Motions to Suppress Evidence: Your Constitutional Right Under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

In State v. Shaw the New Jersey Supreme Court suppressed two bricks of heroin.  In this case a joint fugitive warrant task force was executing a number of fugitive warrants in a multi-unit apartment complex.  In the way in the officers noticed a black male (Don Shaw) leaving the apartment.  When they asked the individual his name he refused, and on that basis they detained the individual.  Mr. Shaw was detained until a parole officer arrived on the scene to check whether Mr. Shaw was listed as a parole violator on his list.  Because Mr. Shaw was listed as a parole violator and wanted, he was arrested.  In searching Mr. Shaw (search incident to the arrest) it was discovered on Shaw  two bricks of heroin individually wrapped into smaller zip log bags.

The New Jersey Supreme Court held that it was unlawful for the task force officers to detained Mr. Shaw because of his refusal to give his name.  In fact, under our state and federal constitution no one can be detained for refusing to give his or her name when confronted by a law enforcement officer on the street.  In fact when confronted by the police in any circumstances our constitution permits complete silence in response to police questioning. 

In addition, the police did not have the requisite level of reasonable suspicion or probable cause to detain him because there was no evidence other than the color of his skin that he was wanted as a fugitive in that apartment complex.

The court further held that any field inquiry becomes an investigative stop when a reasonable person would believe that they are no longer free to leave.  An investigative stop is only permitted if it is based on a set of specific articulable facts in which a rational inference can be made that there might be a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

The court further held that the subsequent discovery that Shaw had a parole warrant was insufficient to purge the unlawful detention and that the parole warrant was not an intervening circumstances to allow the search.  Hence, any contraband seized, which in this case was two bricks of heroin was suppressed as fruits of the poisonous tree.

If you have been charged with possession with intent to distribute CDS, controlled dangerous substance such as heroin, cocaine, marijuana or any illegal drug, or other non-prescription narcotics 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: December 31, 2012

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 Supreme Court Will Decide Whether Showing of Videotaped Testimony inside the Jury Room Requires a New Trial.

In the case State v. A.R. the Appellate Division held that the jurors’ unsupervised viewing of videotaped testimony in the jury room without court supervision required a new trial. 

In that case the judge trying the case along with the prosecutor and defense attorney were unaware that two days into this trial the New Jersey Supreme Court decided State  v. Burr, 195 N.J. 119 (2008), a case which I argued to the New Jersey Supreme Court and won.  In Burr, the Supreme Court ruled that in order for the jury to view the tape in context, and that some portions of the tape are not emphasized over other, the jury must view all videotape testimony in open court in the presence of the judge and counsel.

Because the Judge and attorneys were unaware of the Burr decision the trial court allowed the jury to view the videotape testimony in the jury room in the A.R. case.

The Burr case continues to be a seminal case in the field of criminal law in the State of New Jersey .

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

Best NJ Criminal Trial Attorneys, Best NJ Criminal Trial Lawyers, Best NJ Attorneys, Best NJ Lawyers, Union County NJ criminal lawyer, Best Essex County Criminal Lawyers, Best Hudson Criminal Lawyers

Dated: December 18, 2012

How to Win Your Criminal Case: How to Obtain Your Not Guilty Verdict in New Jersey Superior Court

It is common in New Jersey that when someone is indicted by a grand jury that in the caption of the indictment will be listed some or all of the defendant’s known names or aliases.

It is essential that prior to trial that defense counsel file a motion or request without a motion that any reference to aliases be stricken from the indictment so that a jury will not learn that the defendant may or may not have gone under other names.  It is extremely prejudicial to the defendant when a jury hears that a defendant had nicknames or aliases because it gives the impression to the jury that this person had different names or went by other names for a nefarious purpose.  Although it is not illegal per se to have aliases, some people who do, have these different names to evade the law or to defraud someone.  In all cases you want the jury to decide the case based on the evidence that the state or government has on the case in which they will decide, and not on other factors or evidence which has no bearing on the case at hand.

There is a case now before the New Jersey Supreme Court which will directly decide this issue, State v. Parker.  In that case the jury learned that Mr. Parker when arrested had given another name.  Mr. Parker is seeking a new trial contending that such references denied him a fair trial.   

In State v. Salaam, 225  N.J. Super. 66 (App. Div. 1988) the appellate division held that references to the defendant’s alleged aliases should be automatically excluded unless there is clear relevancy to the alias and the pending charges, i.e., fraud case in which the defendant used other names to defraud alleged victims.

This prohibition in the use of aliases is also found in N.J. Evidence Rule 608 which holds that a “trait of character cannot be proved by specific instances of conduct.”  In any event, the criminal defense attorney who is faced with such a case must move to strike the aliases to help insure that the defendant receives a fair trial.

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

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

Cross-Examination of the Snitch; How to Win Your Criminal Case in New Jersey Superior Court

Before I begin I must first alert you to the distinction between the cooperating co-defendant, and the snitch or “rat”.  In the former you have a cooperating co-defendant who agrees to testify truthfully against the defendant because of remorse or the urge to do the right thing.  This article is not about that type of co-defendant who in practice is the rare exception in the criminal justice system.  Rather, this article will focus on the snitch or “rat”, which has been given a deal or promise for a lighter sentence or absolute immunity for a dismissal of his charges or the reduction of his sentence.  More often than not this type of cooperating co-defendant is a liar and cheat and will do or say anything to get a better deal.

