your own words. Use simple words and sentences. Don't attempt to  memorize what you are going to say, or use words to impress the judge or jury.  Speaking plainly and simply will go a long way and conveying to the judge or jury what you know, and don’t know about a particular case.  If you attempt to give long winded answers you might give the impression that your testimony is d rehearsed and accordingly, your testimony will be unconvincing.  Rather, just be yourself and stay calm. Prior to the trial or hearing, go over in your own mind those matters about which you will be questioned.

4.      Dress as if you were going to an important event.  Men should never wear a hat in the courtroom, unless it is religiously necessary.  There is no required dress code in a courtroom. However, testifying before a jury or judge is very formal and important, and you give credence to your testimony when you dress as if the mater is important to you. Further, it is important to have a neat appearance, and to dress in a manner that shows respect for the courtroom proceedings, and your presence before a jury or a judge.

5.      Avoid distracting mannerisms or actions that will distract the jury or judge. Never chew gum, candy, or other objects that may make you difficult to understand. Present your testimony clearly, slowly, and loud enough so that the juror seated farthest away from you can easily hear and understand everything you say.  If is better to speak with a firm and voice which can be heard by everyone in the courtroom without difficulty.  Not all jurors have the same hearing ability.  Older jurors, attorneys and judges might have difficulty in hearing so speak loud enough for all to hear.

6.      Never speak to jurors or discuss the case outside of the courtroom. While in public places outside the courtroom unbeknownst to you there may be jurors present who are part of the jury in which you will be testifying.  Accordingly, for that reason you are never permitted to discuss the case with anyone, including the attorneys unless you are in a private secured location.. Remember, too, that jurors may have an opportunity to observe you outside the courtroom. If you see a juror, you are not allowed to speak to the juror, even to say hello.

7.      Also conduct yourself in a dignified and respectful manner. From the moment that you enter the courtroom or courthouse, your behavior must be consistent with the, and appropriate to the seriousness of the proceedings. When you are called into court for any reason, be serious and avoid saying anything about the case until you are actually on the witness stand. Also, do not read in the courtroom, unless asked to do so by the judge or the attorneys.

8.      Never exaggerate or guess in your testimony. Don't make overly broad statements that you may have to correct. Be particularly careful in responding to a question that begins, "Wouldn't you agree that...?" The explanation should be in your own words. Do not allow an attorney to put words in your mouth. Give positive, definite answers when at all possible. Avoid saying "I think," "I believe," or "In my opinion." If you do not remember certain details, it is best to say that you don't remember. If you don't understand the question, say so. Don't make up an answer.

9.      Expect that after you give your testimony you will be subject to cross –examination.   In every criminal case both sides have a chance to question every witness.  Never underestimate the power of the skill of a criminal attorney in cross-examination.  Lawyers you practice criminal law, both defense and prosecution, are highly skilled in the art of cross-examination.  Everything that you say on direct will be subject to cross-examination.  If you lied, or gave half-truths, mistaken, or gave prior inconsistent statements the skilled attorney who is trained in cross-examination will often expose your direct testimony as not believable.  Remember questions asked by both sides have the same goal - to find out what is true.  Always remember that the purpose of cross-examination is to raise doubts about the accuracy of your testimony. If you feel you are being doubted in cross-examination, remember that to raise doubt is the defense counsel's job. Try not to take questions personally or be upset by an attorney's questions. Always be courteous, even if the lawyer questioning you appears discourteous. A witness who is angry or upset may appear to be less than objective. Do not appear to be a “smart ass” or "wise guy" or you will lose the respect of the judge and the jury.

10.  Jurors are ordinary people, just like you. Remember it is the jury that you are speaking to, therefore, always look at the attorney asking the question, but turn to the jury and speak to them when you are giving your response.  They want to see your voice and see that you are looking them in the eye when you answer the questions. Although you are responding to the questions of a lawyer, remember that the questions and answers are really for the jury to hear because they will decide the case and not the lawyers.

