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