Friday, April 29, 2011

New Jersey Victims of Crime Compensation Office and the Defendant’s Right to Know.

The New Jersey Victims of Crime Compensation Office pays millions of dollars a year to victims and sometimes fraudulent victims who claimed that they have been injured by defendants.

The VCCO pays a maximum claim of $25,000.00 for various bills and expenses incurred by a crime victim, such as medical expenses, child care, and loss of earnings, and another possible $35,000.00 for rehabilitative services for victims claiming catastrophic injuries. In New Jersey this amounted to approximately 9.5 million in 2010.

The New Jersey Rules of Criminal Procedure require that every presentence report state the amount that the alleged victim has been paid from the VCCO.

N.J.S.A. 2C:44-6(3) provides that every presentence report shall include a report on any compensation paid by the VCCO, in my practice of criminal law for over 21 years, not one presentence report has contained that mandatory information.

The question arises as to why the VCCO payment or application information is not automatically made discoverable to the defense for purposes of cross-examination as to a possible motive in why the alleged victim made the charges against the defendant?

Therefore, in every applicable case it is mandatory that defense counsel request the information through a court order, if the prosecuting attorney is not willing to provide that information voluntarily. Even if the information is not helpful during trial, it nevertheless needs to be disclosed on the presentence report.

The criminal defense attorney who is involved in such a case and suspects that the victim might be falsely pursing the charges for a monetary gain must be diligent in being aware of that issue, for purposes of impeaching the credibility of the alleged victim.

Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., has been involved in many criminal cases in which the credibility of the alleged victim revolved around a monetary motive for bring the false charges against the defendant. In a number of cases this information led to the ultimate dismissal of the charges by the prosecutor’s office, through pretrial disposition, or after a verdict of acquittal by the jury.

Sanzone Firm

Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

YourCivilRights@gmail.com

(908) 354-7006

New Jersey Drug Court Program Its Pitfalls and Benefits.

There is no argument in the medical community that drug addition is a medical malady, no different than any other serious medical condition that takes sustained and prolonged medical treatment.

Often in the struggle to overcome addition the addict has periods of sometimes many months in which he is cured of his addiction. However, more often than not, the person addicted relapses into his drug dependency.

In New Jersey the Drug Court Program or “special probation”, requires the defendant to remain drug free throughout the program which can last up to five years. Ascertaining whether the defendant is drug free is done by having the defendant give weekly urine samples which are tested by a State approved lab.

The defendant who tests positive on a second or subsequent test is subject to the revocation of the special probation drug court program and a sentence to jail.

N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14(g) states that a person in special who is subject to drug court revocation can be sentenced by the judge to a limited time of incarcerated from 30 days to 6 months. However, to often judges facing a defendant with more than one positive test are too quick to discharge the defendant from the program and immediately send the defendant to a state prison sentence.

In deciding whether to discharge the defendant from the drug court program the judge must take into account any recommendations of the defendant’s medical or treatment providers. It is imperative that drug court judges understand the great difficulty that defendants with drug addictions have and understand that his is a life time struggle of each defendant who often falls, before the final cure.

There is no argument that a key component of the drug court program is accountability. However, accountability component must be measured with the reality that in most cases there will be slips in the process, and that a quick decision to terminate and jail the defendant does not serve the interest of justice.

In the event that the defendant is terminate from special probation he or she is entitled jail credit for all the time that he or she spent in any impatient facility.

If you are facing the prospects of entering or being terminated for the drug court program you are strongly advised to contact the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr. who has over 21 years in the practice of criminal law in the State of New Jersey, and has handled and counseled many defendants in the New Jersey Drug Court Program.

April 29, 2011

Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

(908) 354-7006

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

YourCivilRights@gmail.com

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

277 North Broad Street

P.O. Box 261

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

Thursday, April 21, 2011

New Jersey DWI Conviction Tossed Based on Sleep-Driving

A Superior Court judge sitting in Somerset County New Jersey threw out a driving while intoxicated conviction based on the defendant sleep-driving, after she took sleep medication, Ambien and Seroquel, along with four glasses of wine, and retiring to bed for the night.

The defense attorney in this case argued that the defendant was “pathologically intoxicated”, and was not aware of the side effects of the medication she was taking, which had not been noted by the manufacturers.