11.  Listen first, think and answer.  Always listen carefully before you speak.  The brain works like this, you listen with the ear, you process with the brain and you speak with your mouth.  If you do not follow that order you will be a terrible witness.  Before you speak you must understand the question (have it repeated, if necessary), then give a thoughtful, considered answer. Do not give an answer without thinking about your answer. This is not a race.  Although answers should not be rushed, neither should there be an unnaturally long pause between the question and the answer since a long pause might give the judge and jury the impression that you are making up a response and not telling the truth.

12.  Answer the questions verbally the court reporter or microphone cannot record nods of the head. Do not nod your head for a "yes" or "no" answer. Speak out loud, so that the court reporter can hear the answer. For the same reason, try to avoid words like "yah," "nope," and "uh-huh."

13.  Answer only the questions asked and never volunteer information. Do not volunteer information which has not actually been asked of you. If you don't understand the question asked by one of the attorneys, ask the attorney to repeat or rephrase the question so that you understand exactly what is being asked.

14.  Always testify to the facts. A witness unless he or she is an expert witness can only testify to the facts, opinions of fact witnesses are never permitted.  Opinions of witnesses as to character are sometimes allowed.  The judge and the jury are interested in the facts that you have observed or about which you have personal knowledge. Therefore, don't give your conclusions and opinions, and don't state what someone else told you, unless you are specifically asked, and the judge approves it.  Hearsay is generally not permitted of any witness unless the judge and the attorneys agree that it is permissible under the rules of evidence.

15.  Mistakes happen sometimes happen, if you do make a mistake during your testimony correct it as soon as possible.  If you make a mistake with one of your answers do not wait for the attorney to ask you a question to correct it.  Simply correct it before you answer the next question posed.  Remember iI this happens to you, don't get flustered. Just explain honestly whey you were mistaken. The jury understands that people make honest mistakes, and will appreciate that you corrected it before you were cross-examined on it.

16.  Follow the judge's instructions at all times, and if there is an object immediately stop your response. Stop instantly when the judge interrupts you, or when an attorney objects to a question, and wait for the judge to tell you to continue.

17.  Don't start to answer a question until the question is finished. If you haven't heard the entire question, you don't really know what you are being asked. In addition, sometimes an attorney may raise an objection to the question being asked. "Objection" is a legal term that means one of the attorneys feels you are being asked an improper kind of question. When you hear a lawyer say "objection," simply stop speaking and wait for the judge to rule on the objection. If the judge decides the question is proper, he or she will overrule the objection. If the judge decides the question is not proper, he or she will sustain the objection. You will be told either by the judge or the attorney whether to go ahead and answer the question. Sometimes the judge and attorneys will need to talk just amongst themselves. A "sidebar" is when the judge and the attorneys meet at the judge's bench to discuss various matters, including technical disputes over the Federal Rules of Evidence. They meet at the judge's bench so that the jury cannot hear their discussion.

18.  Do not talk about your testimony with other witnesses in the case.  In all cases the judge will impose a sequestration order.  That means that you are never permitted to talk about your testimony with other witnesses in the case.  Accordingly, after a witness has testified in court, he or she should never tell other witnesses what was said during the testimony until after the case is over. Do not ask other witnesses about their testimony, and do not volunteer information about your own. Sometimes an attorney may ask if you have talked to anybody about the case. It is perfectly proper for you to have talked to people before you testified, such as the prosecutor or your family or friends, and you should respond truthfully to this question.

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

Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Streetr

Elizabeth (Union County), New Jersey 07207

(908) 354-7006

North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation Crime Lab Gets Caught Presenting False Blood Lab Results, Which was Certified by the Same

The North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation Crime Lab (NCSBI) was exposed in being complicit in the submission of numerous false lab reports resulting in a number of defendants being unjustly and falsely convicted of crimes which they did not commit.

