Arrested or Charged with A Crime by the Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office

Arrested or charged with a crime or disorderly person’s offense in

Middlesex County, Superior Court, New Brunswick, N.J. 

Of course not every defendant who is charged with a crime in Middlesex County has his or case dismissed by the Middlesex County Prosecutor’s Office, or obtains a not guilty verdict after a jury trial.  In fact, the percent of these defendants’ who obtain such results are small compared to the percentage of defendants who accept pleas or obtain not guilty verdicts.

Nonetheless, these facts should not deter someone accused of a crime in Middlesex County to give up.  Statistically, it has been proven over and over again, that the defendant’s who retained experienced criminal defense counsel are more likely to obtain a not guilty verdict, dismissal of his or her case, or a favorable plea.  Ultimately such results do not come easy, and such results are obtained because the attorney handling the case has a reputation in the criminal defense community of knowledge of the law, proven trial experience, and preparation of the case, which includes independent investigation of the case, which includes interviewing potential witnesses.

If you have been charged with a crime of disorderly person’s offense in Middlesex County you should consult Attorney Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr. (CriminalDefenseNJ.com) who has a reputation in Middlesex County for hard work and successful results.

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

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

Tel.     (908) 354-7006

Cell     (201) 240-5716

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Police in New Jersey Cannot Enter Home Because Landlord Gives Permission

New Jersey Supreme Court Rule in State v. Vargas 
that the Police with Landlord's Permission, and 
Request, Cannot Enter the Home Without Warrant.

New Jersey's highest court again scores another victor for constitutional rights by curbing the power of police to enter and search a home on the pretext of concern for the health and safety of its occupant.

The Supreme Court held, 6-1, that the "community caretaking" doctrine, which permits a warrantless search of vehicles in limited circumstances, cannot be used to justify a home search, with the consent and request of the landlord, absent “some form of an objectively reasonable emergency."

The ruling, in State v. Vargas, A-56-11, reinstated a trial judge's suppression of narcotics and weapons seized in the apartment of Cesar Vargas, who resided in the City of Vineland,  by police responding to a landlord's report that he had not been seen for several weeks nor had received rent that was due.

After the officers knocked on the door to Vargas' apartment with no response, the landlord, Henry Olaya, used his keys to open the back door and entered the apartment with the officers. In the living room, the officers observed a glass jar about six to eight inches high with green vegetation inside that appeared to be marijuana. Olaya, on his own, opened one a kitchen drawer and found two canning jars full of marijuana.

After the officers made this discovery they left and obtained a search warrant. The search resulted in the seizure of $47,001 in U.S. currency, a shotgun, a rifle, ammunition, two ballistic vests, a clear plastic bag containing white powder, eight mason jars with pot, two digital scales, and measuring cups and pots with white powder residue (in other words a "jackpot" for the police).

Eventually the police learned that Mr. Vargas had been in custody for 10 days after being arrested by the State Police in connection with another investigation.

Cumberland County Superior Court Judge Benjamin Telsey ordered the suppression of the contraband.  However, the Appellate Division reversed, saying the conduct was based a legitimate concern for Vargas' welfare and was not part of any criminal investigation.

Justice Barry Albin, writing for the majority said Olaya knew nothing of Vargas' personal or work life, his comings and goings, his vacation habits or whether he often left to visit family. There was no reason, he said, why the police could not attempt to obtain a warrant before entering his apartment.

The community-caretaking doctrine has its origins in the seminal U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (1973).  In that case the court upheld the search of a motor vehicle of a suspected drunken driver after it had been towed to a private garage.  Judge Albin held, however, that the Supreme Court "never suggested that community-caretaking responsibilities constituted a wholly new exception to the warrant requirement that would justify the warrantless search of a home.”

Additionally, distinguishing State v. Bogan, 200 N.J. 61 (2009), that the community-caretaking doctrine could apply in the case of police taking "de minimis" steps to ensure the safety of a child in an apartment building where there had been a recent rape, Albin said.

Again citing its ruling in State v. Edmonds, 211 N.J. 117 (2012), Justice Albin stated that there must generally be exigent circumstances to search a home without a warrant, and even then the exception is "not a roving commission to conduct a nonconsensual search of a home…"

In every criminal case you must consult with an experienced New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney to determine whether you have a viable motion to suppress.

Finally, the Court held, "[W]e now expressly disapprove of language suggesting that the community-caretaking doctrine permits the warrantless entry into or search of a home in the absence of some form of exigent circumstances ... We reject the State's position that the community-caretaking doctrine, standing alone and in the absence of some form of exigent circumstances, allows the police to conduct warrantless searches of homes.”
"To accept the State's argument would render the emergency-aid doctrine obsolete and undermine the heightened protections afforded to the home under our Federal and State Constitutions," Albin said.