The job of the New Jersey criminal defense attorney in preparing for such a witness is challenging, and more often than not be most rewarding after the “rat” is exposed for what he really is, a liar that in essence has testified for something worth more than money, is freedom.

If done correctly the cross-examination of the “rat” will turn the “rat” into a defense expert witness how the government or state prosecutor will bargain and sells testimony for the “rat’s” testimony.  

If you start with the premise that the rat is lying and find some credible evidence that the “rat” is lying or will lie to save him or herself, you must be determined to verify or disprove the facts that the “rat” will rely on at trial.  In one case in which I cross-examined the “rat” for one full day of testimony, I did not object to New Jersey Evidence Rule 404(b) evidence, or other crime evidence, about the “rat’s” assertion that a day before the armed robbery (the charge before the jury) that the “rat” and my client had attempted to burglarize that same jewelry store.  The reason that I did not object to this evidence was because through my investigation I learned that the rat’s version of how he alleged the attempted burglary took place with my client was a complete lie, and I have the physical evidence from the store owner that in fact there was no alley-way window, and no air-conditioning unit inside that window as the “rat” stated in a previous statement.

In most cases if the “rat” is lying the “rat” will be exposed and you have a very good chance in having the jury accept your argument that they cannot rely on the rat’s testimony.

In the case described above the jury on November 29, 2012 (in a case before the Superior Court, Union County) deliberated for five-hours, after which they found my client not guilty as an accomplice to the armed robbery in which the rat committed.  My client was acquitted on every count of the indictment and found not guilty to each and every charge.  My client was innocent of the charges, and the “rat” was exposed for what he was a “cutter rat.”

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

December 4, 2012

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Elizabeth, New Jersey

Tel. No. (908) 354-7006

Cell No. (201) 240-5716

Elizabeth Criminal Defense Attorney, Union County Criminal Defense Lawyers, Newark Criminal Defense Lawyers, Newark Criminal Attorneys, Essex County Best Criminal Lawyers, Hudson County Best Criminal Lawyers, Best NJ Trial Attorneys, Union County Defense Lawyers, Best Union County Criminal Lawyers, Bayonne Criminal Attorneys, Elizabeth Criminal Lawyers, Hackensack Criminal Attorneys, Best Bergen County Criminal Lawyers, NJ Super Criminal Defense Lawyers, NJ Super Criminal Lawyers, Hudson County Criminal Lawyers

Attorney Sanzone Scores Another Not Guilty Verdict

Another Not Guilty Verdict Today For Attorney Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

November 29, 2012. Superior Court of New Jersey, Union County, Elizabeth, N.J. My client, defendant charged in a four count indictment as an accomplice for first degree armed robbery with a weapon, theft and
terroristic threats. Client facing 10-20 year state prison sentence, with period of parole ineligibility of 85% under the No Early Release Act. Jury returned not guilty verdict as to all counts, client walks out front door of court house. Co-defendant "rat" testified against my client claiming my client was the getaway driver. Rat was cross-examined by me for two days and was decimated. See the rat in action robbing the store on Eyewitness News 7.
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news%2Flocal&id=7176507
Law Office of  Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.
277 North Broad Street
P.O. Box 261
Elizabeth (Union County) New Jersey 07207
Office: (908) 354-7006
Cell:    (201) 240-5716

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Best NJ Criminal Defense Attorneys, Union County NJ Criminal Defense Attorneys, Elizabeth NJ Criminal Lawyers, Best Union County NJ Criminal Lawyers, Best Essex County Criminal Lawyers

Code Word By Police “Stop Resisting”; and What Does It Really Mean?

For year’s law enforcement in New Jersey have kept hidden a dirty little secret which now is starting to come to light and being exposed by civil rights attorneys and federal prosecutors.  For years some law enforcement officers engaged in the beating of handcuffed prisoners and jail inmates have used the code words, “stop resisting” “or stop fighting” while beating non-resisting prisoners in handcuffs.

For years the New Jersey State police have been notorious for using this disgusting trick in an attempt to blame the handcuffed prisoner who is not resisting.  This dirty trick is often used by police officers who know that their beating is outside the view of a video camera but being recorded by a body-mic.  This cruel trick gives the person viewing the video tape in believing that the prisoner is actually resisting when in fact the prisoner is not.