Specifically, in 1993 Gregory Flynt Taylor was convicted of murder and sentenced to a life sentence.  The criminal conspiracy was exposed when it was learned through a post-conviction appeal hearing that NCSBI Special Agent Duane Deaver was engaged in preparing false and misleading lab analysis when in the Taylor case testified that Mr. Taylor’s SUA tested positive for blood stains when in fact the samples only provided positive results from a presumptive test known as the “phenolphthalein test”.  In fact in the Taylor case Special Agent Deaver deliberately withheld from defense counsel the fact that when he performed the more advanced and confirmatory test called the “Takayama test”, the results were negative.  In the

Further Special Agent Deaver also withheld from the defense that a third test called the “Ouchterlony test” likewise proved negative for the existence of human blood.

Taylor case no only evidence against Taylor was a jail house snitch who claimed that Taylor admitted to him that he had committed the murder.

Fortunately Mr. Taylor was able to prove his innocence when Deaver was compelled to produce his original lab notes which confirmed the negative results on the two confirmatory tests.  This is one of the reasons that it is essential that the defense attorney in all cases require the production of all the laboratory notes of the forensic chemists.

In August of 2010 the Attorney General of North Carolina released the Swecker-Wolf Report”, prepared by two retired FBI agents which found that out of 15,419 serology reports, 904 filed contained similar misleading language as to presented by Deaver.

What is even more disturbing was the fact that the American Society of Crime Lab Directors-Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD-LAB) certified for 20 years that the NCSBI was proficient, accurate and reliable forensic laboratory.

What is even more shocking and troubling is that the New Jersey State Police Forensic Laboratory is likewise certified by ASCLD-LAB, the same agency that covered up the misconduct in North Carolina’s lab for 20 years.

http://www.state.nj.us/njsp/divorg/invest/forensics.html

By: Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

Dated: July 28, 2011

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Elizabeth, New Jersey

(908) 354-7006

NJ criminal attorneys, NJ criminal lawyers, NJ criminal defense lawyers, NJ criminal defense attorneys, Newark criminal lawyers, Elizabeth nj criminal attorneys, Elizabeth criminal defense lawyers.  Union county nj criminal lawyers.

The Use and Abuse of Confidential Informants By Law Enforcement in the State of New Jersey

One of law enforcements dirty kept secrets which very rarely see the day of light is the use of confidential informants.  In every type of criminal case in both the state and federal levels a defendant can obtain a very substantial sentencing reduction, including a straight probationary sentence, for substantial assistance or cooperation to law enforcement.[1]  It is without dispute that the potential fear of criminal prosecution, reduced sentence, monetary incentives, or other inducements may motivate a criminal suspect, who turns into a confidential informant, in providing information which is false or not totally inaccurate.

An example of the most flagrant abuse of confidential informants is typified by the Bulger fiasco.  After 16 years on the lame, Irish Boston mob boss and serial murderer James “Whitey” Bulger was finally captured at the age of 81.  What is shocking about Mr. Bulger was that while committing dozens of murders he was an informant for the Federal Bureau of Investigation and because of his informant status was able to commit crimes with impunity.

Bulger was allowed to flee Boston when he was warned by his long time handler FBI special agent John Connolly, Jr., who warned Bulger that Bulger was indicted for murder.

Because of his actions agent Connolly was convicted of racketeering in May of 2002 and sent to prison.

Bulger fed the FBI information on his rival the New England Mob and in return Bulger was permitted to run his illegal activities including murder without any interference from the FBI or other law enforcement agencies.

Although nothing similar has surfaced here in New Jersey as horrendous as the Bulger-FBI connection, many criminal defense attorneys have questioned in court the cozy relationships that many confidential informants or (CI) have with law enforcement.

Law Enforcement affidavits for search warrants are filled with hearsay statements to support law enforcements requests for judicial warrants to search homes, tape phones and engage in other types of judicial order investigation techniques.  Often it is impossible to test the veracity of these hearsay statements or to determine if the CI even is real. 