If you have been charged with possession with intent to distribute CDS, controlled dangerous substance such as  Heroin, Cocaine, and Marijuana and other prescription narcotics or charged with a weapons offense such as unlicensed handgun or other firearm, you should consult with Attorney Sanzone who has achieved successful results in filing motions to suppress and suppressing CDS in Union, Essex, Hudson, Somerset, Bergen, Monmouth, Ocean, Middlesex, Mercer counties.

 

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

277 North Broad Street

P.O. Box 261

Elizabeth (Union County), New Jersey 07207

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Office Phone No. (908) 354-7006

Cell Phone No.   (201) 240-5716

Dated: May 11, 2013

Best Newark NJ Criminal Lawyers, Essex County Criminal NJ Criminal Defense Attorneys, Essex County criminal attorneys, N.J. Best Criminal Defense Attorneys, NJ Best Criminal Defense Lawyers, Elizabeth NJ criminal lawyers, Union County Criminal Lawyers, New Jersey federal trial lawyer, federal criminal trial attorney, NJ criminal attorney, Federal Criminal NJ lawyer, Union County criminal lawyer, Best Hudson Criminal Lawyers

New Jersey State Trooper William Billingham Loses Appeal

Detective Sergeant William Billingham of the New Jersey loses appeal when the Superior Court Appellate Division overrules the trial court in holding that Billingham’s medical records are subject to subpoena in assault by auto case charges against him.

In this interesting case in which the State Police were again caught covering-up criminality of one of their own, the New Jersey Appellate Division ruled in State v. Billingham that trooper Billingham’s blood test results  are subject to a Dyal subpoena in the State’s prosecution and investigation of the trooper to determine whether Billingham was driving while intoxicated and be charged with assault by auto when he struck the rear end of another automobile at a red light.

In this case his fellow troopers whom arrived on the scene of the accident covered up Billingham’s intoxication.  However, after further investigation by the Star-Ledger it was learned that the State Police covered-up Billingham’s real identity, falsely stating to the victim that his name was “Gillespie”, his assumed undercover name.

The Star-ledger also uncovered that Billingham’s fellow troopers not only covered-up his intoxication but provided the victim with false, fictional and incomplete insurance information regarding Billingham a/k/a Gillespie.

The appellate division held that Billingham’s blood test results performed at hospital when he went to hospital for treatment after his automobile accident are subject to subpoena notwithstanding the patient-physician privilege created by N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-22.2.

In State v. Dyal the New Jersey Supreme Court in 1984 held that such a subpoena, what is now known as a “Dyal Subpoena” is not subject to the patient-physician privilege if there is sufficient evidence of intoxication.

Before the police can obtain a Dyal subpoena for blood records at the hospital the police should apply to the municipal court judge for a subpoena duces tecum, upon a showing by the police that they have a reasonable basis to believe the defendant was operating a motor vehicle while under the influence.  These facts can be facts or evidence obtained at the scene or fact uncovered shortly thereafter.

In the Billingham case there were sufficient facts to warrant such a subpoena such as the fact that Billingham had attended a party in which alcohol was served, he claimed he fell asleep at the wheel, speeding, engaged in an accident which was clearly his fault, the first responders smelled alcohol in the ambulance while he was in their vehicle.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

277 North Broad Street

P.O. Box 261

Elizabeth (Union County), New Jersey 07207

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Office Phone No. (908) 354-7006

Cell Phone No.   (201) 240-5716

Dated: January 11, 2013

Best Middlesex County Criminal Lawyers, criminal attorneys New Brunswick, criminal lawyers New Brunswick, criminal lawyers Princeton NJ, best criminal lawyers Middlesex county, best criminal lawyers New Brunswick, criminal defense attorney Middlesex county

The Ten Commandments as to Why You Should Remain Silent When Questioned By a Law Enforcement Officer

1.              It is only until recent times under western civilization in which someone had the right to remain silent.  Throughout history people confronted by the police were tortured until they confessed (even today in some countries, China, Iran, North Korea, among others) The constitution of the United States affords that scared privilege of remaining silent without torture, why give up that right.

2.              When police decide to question you that usually means they do not have enough evidence to arrest or charge you.  If they have sufficient probable cause for an arrest or charge most often they will just take you into custody.  If they start to ask you questions first that usually means that they do not have enough evidence and they are asking you to convict yourself out of your own mouth.

3.              Under federal law giving a wrong, false, or misleading answer to a federal agent in of itself is a crime.