In the last several months, especially in California, civil right group has amassed 70 declarations from former prisoners and civilians who witnessed beatings. The statements suggest few patterns — the complaints span all times of day and multiple units in the jail. But, the A.C.L.U. says, the guards do seem to use the same terms repeatedly, shouting, “Stop resisting!” and “Stop fighting!” while they hit inmates, even when inmates are not moving or are in handcuffs.
In one specific case Paulino Juarez, a Roman Catholic chaplain who was assigned to the Los Angeles County Jail (Twin Towers and Men’s Central Jail) has worked in the jail since 1998, was visiting an inmate’s cell early one morning in February 2009 when he heard several thumps and gasps in the hallway. When he moved to the cell door, he saw three deputies hitting a man and yelling, “Stop fighting!”
“But he wasn’t fighting; he wasn’t even defending himself,” Mr. Juarez said in an interview. “When they saw me, they froze. I was frozen, too. I didn’t say anything. I was too shocked, and I was terrified.”
Mr. Juarez filed a report with the Sheriff’s Department but did not hear anything about it for several months. More than two years later, during a meeting with his supervisor and Sheriff Baca, Mr. Juarez was told that the department found that the inmate had resisted going into his cell. There was no record of Mr. Juarez’s report, although a guard indicated in the file that the chaplain had exaggerated what he had witnessed. He was told that the inmate, whose name he did not know at the time, had later been released.
“I really don’t trust anymore,” Mr. Juarez said. “They always say inmates are liars and nobody believes them. But I saw them treated like this.”
While the sheriff has repeatedly dismissed complaints from prisoners, the number of civilians who have witnessed beatings has steadily increased, showing the brazenness of many of the guards in the jails, said Peter Eliasberg, legal director for the A.C.L.U. Foundation of Southern California.
Another chaplain said he saw deputies punching an inmate until he collapsed to the ground. They then began kicking the apparently unconscious man’s head and body.
“This situation, the length of time it has been going on, the volume of complaints and the egregious nature are much, much worse than anything I’ve ever seen,” said Tom Parker, a retired F.B.I. official who led the agency’s Los Angeles office for years and oversaw investigations into the Rodney King beating and charges of corruption in the Los Angeles Police Department. “They are abusing inmates with impunity, and the worst part is that they think they can get away with it.”
Of course, Los Angeles Sheriff Lee Baca has repeatedly dismissed any suggestion of a systemic problem in the jails, saying that all allegations of abuse are investigated and that most are unfounded.  Instead of attempting to solve the problem, again, police supervisors are the root of the problem because they continually sanction and turn a blind eye to their fellow errant and rogue officers.
When the Sheriff learned that F.B.I. agents sneaked a cell phone to a prisoner as part of an investigation to catch criminal corrections officers, Sheriff Baca reacted to the investigation angrily, with the shameless and pitiful comment, saying that the agency did not know what it was doing and was putting prisoners and guards in danger.
In one of my civil rights cases New Jersey State Troopers engaged in exactly this dirty trick when they beat an African-American motorist who was handcuffed while still in his motor-vehicle but outside the trooper’s motor vehicle recording camera, or MVR.
In that case the troopers repeatedly yelled “stop-resisting as they kicked, punched and struck the motorist over the head with a metal flashlight causing the motorist extensive external and internal injuries.
Another trick routinely used by the cops is to isolate the prisoner or suspect into the “hole” or jail for several days or weeks so that the external bruises and cuts and abrasions heal before seen by any witnesses.

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

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

277 North Broad Street

P.O. Box 261

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

Office Phone: (908) 354-7006

Cell Phone:   (201) 240-5716

Dated: November 6, 2012

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

NJ Civil rights lawyer, New Jersey Police Misconduct Attorneys, New Jersey State Police Dirty Tricks, New Jersey Criminal Defense Lawyers, NJ best criminal lawyers, Union county criminal lawyers, best union county nj criminal lawyers, unlawful arrest in nj, best nj criminal defense lawyers, essex county criminal lawyers, nj best civil rights lawyers, best civil rights lawyers, police misconduct attorneys nj

Hearings Before the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor.

The mission of the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor is to root-out illegal activities and corruption on the Ports of New Jersey and New York.  There is no dispute that the ports of New Jersey and New York, like all industries have there share of illegal activities and corruption.

Accordingly, pursuant to the Waterfront Act every person working as a Longshoreman, Checker or Maintenance Person is required to possess a Waterfront Pass and these passes are issued by the Waterfront Commission.  Accordingly, every Longshoreman, Checker and Maintenance Man is subject to the jurisdiction of the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor.  The Waterfront Commission is a bi-state agency and covers every shipping port in New Jersey and New York.

It is important to understand that every Longshoreman, Checker or Maintenance Person is subject to revocation of his or her Waterfront Commission pass for engaging in behavior which the Waterfront Commission believes in its opinion shows lack of good character.

Unfortunately, the term lacking in “good character” is an amorphous word and is subject to numerous interpretations by the Commission.  What might be bad character in one case might not be bad character in another case.  Of course as with all governmental agencies, they have in essence the final say in the matter, subject only to appeal to the Superior Court, Appellate Division, for all Longshoreman living or working in New Jersey.

The Commission considers Longshoreman convicted of a crime or disorderly person’s offenses are person’s lacking “good character”, and are subject to a revocation hearings, and permanent loss of his or her waterfront pass.  In these cases the commission will move for an immediate suspension of the Longshoreman’s pass.  In those cases the Waterfront Commission will file a formal complaint and Administrative Law Hearing to revoke the waterfront pass.

Well less known, however, is the fact that the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor will often seek termination or suspension of a waterfront pass for Longshoreman not convicted of a crime or disorderly person’s offense.  Such as Longshoreman entering a conditional discharge program, or Pretrial Intervention.  Amazingly, even if the charges are dismissed by the prosecutor, or a court or jury finds the Longshoreman not guilty the Waterfront Commission in some cases continue to seek revocation of the waterfront pass, if the Waterfront Commission finds evidence that the Longshoreman lacks good character, through the testimony of the Longshoreman himself, or from the testimony of others. 

