In the case State v. Howard
Myerowitz, the Secaucus Municipal Court allowed the complaining witness to
retain a private prosecutor against Mr. Myerowitz for a charge of harassment.
The New Jersey Appellate Division
reversed the conviction on the basis that the municipal court erred by allowing
the private complaining party to have her private prosecutor to prosecute the
municipal court charge.
The appellate panel held that the
defendant was denied a fair trial and the proceedings were “procedural
defective”, since the municipal court did not follow R. 7:8-7(b), and the
seminal case State v. Storm. The
court reiterated that the appointment of a private prosecutor is only permitted
when cross-complaints are filed. As held
in Storm, the wide-spread use of private prosecutors in municipal courts would
lead to the “erosion of public confidence” in the municipal court system.
Further, the appellate court held
that private prosecutors may only be permitted if the cross-complaints would
create a conflict of interest for the appointed municipal court
prosecutor. Further, in all private
prosecutor applications the attorney seeking appointment must fill out a
specific form approved by the Administrative Office of the Courts, which was
not done in this case.
If you have been charged with a
disorderly person’s offense in Secaucus Municipal Court, or any other municipal
court in Union, Essex, Bergen, Monmouth, Ocean, Middlesex, Somerset, Passaic
counties, you should seek the experience of an attorney with twenty-five years
of criminal defense experience in defending people charged with crimes in New
Jersey.
Dated: February
20, 2015
277 North Broad Street
P.O. Box 261
Elizabeth, New Jersey
Telephone
No. (908) 354-7006; Cell No. (201) 240-5716
Quote of the day: “... for the ones
with great difficulty and no clear evidence of success, plot away at the task
of awakening in just a few men, a small spark of faith, of hope and of
charity.” Karl Rahner, S.J.
