The Harvard Justice Project By Harvard University Professor of Political Philosophy, Michael J. Sandel.

To date approximately 15,000 students have taken the legendary “Justice” class taught by Harvard University philosophy professor, Michael J. Sandel.  

What make Professor Sandel’s class so interesting and counter-cultural is that Professor Sandel is attempting to get people to start thinking again.  He is challenging people to think about some of the great issues facing society in the post-modern era.  Topics that the main stream media could care less.  Pressing and philosophical questions as to whether torturing of alleged terrorists can ever be justified, the redistribution of wealth, the alleged and fruitless war on drugs, is it right to pay a celebrity, (some one such as David Letterman), 700 times more than a school teacher, to name a few of his posed questions to his students.

What is even more remarkable that most of his live Harvard lectures can be viewed for free by visiting the Harvard website at www.harvardjustice.org.  In these video lectures you can listen at the real debates between Professor Sandel and his Harvard students. 

For people who are tried of nonsense T.V. shows such as American Idol, Dancing with the Stars, and other worthless, and degrading reality shows, these lectures are mind inspiring and challenge us to think about what is the right thing to do in the post-modern era, for the betterment of not only the people of the United States but for the entire human race.

Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Dated: June 21, 2011

State Attorney General Paula T. Dow Releases Directive No. 2011-2 to All Law Enforcement Agencies in the State Regarding Retention of Police Notes.

On May 23, 2011 the State Attorney General’s Office sent a directive to all state, county and local police departments advising them that their investigators can no longer destroy crime investigative notes, and that all notes must be preserved, effective May 27, 2011.  The directive states that all notes, whether in written or oral form, including every type of media, which memorializes the police officers observations regarding his crime investigation or his interview with any witnesses must be preserved, and handed over to defense counsel at the appropriate time.

However, pursuant to the directive the investigator need not turn over any notes regarding his investigative techniques or deliberative process which according to the directive is still privileged. 

In defining a “witness interview”, the directive held that it only applies to investigations regarding crimes of the 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, and 4^th degree crimes, whether committed by a juvenile or adult offender.  However, the directive makes no mention of notes being preserved for disorderly person’s offenses or motor vehicle charges. To read the directive in full go to: http://www.state.nj.us/oag/dcj/agguide/directives/dir-2011-2-RetentionTransmittal.pdf

This directive was made by the Attorney General’s Office pursuant to the recent New Jersey Supreme Court case, State v. W.B. decided on April 27, 2011.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Union County, Elizabeth, N.J.

Dated: June 2, 2011

N.J. Criminal Lawyer

The State’s Proffer Without the Supporting Documents to Support Forensic Examination Insufficient to Trigger Defense Counsel’s Period to Object

May 17, 2011, the Appellate Division in State v. Heisler held that the period in which defense counsel must object to a laboratory certificate is tolled until such time as defense counsel receives all supporting documents in connection with the lab certificate.

The Comprehensive Drug Reform Act, as found in N.J.S.A. 2C:35-19 requires that the State provide a lab certificate along with all supporting documents before said certificate can be admitted into evidence without objection. If defense counsel objects within 10 dates of receipt of the certificate and the reasons for said objection, the State must produce the testimony of the lab technician who performed the specific forensic tests. However, the 10 day period does not begin to run until the defense receives not only the lab certificate but the supporting test documents, which includes but not limited to, all the reports relating to the analysis.

The Court correctly ruled that it is impossible for defense counsel to competently decide whether to object to the certificate until such time as the underlying accompanying data is received by defense counsel.

If the data is not disclosed, defense counsel’s obligation to object is never triggered, and hence, the report does not come into evidence. This case seems to hold that even if no objection is made by defense counsel the lab report does not come into evidence until the State satisfies all the requirements of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-19.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq. CriminalDefenseNJ.com 277 N. Broad Street, Elizabeth, NJ, (908) 354-7006

Dated: May 23, 2011

The Need to Move for Expungement of Arrests and Convictions in New Jersey: “Convicts Need Not Apply.”