Traditional constitutional protections of the accused and other criminal procedural right protections do not apply to the Waterfront Commission because the proceedings are civil in nature and not criminal.  Of course the Longshoreman can always assert his or her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent; however, asserting the Fifth Amendment before the Waterfront Commission is unlikely to inure to the benefit of the Longshoreman. 

However, because all Waterfront Commission depositions and sworn, there have been numerous occasion in which the Waterfront Commission has sought criminal prosecution for false swearing under oath before the Commission.  Therefore, under the Waterfront rules the Longshoreman is forced to admit to wrongdoing which will ultimately be used against him or her.

A hearing or deposition under oath before the Waterfront Commission is a proceeding filed with mine-fields and trap-doors for the unprepared and un-counseled.  If you are called in to give a deposition under oath or hearing it is essential that you seek the legal advice from a Waterfront Lawyer who is experienced in this field of practice.  Your job and lively-hood might hinge on picking the right Waterfront Lawyer for your situation.  If you are in need of a New Jersey Waterfront Attorney, before the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor you are urged to call the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

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

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth, New Jersey 07207

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Office Phone No. (908) 354-7006
Cell Phone No.   (201) 240-5716






New Jersey Waterfront Commission Lawyer, NJ Longshoreman Attorney, N.J. Waterfront Attorney, New Jersey Waterfront Commission Lawyer, Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor Waterfront Attorney, best Waterfront Attorneys

First Degree Robbery Charge Reversed Because No Bomb Was Shown To Teller.

In an interesting case the Appellate Division recently ruled in State v. Kelvin Williams that just because Mr. Williams told the teller that he had a bomb it was unreasonable for the teller to think that he had one.  In fact, she testified at trial that she did not believe at first that he had a bomb, but might be crazy enough to blow himself up.  Further, in this case the defendant didn’t show the teller the bomb or were the bomb might be.

The Appellate Division panel not only reversed the conviction but entered a judgment of acquittal; on the basis that the teller could not reasonably believe there was a bomb.

This is a remarkable case because the panel applied the reasonable man standard to victims of first degree armed robbery cases, and holding just because a victim things someone has a handgun, bomb or knife is insufficient to sustain the first degree charge, unless other evidence is offered.

This case brings to mind a recent case in Union County in which the defendant was charged with first degree robbery when he tussled with a merchant over a cell phone, and in the struggle the defendant reached for something in his pocket which the merchant said was black, but could not identify.  The defendant was indicted for first degree robbery because the merchant said it could have been a weapon.  The case was resolved with time served for the defendant and a dismissal of the armed robbery charge.  However, in that case the indictment itself disturbed this NJ Criminal Defense Attorney because it was clear that indicting the defendant for first degree armed robbery was not honest or fair, and the defendant was overcharged to extort a plea.  First degree armed robbery carries 10-20 years with 85% period of parole ineligibility.

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

NJ Federal Criminal Lawyers, NJ State Criminal Lawyers, New Jersey Criminal Attorneys, NJ Criminal Lawyers, NJ Criminal Defense 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 Essex County Criminal Lawyers, Best Hudson Criminal Lawyers

Dated: October 12, 2012

The United States Supreme Court Muddles The Law in Williams v. Illinois

Sandy Williams was arrested on a sexual charged in Chicago and convicted of that offense.  Like New Jersey, Illinois requires that everyone convicted of a crime (felony), be required to give a DNA sample to the state police laboratory.  After Mr. Williams’ DNA sample was run in the national DNA data base it was determined that his DNA matched a sample from another crime scene.

At trial a person for the prosecution testified that Mr. Williams DNA matched the sample found at the crime scene.  This testimony was allowed in spite of the fact that the crime scene sample was analyzed by Cellmark Diagnostics Laboratory in Maryland. 

Interesting in this case, know one from Cellmark testified about the testing of this specimen, and Mr. Williams was convicted. 

This case unfortunately appears to have eroded the seminal case Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts and its progeny, Bullcoming v. New Mexico.

In New Jersey, however, because our state affords greater constitutional protections than at the federal level, it would be highly unlikely that such a conviction would occur without the testimony of the forensic chemist from the lab who analyzed the DNA from the crime scene.  In her dissent Justice Kagan pointed out that in another case the technician from Cellmark admitted in cross-examination that she had tested the wrong bloodied search.

The need to confront all witnesses for the prosecution is essential under the Sixth Amendment to the United States and State’s constitution and that right cannot be eviscerated by any court.

In a recent case Attorney Sanzone was able in cross-examination at trial to get the chief forensic chemist from the Ocean County Sheriff’s Office Crime Laboratory to admit that her test results finding Marijuana were flawed and she admitted that there was reasonable doubt as to whether the samples taken were in fact Marijuana.  Specifically, she stated that because she was not a botanist and the other test she performed gives false positives, there was reasonable doubt as to whether her conclusions as to whether the substance tested was in fact Marijuana as she stated in her laboratory report.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth (Union County) New Jersey 07207

Office Phone Number (908) 354-7706

Cell Phone Number   (201) 240-5716

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

YourCivilRights@gmail.com

Union County Lawyers, Union County NJ Criminal Lawyers, Best Union County Lawyers, Best Union County Criminal Defense Lawyers, Union County Criminal Attorneys, New Jersey Union County Attorneys, Union County Defense Attorneys, Beating the Drug Case, NJ Drug Attorneys, NJ CDS trial lawyers,

Running from the Police is Not Sufficient Probable Cause to Arrest Suspect; Weapons Found in Apartment Suppressed.