4.              When someone starts talking they usually get carried away with themselves, get careless, become forgetful, and might even say something that might harm themselves.  In other words, false confessions are more common than we might think.  Even with an intelligent suspect under questioning by an aggressive police officer, there is a chance that an innocent suspect might say something that makes them sound guilty.

5.              Cops are trained to dominant the conversation during an interrogation, and if you begin talking and telling your side of the story, which they disagree with, they will cut you off, and not allow to speak about your innocence’s.  So in other words as long as you are talking about your guilt you are free to speak, when you speak about being innocent you will be ignored, interrupted and cut off.

6.              Words and the meaning of words are powerful tools.  Even when you give a confession in which you assert your innocence’s, the law enforcement officer taking down your statement will usually not give a word for word interpretation of what you are saying, but his opinion of what you are saying, which of course, will make you sound guilty, or hiding something.  Words are powerful and will bite you in the butt at trial or with a motion.

7.              Don’t fall for the bait that only innocent people remain silent, or the second bait trap that this is your time to give you side of the story.  When it is time to give your side of the story it will be at trial, or after speaking with your attorney. If you want to give your side of the story it will be on your terms not on the terms of aggressive interrogators on their turf and on their terms.  For mothers, don’t fool for the trap that the cop will call DYFS and have your children taken away if you don’t talk.  It is illegal for them to say that, but they use it all the time.

8.              If you are under arrest it is for a reason. After handling thousands of criminal cases for 23 years I never met a suspect that was able to talk him or her out of being arrested, charged and detained, by giving a statement.  In fact, it is usually the other way around, someone you enters the police station through the front door innocent without the police having any probable cause for an arrest, leave the back door in cuffs because of their big mouth.  Don’t be fool for the trick that we are looking to get your side of the story so that you can go home.

9.              Our law provides that anyone subject to police questioning has the right to consult a NJ Criminal Defense lawyer prior to questioning.  If you speak first, without consulting a lawyer, the damage might have already been done, and there might be very little the criminal defense attorney can do after the fact.

10.         Lastly, as all fishermen know, “I fish doesn’t get caught until it opens its mouth.”

I hope you have found my insights helpful and of course, I wish you good luck, and that justice be done with your not guilty verdict.

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

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

Office:  (908) 354-7006

Cell:    (201) 240-5716

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Dated: January 1, 2013

“If you want peace work for justice.” Pope John Paul, I

Newark Criminal Defense Attorneys, Elizabeth Criminal Defense Attorneys, Jersey City Criminal Lawyers, Bayonne Criminal Lawyers, Hackensack Criminal Lawyers, Bergen County Criminal Attorneys, NJ Criminal Lawyers, NJ Criminal Lawyers

The Filing of a New Trial Motion Based On Newly Discovered Evidence

Of course not all jury trials result in a not guilty verdict.  In fact, depending on the county in which the trial takes place, not guilty verdict as to all counts are rare.  In federal court the chances of an acquittal are even more rare.  Stating this truth is not meant to dissuade a defendant who decides to exercise his constitutional right under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.  Even after a guilty verdict the sentence imposed by the judge at the time of sentencing might even be lower than the plea offer of the prosecutor.  This is often the case in counties in which there is an extremely high conviction rate, and the county prosecutors believe that they run the courtrooms with their draconian plea offers.  Unfortunately, in some cases they actual do.  In those cases there is less downside risk of going to trial and taking your chances in having the jury make the call as to whether the State or Government has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.  In a recent case in Ocean County the defendant actually received four years less than the plea offer by the Ocean County Prosecutor’s Office after losing at trial.

Another avenue for the defendant is the filing a new trial motion after the verdict based on newly discovered evidence.  Although this motion is rarely granted, the defendant and his/or her attorney must be cognizant of discovering, if possible, any new evidence, if presented to the jury during trial, would have likely altered the verdict if known to defense counsel prior to trial.

Today, AttorneySanzone was granted a new trial motion in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Gloucester County.  In that case, defendant’s prior attorney was unaware that an essential witness withheld important evidence from the parties.  After reviewing the transcripts for appeal, it became clear that this witness appeared to know more than she had disclosed.  After a tape recording of her conversation with the defendant’s wife it was clear that her testimony if known to the jury, and if believed, would have acquitted the defendant since her testimony was convincing evidence that the alleged victim and lied, and had a strong motive to do so in this case.

A new trial motion based on newly discovered evidence as no statutory time limits and can be filed at anytime.

If you are charged with a serious crime you owe it to yourself and family to retain the legal services of an experienced NJ criminal defense lawyer.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

Office No. (908) 354-7006

Cell No.   (201) 240-5716

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Dated: December 24, 2012

Best N.J. Criminal Defense Techniques: How to Win Your Criminal Case At Trial.