As the law stands now in New Jersey there are no official set of guidelines or rules to guide or control the use of misuse of confidential informants in criminal investigations in this state.

In New Jersey the problem has become so troubling that in June of 2011 the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey published a study on the practice of using CI’s in New Jersey.[2]  The study found that New Jersey does not have a set policy in the use of CI’s and that every county prosecutor office in this state has their own policies. 

In New Jersey there is no uniform statewide policy in the use of CI’s.  Only the New Jersey State Police have a statewide database on their informants but it appears that they do not share that data base with any other law enforcement agency in this state. 

It is without doubt that some law enforcement officers in this state overlook the criminal conduct of CIs under their supervision and control.  Further, many of these CIs in the attempt to “work-off” their offenses for sentencing purposes will engage in entrapment of people who would not have engaged in the crime, but for the inducements and promises made by the CIs to the unsuspected victims.  The CIs know they will not get arrested for crimes which they devise, plan and participate in, and have nothing to lose and will stop at nothing to snare others.

Many CIs are forced by law enforcement officers to participate as informants with threats of additional criminal charges, the threat of spreading rumors in the community or gang that the suspect is a “snitch”, removal and placing of their children in foster care, confiscation of property and loss of job, by notifying the arrestee of his or her arrest.

Currently the Office of the Attorney General requires that all CI agreements be in writing in all narcotics cases, and applicable state law requires that if the CI participated in the alleged crime that he or she can be forced to testify through a motion to disclose the identity of the CI.[3]  This information is published in the New Jersey Prosecutor’s Manual published by the Division of Criminal Justice on January 2, 2001.

Accordingly, a number of glaring misuses of confidential informants in this state that must be rectified and investigated in every criminal case.

1.              Statewide mandatory guidelines in the use of CIs.

2.              Whether the search warrants were circumvented and abused by the use of CIs.

3.              Veracity and actual existences of a CI in the investigation of an alleged crime.

4.              Whether the CI engaged in or promoted any crime.

5.              Full dossier of every CI, which includes, but not limited to, documentation and disclosure. when ordered by the court, of all information on the particular CI, including investigations in which he has been involved, and information disclosed, and whether that information was reliable and verified.

6.              That any and all misuse, or violation of the guidelines, require that the CI be prohibited in further participation in the program, and that any criminal investigations that he was involved in which lead to the arrest of a suspect be dismissed by the prosecutor’s office and disclosed to defense counsel. 

7.              That in every criminal case the assistant prosecutor must notify defense counsel of the use of a CI in a particular case because often that information is never disclosed to defense counsel.

In summary the use and abuse of confidential informants must be rectified and that in every case the criminal defense attorney must pursue that inquiry with proper investigation and the appropriate pre-trial motions.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

Dated: July 15, 2011

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Use of criminal informants in New Jersey criminal practice, entrapment and confidential informants, nj criminal attorney, nj criminal trial attorneys, CIs in new jersey law enforcement.

---

[1] The Federal Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, 5K1.1; New Jersey Brimage Guidelines, 1998, 2004.

[2]

http://www.aclu-nj.org/downloads/0611ACLUCIReport.pdf

[3]  State v. Forez, 261 N.J. Super. 12, 22025 (App. Div. 1992), State v. Surles, (Slip Opinion, NJ. App. Div. 2009)

Mistaken Identification and Rush To Judgment

On December 26, 1862 the Dakota Indian named We-Chank-Washta-don-pee, or also known as “Chaska”, was sentenced to death by a military court of justice.  Prior to the execution of sentence President Abraham Lincoln pardoned Chaska.  However, his jailers confused him with another Dakota Indian and hanged him anyway.  Of course everyone would agree that this was a tragic example of mistaken identification.

To often in the rush to close a case and go to the next open case the police will make a prudential judgment as to the guilt of a suspect without any evidence other than a hunch. 