The federal Third Circuit appellate panel held that the federal District Court erred by not suppressing weapons found in Mr. Navedo’s apartment after Newark police detectives after him arresting him as he was entering his apartment.

In the United States v. Navedo two Newark police detectives were conducting an undercover operation when they saw an individual (Pozo) walk over to Mr. Navedo open a book bag, pulled an object which appeared to them as a handgun.  The detective seeing this ran after Pozo and Navedo catching and tackling Navedo as he was attempting to enter his apartment.  The detectives claim that the apartment was open and that they tackled him inside the apartment (you really believe this).  Navedo was immediately cuffed and inside the apartment were numerous handguns and rifles which the detectives claim were in plain view (sure).

A motion to suppress was filed, and denied by the District Court, and Navedo appealed to the Third Circuit that the detectives did not have probable cause to arrest him because mere flight is sufficient to arrest a suspect without probable cause.  The court agreed with Navedo holding that under the totality of the circumstances there was no evidence that Navedo was engaged in any criminal activity.  Specifically, Navedo did not hold the gun, did not initiate the encounter with Pozo, and did not appear to making a purchase of the handgun, that the police had no right to arrest him, even if Navedo ran.  In short, the appeals panel held that the detectives were in essence attempting to transfer the reasonable suspension which they had for Pozo on Navedo.  The court further relied on Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000), which held that flight from the police is not an automatic reason or reasonable suspicion for a brief “Terry Type” detention, because there are many reasons why someone might want to get away from a police officers.  In any event, they held that even if they had reasonable suspicion to stop Navedo they certainly did not have probable cause to arrest him under these facts.

This is a good case for the defense because it encompasses many facts which regularly play out with strike force arrests in the Essex, Hudson, Union, Passaic, and Middlesex County strike forces which typically detain and arrest suspects without reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

If you are charged with a federal or state crime or disorderly person’s offense it is highly recommended that you seek the legal advice of an experienced New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney, the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

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

NJ Federal Criminal Lawyers, NJ State Criminal Lawyers, New Jersey Criminal Attorneys, NJ Criminal Lawyers, NJ Criminal Defense 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 Essex County Criminal Lawyers, Best Hudson Criminal Lawyers

Dated: October 4, 2012

Defendant Makes Tactical Decision to Inform Trial Court and Prosecutor that He Will Not Testify and the Next Day Informs the Court That He Wants to Testify and Wins.

Whether it was a tactical decision or just a change of mind, but in the recent case decided by the New Jersey Supreme Court, State v. Cullen the defendant’s belated change of mind gave him a reversal of his conviction and a new trial.

In this case Mr. Cullen at the close of the prosecutions case the defendant was asked in open-court as to whether he would assert his right to remain silent or testify on his own behalf.  The defendant informed the judge that he had elected not to take the stand on his own behalf.  Because it was the end of the day, the case was adjourned for the following morning for summations.  In the morning Mr. Cullen told his attorney and judge that he had changed his mind.  The judge refused to allow Mr. Cullen to testify citing that the trial would be delayed.  The jury convicted him on all counts. 

The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the conviction holding that every defendant has the fundamental right to testify on his own behalf and that a delay in the trial was an insufficient reason to eviscerate that right.  Whether made Mr. Cullen truly had a change or mind the next day, or made the tactical decision not to inform the court his true desires so that the prosecutor would not prepare for the cross-examination that night, we will never know.  Nonetheless, this case is a good holding for the defense because it appears to allow the defendant to assert his right to testify at the last minute.

If you are charged with a crime or disorderly person’s offense it is highly recommended that you seek the legal advice of an experienced New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney, the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

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

NJ Criminal Lawyers, NJ Criminal Defense 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 Essex County Criminal Lawyers, Best Hudson Criminal Lawyers

Dated: October 3, 2012

Township of Irvington Police Internal Affairs Files Seized by Essex County Prosecutor’s Office For Audit.

For years the Internal Affairs Department in the Township of Irvington was in shambles.  The department’s unit for all practical purposes was a waste of taxpayer’s money.  The department either refused to take citizens complaints, and when complaints were taken the internal affairs officers routinely rubber stamped their fellow officers actions dismissing the citizen complaints as unfounded or unsubstantiated.  These types of internal affairs investigations unfortunately are not isolated to Irvington. 

In two successful civil rights lawsuits against the Irvington Police department by Attorney Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., it was uncovered in the discovery process that the internal affairs unit failed to comply with Attorney General Guidelines which required among other things that the Essex County Prosecutor’s Office be notified of patterns of abuse among its police officers.  Further, in one case the K-9 unit was run with such disregard for the law that the department was disbanded entirely.

