Saturday, September 29, 2012

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

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

Monday, September 10, 2012

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.
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