Recent Miranda Developments in New Jersey: No When to Shut Your Mouth.

When Questioned by Police Request the Assistants of

an Attorney and Not Your Mother: Recent Cases

on Defendant’s Miranda Rights.

On January 12, 2012, the Supreme Court of New Jersey flatly rejected a suppression of a custodial interrogation which was granted by the Appellate Division.

In State v. Demetrius Diaz-Bridges, the issue was simply whether a defendant who requested to speak to his mother during a custodial interrogation was asserting his right to remain silent, thus requiring the police to cease all questioning.

The Supreme Court rejected this argument holding that asking to speak to your mom instead of a lawyer affords the defendant no protection from further questions and the admission of the confession as evidence of guilt at time of trial.

Appellate Division Throws-Out Confession Based

On Promises Made To Defendant For Leniency.

On January 10, 2012, the Appellate Division in State v. Carl Hreha threw-out a confession taken by State Police Detectives reversing the trial court’s denial of defendant’s Miranda Motion to suppress his confession. 

In this case Mr. Hreha a computer technician with the Office of the Attorney sent racist literature to all the OAG printers at the Hughes Justice Center.  As a result Mr. Hreha was charged with various second degree computer offenses.

In this case the State Police detectives whom testified at the Miranda Hearing did not remember whether they made any promises of leniency to the defendant, including that if the cooperated that he would not be taken out of his place of employment (Office of the Attorney General), in handcuffs, would go home later that day, and would probably be admitted into the Pretrial Intervention Program in which after one-year the charges would be dismissed.  The Appellate Division held that such promises made by the detectives as testified by the defendant were promises likely to strip the defendant of his capacity for self-determination, citing the seminal cases State v. Fletcher, 380 N.J. Super. 80, 89 (App. Div. 2005) and State v. Pillar, 359 N.J. Super. 249, 272-73 (App. Div. 2003).

Defendant’s charged with a crime must be aware that even when a confession is made it is sometimes possible to have the confession thrown-out in certain circumstances.

Because there was a dissenting Judge in this decision this case will automatically be heard by the New Jersey Supreme Court.  Let’s hope that the decision is not disturbed by the New Jersey Supreme Court.

Sanzone Firm

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

(908) 354-7006

YourCivilRights@gmail.com

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Dated: January 19, 2012

A New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney locating in Elizabeth, New Jersey who will provide competent legal defense for people accused of serious crimes and disorderly person’s offenses in Union, Essex, Bergen, Hudson, Somerset, Middlesex, Morris, Passaic, Monmouth, Ocean, Atlantic, Hunterdon, Warren, and Cape May Counties,

When Law Enforcement Comes Knocking, Know Your Rights

Martha Steward didn't go to jail because she committed a crime. She went to jail because when she was interviewed by federal investigators regarding insider trading she made a statement that was found out to be false. Never speak, you have everything to lose and nothing to gain. Don't be fooled.

Every day suspects are questioned by law enforcement. Often they are approached with the line, "We know you didn't do anything, but we are investigating 'so and so', and we want to ask you a few questions. You have nothing to worry about ... Can we have a few moments of your time." This trick is simple but effective. This is especially dangerous when you are being questioned by federal officials, who know, but know you don't know, that anything that you say that is false is a crime under federal law. You can be completely innocent of any crime, but if you say something that is not truthful, you have committed a federal crime.

Never Give Up Your Constitutional Rights

Once you give up your constitutional right to remain silent and speak to law enforcement that right is lost forever, and cannot be reclaimed. Not only may you implicate yourself, but you now have to trust that the agent that interviewed you was honest in what you told him. In the event that you are charged with a crime, or become a target of the investigation, those answers will be used against you. Further, you now have to trust that the agent who interviewed you was honest, and did'nt write things in his written report that you never admitted to. If the agent is "dirty", or takes things you say out of context, you will now have to deny those statements, and to do so, you would have to take the stand at trial, and call the agent, a liar. A position that no criminal defendant wants to place himself in.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.
Elizabeth, New Jersey
CriminalDefenseNJ.com
Tel. No. (908) 354-7007