More county prosecutor’s should follow the lead of Essex County and monitor cities and towns in their county to determine if the internal affairs units in those jurisdictions are following the law.  One county in particular Union County should seize the files of the Elizabeth Police Department which routinely in violation of the law by refuses to take citizens complaints, through intimidation and other means.  The Elizabeth police department’s internal affairs unit is currently a joke and continues to make no effort to investigate its rouge police officers.  Until the Union County Prosecutor’s Office intervenes people’s constitutional rights will be continually violated by rouge and errant police officers of the Elizabeth Police Department.

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

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

YourCivilRights@gmail.com

277 North Broad Street

P.O. Box 261

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

Office Phone: (908) 354-7006

Cell Phone:   (201) 240-5716

Dated: October 2, 2012

New Jersey Criminal Defense Lawyers, NJ best criminal lawyers, Union county criminal lawyers, best union county nj criminal lawyers, unlawful arrest in nj, best nj criminal defense lawyers, essex county criminal lawyers, nj best civil rights lawyers, best civil rights lawyers, police misconduct attorneys nj

Victory for the People of New Jersey Against the Nine Private Exclusive Ocean Beach Clubs of Seabright New Jersey

For years the rich and well-healed members of the private exclusive beach clubs of Seabright New Jersey were excluding the public from accessing, fishing, sitting and or even swimming in the ocean beach property either adjacent or parallel to beach property owned by these “member only beach clubs.”  Many of these beach clubs were “legacy” clubs that were open only to selected families with the right connections and recommendations of other members.  Their flimsy arguments in support of such selfishness, was in part, are members pay for the lifeguards, why should they save someone if drowning, because after all, they are not-one-of-us and did not pay their dues to the club.

These heavens for the privileged and wealthy had no shame in excluding access to the beach and ocean parallel to their clubs notwithstanding that their beaches were replenished with stand by for by federal and state taxpayer funds.  Further, the great sea wall that allows Seabright to remain on the map, and preventing it to remain above seal level, by preventing flooding by the ocean into the Shrewsbury River was built by taxpayers’ funds.  The walls construction started in 1914 and rebuilt and expended in 1962.  The wall continues to be repaired to date, with taxpayers’ money.

On Friday, September 28, 2012, a panel of the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey made a great decision upholding the right of the common people to use their beaches.  Judges Mary Beth Catherine Cuff, Alexander Waugh and Jerome St. John agreed with the State of New Jersey (the people) and ruled that because the beach replenishment projects over the years were paid by taxpayer dollars the private clubs and no right in hogging-up and excluding others from their beaches.  This is a great decision for the people of New Jersey who cannot afford a million dollar home or membership in private exclusive beach clubs that regularly exclude minorities, the poor and working class.  The lawsuit was filed against the beach clubs in 2006 during the Democratic administration of Governor Jon Corzine. It is highly unlikely that Governor Christie would have allowed such a lawsuit during his administration since he would be going against his wealthy Republican power base of donors of Monmouth County.

The next lawsuit that the State of New Jersey must bring against such towns as Seabright, Deal, Mantoloking, and Bay Head among other snooty towns is to force these towns to provide street parking.  These towns in the attempt to circumvent the public beach access laws provide no public or street parking in their towns, thus, preventing the pubic from using their beaches.  The beach access laws have no teeth and are useless if these towns continue to restrict street and public parking which they do to skirt the law and prevent out-of-towners and day-trippers from using their beaches.

In the movie the Grapes of Wrath the last words by Tommy’s Mother are relevant here when she said: The rich they come and they die off, but the people keep on coming, you can’t stop the people.  Thank you Judges, St. John, Cuff and Waugh for siding with the people.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

Criminal Defense and Civil Rights Attorney

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

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

277 North Broad Street

P.O. Box 261

Elizabeth (Union County), New Jersey 07207

Office Phone: (908) 354-7006

Cell Phone:   (201) 240-5716

September 29, 2012

Criminal Defense and Civil Rights Attorney fighting for the people for Hudson, Essex, Union, Bergen, Middlesex, Monmouth, Passaic, Morris, Ocean, Atlantic, Camden, Somerset and Burlington Counties

State's Intent to Distribute CDS Taints Trial Results in Conviction Being Reversed

As discussed in my previous blogs the State's ability to offer the testimony of a detective in a case in which the charge is intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance (CDS) denies the defendant a fair trial.  Many States do not allow such testimony because it allows a detective who has no first hand knowledge of the case give his personal opinion that the quantity of the drugs seized, along with the packaging, purity, and other factors leads him to believe that the person who possessed those drugs possessed them with intent to distribute them.

Although the New Jersey courts have allowed such testimony and give the prosecution this powerful advantage, many prosecutors attempt with increased creativity to stretch the advantage.  In the recent case State v. Coley (Decided in September, 2912), the Appellate Division reversed a conviction in which the State's detective expert was allowed to testify that in his hypothetical question the "hypothetical target", "was probably distributing drugs."  The Appellate Division held that reference to a "target", was a undoubtedly a "thinly-veiled reference", to the defendant on trial.