It is often asked of me, how does a criminal defense attorney win his or her criminal trial?  The answer to that question is obviously not easy to answer, because many factors and variables contribute to a not guilty verdict.  Unlike a sporting event, the best team does not always win.  In fact a criminal defense attorney can do everything legally possible and still lose the case.

However, having practiced criminal defense for 23 years I have come to learn that one of the most important factor in wining your case is preparation.  In reality criminal jury trials are not won in the courtroom, but rather, in the office.  What I mean by that is only by a thorough and complete preparation of the case prior to trial does one have a chance of wining his or her case.  This of course is no easy task because it means that the criminal defense attorney must devote countless hours in learning the discovery, the law, and the theme of your case.  Most importantly, one must devote countless hours thinking about the case and how best to defend his or her client within the legal and ethical confines of the law.

The second most important aspect of wining your criminal case is selection of the jury, and the aspect in which the criminal defense attorney has the least control is the selection of the jury.  It matters little at the end of the day, and it matters little in how much you have prepared your case, when you have selected a jury which is closed minded, prejudice or biased against your client.  If a jury is not open to the concept of reasonable doubt and the high standard which must be met by the government before they can find someone guilty, it matters little and there will be guilty verdict.  Unfortunately, although the selection process in the Superior Court of New Jersey is very arduous process often jurors that are biased and prejudiced do slip-by and are empanelled into the jury.  Sometimes potential jurors in the voir dire process will disguise their true feelings.  From my experience I am always cautious of a potential juror who seems to anxious to sit, and seems to willing to say the “right thing.”  These types of responses usually come from someone that has an agenda and wants to sit for a “reason.”  More often than not it is not to acquit your client.  Although of course the reverse can be true.  That is why it is important that someone looking to hire the best New Jersey criminal defense attorney for his or her case must choose an experienced criminal defense attorney who has tried enough cases to get the feel as which juror would be right for his or her case.  This skill only comes about with experience in picking many juries and listening to hundreds of potential jurors telling their stories and why they believe they would be fair and impartial juror and by carefully gauging their responses.  

I hope you have found my insights to helpful and of course, I wish you good luck, and that justice be done with your not guilty verdict.

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

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth, New Jersey 07207

Office:  (908) 354-7006

Cell:    (201) 240-5716

New Jersey Search and Seizure Law: How to Win Your Criminal Case in New Jersey.

A successful New Jersey criminal defense attorney must avail himself to every possible tool in fighting a criminal charge.  One of the most useful of these tools is the motion to suppress evidence. 

A very helpful case was recently decided by the New Jersey Supreme Court in the case State v. Edmonds.  An opinion written by a former criminal defense attorney, Justice Albin suppressed a handgun found hidden in a sofa in the defendant’s apartment.

In this case the Carteret Police Department acting on an “unverified 9-11 call” (this wouldn’t be the first time that the police made the bogus call to get inside an apartment), knocked on the door of the defendant’s apartment claiming that someone called saying that  domestic violence was occurring in the apartment which included the use of a handgun.  When the police arrived the female residence of the apartment said that there was no domestic violence in the apartment, and that her son was inside the apartment.  Against her will the police under the pretext of being concerned for the son entered the apartment and began to look around.  Hearing a T.V. on in a closed room, the police entered and saw Mr. Edmonds calmly sitting down watching T.V.  However, they frisked him and started to search the room in which they found a handgun under the sofa.

Because there was no exception to the search warrant requirement, specifically, the community-caretaking or emergency-aid doctrine the court suppressed the handgun.  The court noted at that point the Carteret police needed a warrant based on probable cause.  The court pointed out that all warrantless searches of homes are presumptively unreasonable and are subjected to particularly careful scrutiny.

As pointed out in my previous blogs sometimes the best opportunity to win a criminal case is with filing pretrial motions.  The motion to suppress evidence is the most powerful of these motions because once the evidence is suppressed there is no case.  In this case, once the handgun was suppressed the criminal charge of possession of a weapon was dismissed.

If you are charged with a handgun or weapons offense you must consult with an experienced NJ criminal defense attorney.  The law firm of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., has represented hundreds of defendants charged with various weapons and handgun offenses.  The law firm has represented individuals in almost every county in the State of New Jersey, including, Union, Essex, Hudson, Passaic, Bergen, Somerset, Middlesex, Monmouth, Ocean, Mercer, Burlington, Gloucester, Cumberland, Atlantic, Sussex and Hunterdon counties.

October 15, 2012

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

Office No. (908) 354-7006

Cell No.  (201) 240-5716

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

YourCivilRights@gmail.com

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

277 North Broad Street

P.O. Box 261

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207