Wednesday, January 9, 2013
“Back in the day”, as people often use the term, getting away from the police after a police officer activated his overhead lights and siren was something that was not uncommon. The reason for this was because if you were caught the only consequence of such eluding from the police was multiple motor vehicle summons. In fact, often the prosecutor would not be able to prove the case and these moving violations were often dismissed at trial unless the motorist who was eluding was eventually pulled-over. The reason being, that the state could not prove identification of the driver, and issuing tickets to the registered owner is never sufficient to prove who was actually driving the vehicle at the time of the eluding.
Today, however, it is quite different and if one attempts to elude a motor vehicle stop and “take-off”, he will probably be indicted for a second degree eluding charge (5-10 years in state prison) because almost ever eluding puts at risk the driver (eluder), police officer or any other motorists in the area who is on the road in the vicinity of the eluding motorist..
Therefore, if you are charged with eluding it is important that you retained an experienced New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney who has had experience in successfully representing individuals charged with such offenses.
Unfortunately, eluding can be a very discretionary charge depending of the particular police officer attempting to effectuate a motor vehicle stop. What is alluding to one police officer is not alluding to another. Is eluding when you fail to immediately pull over? Is eluding when the motorist pulls over after 5 blocks, instead of two blocks? Is eluding when the motorist is pursued by an unmarked vehicle and is afraid that the vehicle that is pursuing them is in fact not a police officer, but a rogue bandit? Does eluding begin when the motorist first recognizes, sees and hears a police vehicle behind them? How does the officer in fact know that he is being noticed by the motorist; therefore, when does eluding begin, when the motorist recognizes that a police vehicle is behind him, or when the police officer first activates his overhead lights and siren?
Defending the eluding case is complex and knowing what discovery to ask for is the first important step in successfully defending the eluding case. The attorney must obtain all patrol, dispatch, audio, CAD, MVR records and tapes of the pursuit. Sometimes, this discovery will reveal inconsistencies, and outright lies of the officer. Often this discovery will contradict his or her police report and give the jury sufficient reasonable doubt for a not-guilty verdict or a lesser charge.
In some cases after confronted the prosecutor with this evidence the prosecutor will downgrade the charge to third-degree eluding or other such lesser charge.
P.O. Box 261
277 North Broad Street
Elizabeth, N.J. 07207
Office: (908) 354-7006
Cell: (201) 240-5716
Dated: January 9, 2013
Criminal Lawyers Jersey City, Criminal Lawyers Elizabeth NJ, Criminal Lawyers Newark, Criminal Lawyers Bayonne, Criminal Lawyers Plainfield, Criminal Lawyers Union City, NJ, Criminal Lawyers Bergen County, Criminal Lawyers Bergen County, Criminal Lawyers Union County NJ, Criminal Lawyers Essex County, Criminal Lawyers Irvington, Criminal Lawyers New Brunswick
Friday, January 4, 2013
A study conducted by the Innocent Project of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, revealed that in approximately 25% of DNA exoneration cases, innocent defendants made false incriminating statements, delivered outright false confessions or plead guilty to a crime in which they did not commit in order to limit the amount of jail time.
These cases show without any doubt that confessions are not always the product from someone who is guilty but rather from suspects who are in fact innocent, but falsely incriminate themselves.
A dirty secret in law enforcement is that obtaining a confession, any confession, at all costs, is the ultimate goal in interrogating any suspect. Another dirty secret in law enforcement is as long as they have a confession it matters nothing if the person confessing is innocent or guilty of the crime. Because in their wrapped minds, not only can they close the books on the crime as solved, but if the person didn’t do this particular crime they are guilty of something anyway.
In law enforcement closing the file and “solving the crime” is what ultimately matters. Justice, truth or getting the right man means nothing after a confession is obtained. For example in cases in which false confessions are obtained the confession is usually inconsistent with the real verifiable facts of the crime. To get around this obvious problem the interrogating detective will feed the suspect facts of the crime scene that only the perpetrator and law enforcement would know about. Therefore, in false confession cases the New Jersey criminal defense attorney must be cognizant of confessions in which the confessor does not know the facts of the crime, and is spoon fed the facts that were found at the crime scene. Rogue detectives will never admit that they made a mistake or used unfair, false, or coercive interrogation techniques when they testify at a Miranda Hearing or trial. To justify their actions the detectives will engage in what is called circular reasoning or circular mentality. That is, the cop has to believe that they got the right suspect. Otherwise a sane cop could not keep his or her sanity. They have to convince themselves that he is a right man, even when all the evidence points to the fact that they got the wrong man.
When confessions are introduced at trial, the confession overrules and overrides all the other evidence of innocence’s. And juries have difficulty in getting over the fact that someone confessed. The first question the jury will ask in the jury room during deliberations; is why did he confess if he is innocent? You see people who have never faced a vicious interrogating detective, who knows all the tricks, can brake the will of even the most sophisticated suspect, will not understand that innocent people falsely confess to a crime which they did not commit all the time for a varied of reasons. Some detectives will freely admit off the record that they can get almost anyone to falsely implicate themselves, and this is frightenly true.