New Jersey Criminal Defense attorneys must continue to be vigilant and object to such testimony since the jury often sees no difference between the hypothetical person "X", being referenced by the prosecutor in his or her hypothetical and the defendant.  Any attempt by the prosecutor to infer the defendant's guilt through the testimony of the opinion of the detective/expert must be objected to immediately. 

To counter such testimony, in the right case, the defense attorney should offer the testimony of his or her own expert to testify that such quantity, purity and packaging is consistent with someone who possessed the CDS for personal consumption.  This type of testimony is very important when the quantity of drugs seized is not large.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.
Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.
CriminalDefenseNJ.com
Telephone: (908) 354-7006
September 10, 2012

New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney, Union County Criminal Defense Attorney, Elizabeth NJ Criminal Defense Attorney, Hudson County Criminal Defense Lawyers, Newark Criminal Lawyers, Essex County Criminal Lawyers

How to Win Your Criminal Case; Use of Cell Phone Tower Records.

In the State of New Jersey the prosecutor has the burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and the defendant need not produce any evidence of his innocence’s However, in reality, as any criminal defense attorney will tell you who is being honest with himself will say that in most criminal cases if you want the jury to acquit your client the defendant must actually present sufficient evidence to prove he or she is innocent and did not commit the crime.  That unfortunately is the reality of the criminal justice system in this country.  Having said that an important tool that a criminal defendant can use to prove his innocence’s is the cell phone tower record subpoena.

In some cases it is relevant to prove that the defendant was not at the scene or within the closest tower range of a crime or incident.  In that case do not expect the investigating authorites to subpoena these records and prove that your client was not at the scene of the crime.  In reality and truth they have zero interest in obtaining any evidence to prove that your client is innocent.  At every crime scene there is usually some mobile device which will reveal which parties were within a specific tower range.

In law enforcement terminology this is referred to as a cell tower “dump”, which specifically means to the carriers that you are seeking data on all subscribers who were near a tower during a certain period of time.  Usually such requests will produce hundreds if not thousands of names and phone numbers depending on the time period and length of time requested.  

Therefore, when location of your client is an issue the defense attorney must exercise his subpoena power to

Pursuant to a subpoena defense counsel can subpoena the tower records from the defendant’s mobile cell phone service provider to obtain the names and numbers of all subscribers who were receiving and transmitting phone messages on a certain date and time.  With all mobile phones there is a GPS system imbedded into the phone which reveals were the phone is transmitting from.  The carriers usually charge between $50.00 to $75.00 per hour for this service but in the right case can mean the difference between the defendant being convicted and going to jail and exoneration.

In addition to exonerating the defendant the cell phone tower records can be used for impeachment purposes against a co-defendant, cooperating witness, or others, who perjury themselves by stating that they were nowhere near the scene of the alleged crime or incident.

In the final analysis the cell phone tower “dump” subpoena is an important defense tool that must be pursued in the right case.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Elizabeth, New Jersey

YourCivilRights@gmail.com

Tel. No. (908) 354-7006

Dated: July 19, 2012

Use of cell phone records in criminal cases, NJ Criminal Defense Attorneys, NJ Criminal Attorneys, NJ Criminal Lawyers, NJ Best Criminal Lawyers, NJ Best Criminal Defense Attorneys, How to win your criminal jury trial, Elizabeth criminal defense attorney, Newark Criminal Lawyers, Essex County Criminal lawyers, Best Ocean County Criminal lawyers, Monmouth County Criminal Lawyers, Best Union County Criminal Attorneys

Attacking and/or Neutralizing the State’s Intent to Distribute Expert

Because of the more severe jail exposure that a defendant faces when convicted for distribution or intent to distribute as opposed to simple possession, it is extremely important that any person found to possess CDS for personal use, but charged with intent to distribute, that they retain a New Jersey criminal defense attorney that has the experience in vigorously defending people charged with these types of crimes.

In almost every controlled dangerous substance case in New Jersey in which the defendant has a quantity (usually 10 dime bag, packages or vials) of drugs, individually packaged, the State will charge the defendant with possession with intent to distribute.  This is true when there is absolutely no evidence that the defendant possessed the narcotics with intent to distribute other than the testimony of an expert witness for the State.  These “experts” usually are county detective, who will testify as an “expert witness” in any given case.  In essence, they will give an opinion, based on a hypothetical fact pattern, which follows the defendant’s facts, that this “hypothetical defendant”, possessed the drugs with intent to distribute.  Ultimately, the prosecutor is allowed to ask the question as to whether the drugs were possessed for distribution or personal consumption.  Under no circumstances can the expert give an ultimate opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused, or use his name in the hypothetical.

Sounds confusing?  Don’t feel bad, because it seems from the case law, the rulings of the trial judges with this issue, different ideas from prosecutors and defense attorneys; nobody seems to know what the law really means, and how it should be applied.  The problem is, that these so called “State experts”, are usually the lynch pin in intent cases, and juries are very persuaded with such testimony, and accordingly, many defendants whom are drug addicts and possess drugs as user are being convicted as sellers.

The question that defense attorneys face is how to challenge these experts.  In practicing criminal defense for 22 years it is one of the hardest tasks that a defense attorney has in a drug case because the juries do not understand the difference between the hypothetical person used in the hypothetical question, and the defendant seated at the defense counsel.

