Cross-Examination of the Snitch; How to Win Your Criminal Case in New Jersey Superior Court

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

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

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

City of Bayonne Settles Another Police Brutality Case: Internal Affairs and Police Accountability by Department Supervisors Non-Existent

A federal civil rights law suit, Condo v. City of Bayonne, against the city was recently settled for the sum of $95,000.00. 

The allegations as contained in the complaint assert that two Bayonne police officers engaged in the wonton beating of plaintiffs Condo and DeRocco, by repeatedly kicking and punching them after they came out of a bar in Bayonne.  It is alleged that other officers seeing the brutality failed to intervene.

The plaintiffs alleged that their civil rights were violated under federal civil rights laws pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.  As a result of the beating both plaintiffs’ sustained serious injuries which required medical attention at the local hospital.

Although both plaintiffs were also falsely charged with aggravated assault and resisting arrest against the arresting police officers, all charges against Condo and DeRocco were administratively dismissed by the Hudson County Prosecutor’s Office.  Named in the lawsuit along with the city police department were police officers, Dominick Lillo, William Peterson, Timothy Carey and Timothy McAuliffe. 

This type of abuse will continue in Bayonne by the police department until such time as the department takes serious citizen complaints and engages in honest internal affairs investigations of its officers; and when appropriate the disciplining of errant officers.

Update:  February 20, 2015, Dominick Lillo arrested by the FBI and charged by the United States Attorney's Office for excessive force in the beating of another Bayonne citizen arrested for outstanding municipal warrant.  He was also charged with lying to federal agents.  The Chief of Police, Richard Kubert, knew about this errant officers for years, and did nothing.  Mr. Kubert should be fired immediately, if the department wants to regain any integrity.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

277 North Broad Street

P.O. Box 261

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

(908) 354-7006

YourcivilRights@gmail.com

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

The Question of Jury Nullification Does the Jury have the Right to Engage in Jury Nullification? Making the Argument that You Must Find the Defendant Not Guilty When There is Insufficient Evidence.

In the United States unlike many other countries once a jury renders a verdict of not guilty it is final, meaning the defendant can never be tried again because of principals of double jeopardy, and second, the jury can never be punished for its verdict no matter what it is.

Historically jury nullification was used by some northern juries in refusing to convict people engaged in freeing and helping black slaves hide and escape, in violation of the U.S. Fugitive Slave Act.  On the flip side sometimes southern juries sometimes refused to convict defendants, especially police officers engaged in blatant violation of federal civil rights laws especially applied to African-Americans and other minorities.  Unfortunately this all too frequently happens even today when police officers are placed on trial and acquitted or held liable when they should be convicted of violating the law or held liable for abusing others.

Evidence of jury nullification by the jury is sometimes manifested by the jury convicting of lesser included offenses, or hung juries.

Under New Jersey law under the definition of reasonable doubt which is given to each jury at the beginning and end of each criminal trial, the jury is instructed that if “you are not firmly convinced of defendant’s guilt, you must give defendant the benefit of the doubt and find him or her not guilty.

The powerful and operative words are you must. An honest jury which is sworn to uphold the law cannot violate its sworn duty to fairly and impartially follow this jury instruction.  Accordingly, in that case the jury must enter a verdict of not guilty, if the State does not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.  Accordingly, any doubt, which is reasonable, must be a vote of not guilty for that jury.

 

Accordingly, whether that acquitting juror is in the majority or the minority is of absolutely no significance since it is that juror who has made his or her individual decision which is scared and irrevocable and based on his or her own conscience.

Harvard Law school graduate, and former federal prosecutor and now law professor at the George Washington University National Law Center (my undergraduate alma mater), Paul Butler, argues that under the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution ever jury has the right to engage in “jury nullification.”  Professor Butler in his OP-Ed article in the New York Times is perplexed why the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of in New York is prosecuting Julian P. Heicklen a retired chemistry professor for handing out leaflets in front of the United States Court House for advocating jury nullification that Professor Butler has been advocating through such forums at The Yale Law Journal, “60 Minutes” and You Tube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8eQ_EYwQQI

Professor argues that founding fathers John Hancock and John Adams believed that in the concept of jury nullification.  Citing Adams, each juror has the duty to vote based on his or her “own best understanding, judgment and conscience, though in direct opposition and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.”

Professor Butler even suggests that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia appeared to be open to the suggestion that jurors can engage in jury nullification when he appeared before the United States Senate, when Justice Scalia stated that jurors “can ignore the law” if the law “is producing a terrible results.”

This New Jersey criminal defense attorney respectfully submits that because New Jersey criminal law allows for a verdict which is based on all the evidence and facts of any given case it is improper for anyone to second guess the decision of jury and their decision making process.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Elizabeth, New Jersey

YourCivilRights@gmail.com

Tel. No. (908) 354-7006

Dated: December 23, 2011

NJ Criminal Defense Attorneys, NJ Criminal Attorneys, NJ Criminal Lawyers, NJ Best Criminal Lawyers, NJ Best Criminal Defense Attorneys.