The defendant claimed that she had no recollection of the arrest and processing at police headquarters, claiming that she only became aware of the incident the next day after she saw a number of moving violations on her kitchen table. The defendant’s blood alcohol level was .10% at the time of her arrest. The defendant was a resident of Hillsborough New Jersey.

In the event that you are charged with a driving while intoxicated or driving while impaired you should consult the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., who has over 21 years of experience in representing individuals charged with such offenses throughout the State of New Jersey.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.
P.O. Box 261
Elizabeth, N.J. 07207
(908) 354-7006
CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

David Jones President of NJ State Police, Get's Caught in Another Horrendous and Despicable Act

State Trooper Union President David Jones again discredits himself and the New Jersey State Police by his “Gestapo” attempt to silence radio host Craig Carton of 101.5 F.M, on the radio show “Jersey Guys.”
May 23, 2007, New Jersey Attorney General Stuart Rabner wrote to State Police Superintendent Rick Fuentes, saying that Mr. Jones as president of the troopers union “discredited both himself and the Division of State Police,” when Jones released personal information about Mr. Carton creating the perception that Mr. Carton and any other citizen would pay dearly if they dare criticize or have a grievance against any state trooper or the division itself.
On May 3, 2007 when Mr. Jones held a press conference attempting to defend why on the State Trooper’s Fraternal Association’s password protected Web site had numerous anonymous trooper postings that threatened a “ticket blitz” against motorists because of the radio dis jockey’s comments. At that news conference Mr. Jones threatened to release Mr. Carton’s home address and license plate number, along with all of the executives of the radio station, because of Mr. Carton's comments about the state police.
For Jones’ horrendous and despicable behavior State Police Superintendent Fuentes disciplined Jones with a slap on the wrist with only a thirty day suspension and written reprimand.
This is not the first time that Jones has attempted to silence critics of the State Police. In one specific occasion Jones published two blatantly false and defamatory statements against this criminal defense and civil rights attorney in regards to a civil rights lawsuit filed against three troopers who had brutally beaten a black motorist.
It is with some relief that this time that David Jones was caught and exposed by the Attorney General and warned that intimidation techniques have no place in a free and democratic society.
I agree with Mr. Carton’s comments that Mr. Jones does not deserve to be carrying and badge and gun, and this is just one more example of a trooper who believes and acts above the law, and does not deserve to hold a job at the taxpayer’s expense.
Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq., 277 North Broad Street, P.O. Box 261, Elizabeth, New Jersey, 07207, (908) 354-7006: March 30, 2011, CriminalDefenseNJ.com
"If you want to peace work for justice." Pope John Paul I

Friday, March 11, 2011

The Urgent Need to Reform the N.J. Municipal Court System

The Urgent Need to Reform the New Jersey Municipal Court System


Although this N.J. Criminal Defense Attorney does not personally need evidence of the existence of God, every once in a while he sends us a message that he is listening in the form of poetic justice.

This message came down again with the second driving while intoxicated (DWI) conviction of George Korpita the former municipal court judge in the towns of Dover, Rockaway Borough, and Victory Gardens.

While on the bench this man did not blink when he threw the book at each defendant who came before him. This man while on the bench did not flinch when he routinely took away driving privileges of working men and women in the need of a driver’s license to support their families. Not surprisingly at the time of the motor vehicle stop the first thing Korpita said to the police officer was, “I’m a judge. Bro. Can’t you give me a break?”

Not surprising, Korpita, when was arrested on February 15, 2008, in Township of Sparta, attempted to use every defense that he himself rejected from other defendant’s during is tenure on the bench. When Korpita failed the alphabet test he claimed that the police officer was lying and that he did fine. When he failed the walk and turn test he claimed that he could not do the test because one leg was shorter than the other. When he was asked to submit to Alcotest test readings (knowing the 20 minute wait after a belch) he belched repeatedly 78 times in 75 minutes, blaming it on escargot he had eaten earlier. Not surprising was the fact that miraculously the burping stopped after he was issued a ticket for refusal.

What is not surprising were the admission that he made while intoxicated at the time of his arrest regarding his dishonesty, injustice and corrupt behavior as a municipal court judge. In his rant after being issued a ticket for refusal and in his anger at the police, he admitted that as a judge he always ruled in favor of the police, “but not again.” Even more shocking was the admission that he “would always allow the police to beat the shit out of people”, but would no longer do it.

