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
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
No comments:
Post a Comment