In a recent case that came to my office this week, a prior arrest free African-American female college student was accused of stealing a pocket book from the doctor’s office in which she had been sent for an IME by an insurance company.  Inside the pocket book were numerous credit cards and other identifying information.

The same day the pocket book was stolen, a Black female was observed attempting to purchase a large amount of expensive merchandise at the Short Hills Mall with the stolen credit cards.  Having nothing to go on but a grainy video of this individual purchasing these items with the stolen credit cards, the police decided to charge this college student on a hunch.

The college student is innocent and it appears that the police did nothing to really attempt to solve this crime and catch the real perpetrator of the crime.  If the cops in this case had engaged in real honest police work they would have learned quickly that the college student was innocent and should never have been charged.  Clearly this is a case of mistaken identity.

Again a rush to judgment on a hunch is unethical, unfair and dishonest and does nothing in the pursuit of justice.  Unfortunately, this type of shoddy police work is more the rule than the exception and causes me great concern as a criminal defense lawyer in New Jersey.

As Pope John Paul I was quoted as saying, “If you want peace work for Justice.”

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr. 

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Elizabeth, New Jersey

(908) 354-7006

Dated: June 22, 2011

False Confessions and Police Misconduct.

It is astounding and sometimes hard for people to imagine or understand why someone would confess to a crime in which he or she did not commit.

Unfortunately the number of false confessions that are given each year in the United States is astounding.  Attorney Peter Neufeld of the Innocence Project in New York has estimated that a quarter of the DNA exonerations involve cases in which people have given false confessions.

The most famous of the false confession cases is the infamous Norfolk Four.  United States Naval Officers, Tice, Williams, Dick and Wilson, stationed at the naval base in Norfolk Virginia were convicted of the brutal rape and murder of Michelle Moore-Bosko in 1997.  The only evidence against the sailors was the coerced confessions by a detective who was later charged and convicted for police misconduct (knowingly extracting false confessions).  In that case the detective, Detective Ford, fed to the sailors held back facts of the case that only the detective knew, and later typed those facts into the signed or taped confessions.  Even when the real killer, Omar Ballard, was charged and convicted based on DNA evidence, and his confession that he committed the crime alone, the police still refused to dismiss the charges against the Norfolk Four.  Detective Ford knew that Sailor Dick was innocent because navel logs showed that Sailor Dick was on the ship U.S. Saipan at the time of the murder.

The Norfolk four continued to maintain that their confessions, which were either signed or taped, were made on the basis that they were coerced with threats that included that they would receive the death penalty if they did not plead guilty. 

This was not the first time Detective Ford was accused of extracting false confessions from suspects.  In the Lafayette Grill case in 1990 he was also accused of similar misconduct.  Detective Ford was known to brag to fellow detectives that he could coerce a false confession out of anyone to solve a crime, regardless of person’s innocence, or lack of evidence against the accused.

All of the Norfolk Four defendants were sentenced to long prison sentences and in 2008 30 retired FBI agents asked the governor of Virginia to pardon the sailors.

After spending many years in prison the Norfolk Four were eventually pardoned over the objections of the State Attorney General who for years fought against their release knowing that the four were truly innocent.

Another infamous and troubling case was the false confession of Douglas Warney who spent nine years in prison for a murder which he did not commit.  At the time of his confession Mr. Warner was suffering from AIDS and AIDS dementia. In that case the police claimed that Mr. Warney confessed to the crime and with facts that only the murderer would know.  Unfortunately, the facts which they claimed he knew about the murder were facts which the facts also knew and which they fed to him.  In the Warney prosecution there were no witnesses, no physical evidence, or DNA evidence to link Mr. Warney to the crime.  Mr. Warney was eventually exonerated by DNA evidence and the arrest and conviction of the person who committed the crime whose DNA was at the crime scene.