This admission of utterly disgraceful behavior is no surprise to this New Jersey criminal defense attorney who had the unhappy privilege of defending a mother who was in the emergency room at St. Clair’s Hospital in Dover when she attempted to intervene by verbally requesting a Dover police officer to cease beating her mentally handicapped son. The dishonest cop looking for a two-month disability vacation claimed that the mother grabbed the back of his shirt causing him back injury. (can't make this stuff up) The mother having her son punched repeatedly by the cop was charged with assaulting the officer and resisting arrest, when the nurse tried to protect the mother from being arrested for no reason.

At trial two nurses, one Catholic Chaplin, and the treating physician from St. Clair's all testified that the mother did not touch the police officer. What was more shocking than Korpita's ruling that the Catholic Chaplin, two nurses and treating physician were lying when he made his decision finding the mother guilty of all charges, was the fact that prior to all four defense witnesses testifying Korpita in open court attempted to intimidate all four witnesses by telling them that by testifying that they waived their Fifth Amendment against self incrimination and could be charged themselves with committing a crime., and should seek the advise of legal counsel. To their credit the treating physician, two nurses, and Catholic Chaplan all had the courage to tell the truth and testify in spite of Korpita's attempt to intimidate them. (You cannot make this stuff up)

On appeal a New Jersey Superior Court Judge in Morris County reversed the disorderly person’s assault conviction, but nevertheless convicted the mother because she refused to be cuffed when the nurse attempted to protect the mother by moving her into another room away from the errant police officer.

What is important with the Korpita story is that to many of the municipal court judges in this State, in various degrees, are no different than George Korpita. To often they are more interested in keeping their jobs, and the only way they do it is by increasing the municipal court fine revenue by finding everyone guilty. Often the most bizarre and brazen perjured testimony by municipal police officer are found credible at the expense of the accused defendant. More often than not there is absolutely no justice in municipal courts in this State. There is a conflict of interest since the judge’s paycheck depends on him or her being reappointed, and any municipal court judge that is fair will not be reappointed, since being fair sometime demands that defendants are acquitted.

The remedy in my opinion is that the municipal court system undergo a major reformation, a reform, which will attempt to give some justice for the people who come before it.

It is time that our State Legislature take away from the local towns the appointment of judges. Municipal Court judges should be appointed by the Governor, or some other neutral body, based on merit, fairness and experience. The courts should be consolidated to eliminate costs and cronyisms, and the salaries of these judges paid by the State from tax revenue and fines generated.

As John F. Kennedy said, “People see things and say, why, I see things and say why not.” The time for reform and change is now; we should not expect anything less.

New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney, Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq. Law Office Located at 277 North Broad Street, Union County, New Jersey 07207. (908) 354-7006 Posted: March 11, 2011 CriminalDefenseNJ.com



Tuesday, February 1, 2011

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

Tuesday, January 5, 2010

Opening Statements; When to Win Your Case?


The question is often asked; during a criminal jury trial when should defense counsel win the jury over to his client's side? The most obvious and correct answer is at the first chance that he gets, and that is during the opening statement. After defense counsel's opening the jury should be so convinced of the defendant's cause, that all of the prosecutors witnesses will be viewed through the lens of defense counsel's opening, and more easily enable defense counsel to cross-examine each witness for the prosecution through the eyes of the defendant, with the defendant's theme of the case already planted in the jurors minds.

It is well settled that most jurors, like people in general (in spite of instructions from the judge to contrary not to make any opinions until all the evidence is in), do in fact take sides early on in any given case. Like people in general, jurors, make decisions, either consciously or unconsciously to like or dislike someone, there is no escaping that fundamental fact of human nature. Therefore, it is essential that during the defense opening statement that defense counsel present all of the facts which he or she honestly believes the evidence will show and why that evidence means that his or her client is not guilty of the crimes charged. The opening is not the time to talk about the criminal justice system, it is not the time to speak in platitudes, or generalities, it is the time to speak about your client and the facts which show that your client cannot be guilty of the charges.

Therefore, the opening must be fairly detailed and fact sensitive, and in all cases be much longer than the opening by prosecutor. It is the first, and probably the best chance to win your case. If you do not win your case at the opening, you usually will not win your case, because the time summations role around the jury has long decide who they want to win. The jury wants to hear your side of the story at the beginning, give it to them at the beginning and win your case.

Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.
January 5, 2009, Elizabeth, New Jersey
CriminalDefenseNJ.com