Attorney Sanzone Scores Another Not Guilty Verdict

Another Not Guilty Verdict Today For Attorney Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

November 29, 2012. Superior Court of New Jersey, Union County, Elizabeth, N.J. My client, defendant charged in a four count indictment as an accomplice for first degree armed robbery with a weapon, theft and
terroristic threats. Client facing 10-20 year state prison sentence, with period of parole ineligibility of 85% under the No Early Release Act. Jury returned not guilty verdict as to all counts, client walks out front door of court house. Co-defendant "rat" testified against my client claiming my client was the getaway driver. Rat was cross-examined by me for two days and was decimated. See the rat in action robbing the store on Eyewitness News 7.
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news%2Flocal&id=7176507
Law Office of  Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.
277 North Broad Street
P.O. Box 261
Elizabeth (Union County) New Jersey 07207
Office: (908) 354-7006
Cell:    (201) 240-5716

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Best NJ Criminal Defense Attorneys, Union County NJ Criminal Defense Attorneys, Elizabeth NJ Criminal Lawyers, Best Union County NJ Criminal Lawyers, Best Essex County Criminal Lawyers

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

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

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.

  

Elizabeth New Jersey Municipal Court Defense; What Should You Know, and How To Win Your Case.

The Elizabeth Municipal Court (Union County, New Jersey) is listed in the top ten municipal courts in the State of New Jersey in the volume of cases it handles every year.

The physical locations of the Court are at two separate locations, One Police Plaza and 208 Commerce Place.  It is important that anyone appearing before the Court to check their notice to see which location to appear. http://www.elizabethnj.org

The Court has four part-time and full-time municipal court Judges, Montes (Chief Judge), Russell, Marshall and Obuch.  The court has both day and evening sessions, with most evening sessions held at the 208 Commerce Street site.  The Court also employs 9 part-time municipal prosecutors.

If you are summoned to the Elizabeth Municipal Court for any traffic, criminal or ordinance violation, it is important that you select an attorney who is familiar with the Elizabeth Municipal Court.  Like most towns and cities in the State of New Jersey, this Court has its own customs, norms and procedures which set’s it apart from other towns and cities in the State.

During the last 21 years of criminal practice in Elizabeth New Jersey, attorney Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., has successfully represented hundreds of individuals in the Elizabeth Municipal Court. 

If you are charged with an offense in this Court or any other municipal court, it is important that you select an experienced professional who understands the particular Court so that you can obtain the best possible results for your individual case and circumstances.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Elizabeth, New Jersey

Tel. No. (908) 354-7006

Criminal Defense Lawyer, Elizabeth Municipal Court Attorney, Municipal Court Lawyer Elizabeth NJ, NJ Criminal Attorneys

Forsensic Lab Report Hearsay Without Testimony of Chemists

Bullcoming v. New Mexico, decided by the United States Supreme Court on June 23, 2011, reaffirmed the right to confront witnesses proffered by prosecution witnesses who testify as to the contents of lab reports in criminal cases.

The narrow question presented to the court was whether the confrontation clause permits the prosecution to admit a forensic laboratory report containing testimonial information from a witness who did not prepare, or sign the certification concerning the lab reports contents?

Again following the Supreme Court Crawford and Melendez-Diaz decisions the court held that such “surrogate testimony” does not meet the constitutional requirements of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and hence, the report is not admissible into evidence without the testimony of the actual chemists who prepared the report.

This decision does not change the well established decisional law in New Jersey which always required the testimony of the forensic chemists who preformed the tests.  In every criminal case it is essential that defense counsel object to any attempt by the prosecution to introduce hearsay evidence through lab reports without the testimony of the forensic chemists.

Law Office Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Elizabeth, New Jersey, Union County

NJ Criminal Attorneys, NJ Criminal Defense Attorneys, NJ Criminal Trial Attorney, Union County Criminal Defense Lawyers, NJ Federal Criminal Trial Attorneys, Criminal Lawyers NJ

Dated: June 24, 2011