The American Psychological Association has continually maintained in their studies that susceptible individuals subject to common police interrogation techniques will confess to anything.  Even less susceptible individuals often confess to crimes that they did not commit with the false and misleading information from the detective that “if you just tell me what I want to hear, we will wrap this up and you will be going home.”  Or, if “you admit to what you did, you will not be charged with a crime.”  Of course, all of these lies are done off the audio-visual camera. 

I am currently handling a pending case in Union County New Jersey in which I am representing an individual who was tricked into given a confession to a crime in which he did not commit.  A motion to suppress the statements is pending with the court, and it is likely that the confession will be thrown out.  In that case the detective interrogating my client asked my client what happened and when the facts did not conform to the facts of the crime, the detective told him what to say.  Fortunately, in that case all of the promises and lies were off camera.  However, the feeding of the facts to my client was captured on video and will make the difference in suppressing the statement as being a product of a coerced false confession.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Elizabeth, New Jersey

(908) 354-7006

Dated: June 22, 2011

United States Supreme Court affirms lower Courts Ruling that Prison Conditions in the California Penal System amounts to Cruel and Unusual Punishment in Violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

On May 24, 2011, in a five to four split decision the United States Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, Brown v. Plata, held that because of the horrendous conditions at many of California’s prisons, especially facilities and units which house prisoners with mental disabilities, that California prison officials can no longer be trusted with policing themselves, and therefore, must reduce their prison population by federal court order.

In increasing numbers many enlightened and progressive jurist are now recognizing that because people sentenced to prison have no one to speak on their behalf, and that politicians caring only to be re-elected have no interest in protecting the rights and dignity of their prison population, that the judiciary is now forced to step in under the Eighth Amendment to United States Constitution to protect prisoners from cruel and unusual punishment.  The Constitution under the Eighth Amendment states that no one shall be subject to cruel and unusual punishment and the conditions of many of our nations jails are just that cruel and inhuman. 

Because all of the States have cut back on funds allocated to their prison systems, more and more prisoners are languishing under prison conditions which are inhuman and violate the Constitution.

As Justice Kennedy writing for the majority wrote, “A prison that deprives prisoners of basic sustenance, including adequate medical care, is incompatible with the concept of human dignity and has no place in civilized society.” 

If society expects and demands that a prisoner upon release live a good and law abiding life, society must treat the prisoner like a human being and afford that person every civil dignity possible under the conditions of incarceration.

As the Court noted, in California inmates were kept in man- sized cages until a bed became available or inmates with mental disorders standing “in a pool of his own urine, unresponsive and nearly catatonic.”

In 2007, here in New Jersey one very enlightened and progressive Federal District Court Judge, the Honorable Katherine S. Hayden, held that the conditions at the Passaic County Jail in which federal prisoners were being held awaiting trials or sentences, was “shameful”.  As Justice Hayden wrote in her written opinion, “...forces the question of how long we continue to turn a deaf ear, mine included.  It has become a tired fact of life in these courtrooms that Passaic County Jail is overcrowded, is breaking down, and is a very rough place to serve time.”

As noted, the Passaic County Jail was noted for severe overcrowding, with hundred of inmates packed into dorm like rooms, inches apart. The jail had infestations of rats, mice, and other assorted types of insects.  The jail was notorious for serving food not fit for human consumption, with dead insects and rat and mice dropping in the food.  Because of the food many inmates received little or no nourishment.

Because of the deplorable conditions of the jail Judge Hayden correctly reduced the jail sentence which she imposed upon a defendant who was incarcerated under these cruel and harsh conditions.

Because of Judge Hayden’s courageous decision, and the United States Attorneys concern that she would reduce other prison sentences with other defendants serving time at the Passaic County Jail, the United States Marshall Service pulled out all of the federal inmates from that facility.

It is time that more judges take into account in sentencing defendants the conditions that are being imposed in our local, county, state and federal jails, and act with courage and compassion for speaking out and protecting a segment of society that has no voice.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Dated: May 25, 2011, Elizabeth, N.J.