The typical hypothetical question (as asked in State v. Reed, 197 N.J. 280 (2009), is:

Q. [Prosecutor]: Assume hypothetically that three individuals are driving in a borrowed vehicle. Let’s call the driver S-1, suspect one. Front passenger, suspect two. And assume there is a rear passenger behind the front passenger which we'll call suspect three, S-3.
A. [Detective]: Okay.
Q. And they’re traveling from New York City on Route 95 so that you know that they're coming out of New York. And the individuals are traveling in the vehicle at night, approximately a little before 9 p.m. on a weeknight. They’re driving in an erratic fashion, pulled over. The front passenger and the rear passenger, back passenger at some point are asked their names and they give false names. An officer who asks the front passenger for their paper work smells marijuana in the vehicle and notices in the vehicle an open container of beer.
After that, later found in the vehicle, in the front passenger section, right between—on the floor in front of the seat but where their feet would be are found loose folds of what’s determined to be heroin and also scattered on the floor are— by the feet of the front passenger are six bags of marijuana and underneath the seat are found fifteen bricks of heroin, determined to be heroin, as well as found additionally is a sixteenth brick. That sixteenth brick had been opened so that there were forty bags and seven or eight various loose folds.
On the back passenger assume is found cigars or brown cigarettes, Phillies. And on the persons of the individuals are found a totality of currency of nine hundred fourteen dollars.
A. Okay.
Q. Assuming all those hypothetical facts, do you have an opinion as to why the drugs, specifically the heroin, totaling several hundred bags or folds, would be possessed?
A. My opinion they would be possessed with the intent to distribute.

Q. And would that opinion be as to suspects one, two and three?
A. All constructive possession with the intent to distribute.
New Jersey Evidence Rule 702 permits the admissibility of expert testimony, “[i]f scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.”
This rule only allows the expert to testify as to specialized knowledge and not has to his personal opinion as to any fact or issue that the jury can readily determine without an expert.  Thus, if the expert gives an opinion as to a hand transaction, exchange of money, or other facts which one does not need to be an expert to understand, the opinion must be excluded.
Therefore, the prosecutor has the burden of proving three elements before the expert will be allowed to testify.
     1.   The intended testimony concerns a subject matter beyond the ken of an average juror;

2.   The field is at a state of the art such that an expert’s testimony would be reliable; and

3.   The witness has expertise sufficient to offer the intended testimony.

Defense counsel must be very alert as to how the hypothetical question is formulated and the facts in the hypothetical can only be facts adduced at trial.  Of course if an important piece of evidence or fact which is favorable to the defense was left out, that fact can be pointed out in cross-examination, such as the tolerance of this defendant to drugs, etc.
Example.  “Now this hypothetical person that you are talking about, the amount of cocaine found on his person’s would not be a lot for a person with a day habit of 42 bags of heroin a day.”
Example.  “Every junkie or user of illegal drugs have different levels of tolerance.
Example.  “Some have very high tolerance.”
Example.  “What were the markings on the package?”
Accordingly, the hypothetical question must concern itself with: (1) the manner of packaging and processing for use or distribution, (2) the significance of various quantities and concentrations of narcotics, (2) the roles of various drug paraphernalia, (3) characteristics of the drugs themselves, (4) the import of circumstances surrounding possession, (5) the conduct of the possessor and the manner in which drugs may be secreted or otherwise possessed for personal use or [distribution].

State v. Reed, 197 N.J. 280 (2009) a conviction was reserved because the drug expert testified that everyone in the vehicle possessed the narcotics with intent to distribute.  Clearly, that was improper because it was beyond the scope of the expert’s knowledge.  How could he or she know that fact, without guessing?  Whether someone is in constructive possession of CDS is for the jury to decide.

Recently, another intent to distribute case was reversed in State v. Ronald L. Jones, Jr., (Appellate Division, decided April 17, 2012).  In that case the expert used the defendant’s name in the hypothetical, as well as talked about other drugs on his person’s which were not charged.

In State v. McLean, 205 N.J. 438, 461-63 (2011) a drug conviction was reversed when the arresting officer testifying that when he witnessed a hand-to-hand transaction in which the defendant was involved in that it was his opinion that the defendant was engaged in a hand-to-hand drug transaction.

Also, in State v. Baskerville, 324 N.J. Super. 245, 256-57 (App. Div. 1999), testimony that the officer saw an exchange of money for small item, which the officer  believed to be a drug transaction was likewise found to be improper, because it invaded the province of the jury to decide what the transaction was, and not the officer. 

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

April 20, 2012

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Elizabeth, New Jersey

Tel. No. (908) 354-7006

Elizabeth Criminal Defense Attorney, Union County Criminal Defense Lawyers, Newark Criminal Defense Lawyers, Newark Criminal Attorneys, Essex County Best Criminal Lawyers, Hudson County Best Criminal Lawyers, Best NJ Trial Attorneys, Union County Defense Lawyers, Best Union County Criminal Lawyers, Bayonne Criminal Attorneys, Elizabeth Criminal Lawyers, Hackensack Criminal Attorneys, Best Bergen County Criminal Lawyers, NJ Super Criminal Defense Lawyers, NJ Super Criminal Lawyers, Hudson County Criminal Lawyers