Whether someone is actually guilty is of no consequences to the questioning detective. In the majority of cases if they get you to confess, even if the evidence points in the direction that you are innocent does not matter. The interrogating officer will continue with the interrogation until the detective gets the suspect to repeat the story that the detective wants to hear. Usually this dog and pony show rehearsing will take place before the actual audio or visual recording is turned on. Therefore, all the tricks and lies are promised off the record. Also, promises and threats and other misleading information that the detective tells the suspect will also be done before the audio confession is turned on.
The single goal of interrogations is to get someone to confess who they believe is guilty. They don’t waste time spending hours interrogating someone whom they think is innocent.
Scientific research has continually shown that some personalities are more prone to this type of pressure than offers. People with weak personalities or other types of mental disabilities are more prone to give false confessions. However, people with forceful personalities are less likely. Also, people who have never been arrested before, do not know the legal system, young, women, disabled are more likely to falsely implicate themselves.
Unfortunately, most jurors cannot understand or will not accept the reality that it is possible that someone will falsely accuse themselves of a crime, which he or she did not commit. It is very difficult to explain to a jury what an innocent defendant is feeling when confronted with such circumstances.
The reasons for a false confession and this phenomena is varied, however, the biggest signal factor is trickery and false promises by the interrogating detective. There are many threats, tricks and deceitful techniques that a rogue officer will use. Some of the most common are: Telling the suspect that they failed a polygraph examination when in fact they passed it; telling the suspect that they will not be charged if they confess to the story that the detectives want to hear; telling the suspect that if they are sent into the holding cell they will be assaulted and raped by the other prisoners, telling a suspect that if they don’t confess to the story that they want to hear their children will be taken away and DYFS will be called; telling the suspect that if they don’t confess they will get the death penalty; telling the suspect that if they don’t confess to the story they want to hear they will call the judge and make sure that the bail is so high that the suspect will not be able to make bail.
For a New Jersey criminal defense attorney it is extremely difficult to convince a jury that in fact innocent people falsely accuse themselves of crimes which they did not commit. In trying this type of case before a jury in New Jersey the N.J. criminal defense attorney has the uphill battle of trying to point out this phenomenon.
The false confession case was epitomes in the infamous case of “The Norfolk Four”, in which seven enlisted United States Navy Sailors were charged with the brutal slaying and rape in which the four sailors falsely accused themselves of a crime in which it was eventually proven that they did not commit the crime, when the real killer was later found, confessed and his DNA matched found at the crime scene.
The rogue cop, Robert Glen Ford, you obtained the false confessions from the Norfolk Four was later convicted of federal extortion and lying to the F.B.I. was sentenced to 12 ½ years in federal prison. http://hamptonroads.com/2011/02/exnorfolk-detective-gets-12-12-years-corruption
In New Jersey false confession expert testimony is allowed by the seminal case, State v. George King. Unfortunately most people charged with a crime who give false confession cannot afford the services of this type of expert witness and the jury will never hear about the phenomenon of a “false confession.”
Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.
277 North Broad Street, P.O. Box 261, Elizabeth, N.J. 07207
Office; (908) 354-7006
Cell: (201) 240-5716
Dated: January 4, 2013
NJ Criminal Defense Lawyers, NJ Criminal Defense Attorneys, Bayonne Jersey City Criminal Lawyers, Union, Essex, Bergen, Hudson Criminal Lawyers
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Your Fourth Amendment Rights: Unreasonable Search By Police by Lifting Shirt Exceeds Terry Type Search and Results in Suppression of CDS Seized.
In State v. Privott the New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the appellate division holding reversing a conviction on the basis that the defendant’s Fourth Amendment Rights were violating.
In this case an anonymous caller told Plainfield Police that a black male was with a gun on the corner of Plainfield Avenue and West Third Street in the city, wearing a black jacket and red and black hat. He was further described as being tall and tin. Upon arrival the police noticed a black male matching that description, and when noticed, walked away from the patrol vehicle. Further, the officer testified that this individual was known by him to associate with known drug gangs, and this area of Plainfield was a high crime area. Further, the office testified that the suspect appeared nervous and appeared to be touching something at his waistband area of his pants. The office told the suspect to turn around and place his hands on the fence, which the suspect did. The officer than lifted the shirt of the suspect in which a bag of crack cocaine was found.
The appellate division and the Supreme Court suppressed the cocaine on the basis that the officer engaged in a search (lifting the suspects shirt), which exceeded the Terry Type frisk type search permitted. The police clearly had reasonable suspicion based on the totality of the facts to engage in a pat-down of the suspect but not lifting his shirt and exposing his stomack.
If you have been subject to a search which has lead to your arrest and charges it is important that you seek the advice of an experienced NJ Criminal Defense Attorney, who will access you chances of having your charges thrown out with a motion to suppress evidence.
Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., an experienced NJ criminal defense lawyer who has 23 years of experience in successfully defending people accused of crimes.
Union, Essex, Hudson, Bergen, Middlesex Criminal Attorney Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.
P.O. Box 261
277 North Broad Street
Elizabeth, N.J. 07207
Office: (908) 354-7006
Cell: (201) 240-5716
Dated: January 2, 2013