Press Release Hudson County Superior Court, December of 2014.

Defendant charged and indicted by a Hudson County Grand Jury with official misconduct (second degree) and theft (third degree).  Defendant facing a state prison sentence as follows.  For the official misconduct a consecutive sentence of 5-10 years to run consecutive to the third degree theft of 3-5 years. Total maximum state prison exposure of 15-years in state prison.

Appropriate pre-trial motions filed to the Superior Court Judge and the official misconduct count of the indictment is dismissed by court prior to trial. 

After a five day criminal jury trial in which the case was given to the jury for deliberation, and while the jury is still deliberating, the Hudson County Prosecutor offers the defendant PTI (pre-trial intervention program), without the payment of any restitution.

Final results: After a period of one-year the theft charge will be dismissed and the Defendant will move to have his arrest for these charges expunged, and he will have absolutely no criminal record of the arrest or of the charges which were dismissed.

The Defendant who was not guilty is vindicated by Attorney Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq. For a further review of the numerous criminal defense victories for Attorney Sanzone go to CriminalDefenseNJ.com

The Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., providing competent and vigorous criminal defense representation for 25-years in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Hudson, Essex, Union, Somerset, Bergen, Passaic, Monmouth, Ocean, Middlesex counties.

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

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

(908) 354-7006

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Ipse dixit, which is translated from Latin to English, “we already decided you are bad.”  Why do the police and/or prosecutor always decided that the defendant committed the crime without knowing all the facts of the case?  Willful blindness is never justice.  Authentic Justice requires that before anyone is charged with a crime that the charging authorities honestly and fairly investigate the alleged unlawful activity.  All too often law enforcement rushes to judgment “to put a feather in their cap” and close a file.

Our New Jersey Judges Have Constitutional Rights

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

The charges against Superior Court Judge Raymond Redden and Municipal Court Judge Gerald Keegan are unfounded and if

the Supreme Court accepts the recommendations of the Disciplinary Review Board our Judges will be forced not to attend any religious functions or meetings in which the participates share in a common table.

As it stands now many Judges throughout the state, as part of their personal religious apostolate, regularly, or occasionally, attend religious meetings in the form of spiritual retreats, religious organizations and meetings, in which other participates, may or may not be facing pending state or federal criminal charges.  Such meetings could be, but not limited to such things as attending a meeting at the Knights of Columbus, religious retreat house, Seder meals at the Synagogue or Temple, or at the Muslim Mosque during the last day feast for Ramadan. 

What is very troubling about this grievance is that the Catholic Bartimeous Family group was not an eating club, but rather a Catholic religious group dedicated to the apostolate to healing, prayer and faith, which concluded after the meal with a Catholic Mass.

Is the Disciplinary Review Board arguing that our judges are no longer permitted to attend religious functions or meetings in which food is served at a common table?  Is the Disciplinary Review Board now arguing that unless a criminal background check is done on all present the Judge cannot attend the religious function or meeting?  Or is the DRB arguing that before the Judge can attend such a meeting that the Judge first review the list of participates to ascertain who among the group might have a pending criminal or civil case before them, or their vicinage? 

The actions of the DRB in this case are a further example of the erosion of our religious liberties and hopefully our Supreme Court will recognize this as such.  Our Judges have the First Amendment constitutional right to religious freedom and express and they should not have to choose between their judicial office or their full practice and expression of their religious faith.

The secular pop-culture which continues to marginalize people of faith must end.

Vincent James Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

September 25, 2014

Excerpts of Criminal Jury Summations by New Jersey Attorney Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

Excerpts of criminal jury summations in State v. Ngyuen, Morris County, N.J., by attorney Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr. The actual summations lasted 2 1/2 hours. The Defendant was found not guilty of all second degree charges, and the defendant did not spend one day in State Prison. The case tried by the the Office of the New Jersey Attorney General's Office Organized Crime Division. The State offer before trial was a five year state prison sentence.  Watch at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdTXwkxFsZE

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

A New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney, Elizabeth, New Jersey (908) 354-7006

CriminalDefenseNJ.com