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

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