A study conducted by the Society for Human Resources Management in 2010 found that 90 percent of large companies in the United States who participated in the survey stated that for all job applicants a criminal background check was a prerequisite for an offer of employment.

Unfortunately many employers even disqualify applicants who have been arrested, notwithstanding that the arrest did not lead to a conviction or was dismissed.

In New Jersey it is now possible to expunge most crimes after a five year waiting period, at the discretion of the judge. Previously the law in New Jersey was that the applicant needed to wait 10 years. Although a handful of crimes are not eligible to be expunged such as drug distribution crimes, intent to distribute, or sexual offenses, most crimes are eligible to be expunged.

Because of the extremely tight job market many employers are eliminating any job applicant with any criminal history, including the mere arrest. According to the National Employment Law Project approximately 65 million Americans have some type of criminal record or arrest record.

In fact, even more frightening is the fact that after a job applicant is rejecting by an employer based on a criminal background check that the rejection for that reason be listed on the applicant’s credit report.

Accordingly, that is why it is very important that every individual who intents on seeking employment must move to expunge an arrest even if such arrest never resulted in a conviction.

For more information regarding whether you qualify to expunge an arrest or conviction it is suggested that you seek the legal assistant of the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., in this area of law who has successfully guided many individuals through the Expungement of their criminal history.

Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

YourCivilRights@gmail.com

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

Tel: (908) 354-7006

Cell: (201) 240-5716

No To Police Officers in New Jersey Giving Jury Testimony That A Street Narcotics Transaction Was Observed

On April 4, 2011, the New Jersey Supreme Court in State v. McLean overturned a possession with intent to distribute conviction hold that a the police officer making an observation cannot give his opinion as to what he observed was in fact a narcotics transaction. Allowing such testimony would permit every arresting officer to opine on the guilt of the accused in every case. The Supreme Court made it clear that the only party in a criminal case that can make that determination is the trier of fact, and in most cases that would be the jury.

The question now remains as to whether the hypothetical question asked of the State’s expert witness in every intent to distribute CDS case is still good law in light of McLean.

In State v. Odom, 116 N.J. 65 (1989), the New Jersey Supreme Court held that a State can qualify an expert cop witness who can testify that the quantity of drugs seized was for distribution and not personal use.

Under the Odom case, in using the hypothetical question format the prosecutor is permitted to elicit from the “cop expert”, without using the name of the defendant, whether the facts as alleged by the observing officers amounts to possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, and not possession for personal use. In that question the cop is giving an ultimate opinion as to guilt or innocence of defendant, why is that any different than the holding in McLean?

More information on defending the narcotics drug case go to the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.
CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.
P.O. Box 261
277 North Broad Street
Elizabeth, N.J. 07207
(908)354-7006

Investigating the Crime Scene First Hand

In almost every criminal case the alleged crime occurred at a specific location or locations. In every case it is essential that the attorney representing the accused to personally go to the crime scene location, to first hand view the crime scene and the surrounding area. Never should the defense attorney rely upon the police reports or police report pictures to depict or describe the crime scene area. By personally viewing the crime scene, the attorney will often discover that the state's witnesses could not have been able to view or observe things that they claim they did from their vantage point, as stated in their written statements or police reports.

Only when the attorney for the defendant personally goes to the crime scene and compares his observations to the police reports and witness statements can he ascertain whether the witness statements and/or police reports are accurate. Even if such a determination cannot be made by going to the crime scene, the attorney, nevertheless, can use his crime scene knowledge in his cross-examination to show the witness and ultimately the jurors that he is familiar with the area. This familiarity will sometimes, but not always, curtail prosecution witnesses from lying about lighting conditions, view obstructions, and distances from specific locations within the crime scene.

Therefore, when viewing the crime scene the defense attorney must bring with him a tape measurement devise, digital camera, and, if possible, an investigator, who can be called by the defense, if necessary, to refute any inconsistencies testified by the state's witnesses about the crime scene.

Therefore, if possible, an early view of the crime scene by defense counsel is an essential requirement in every criminal case in which a crime was alleged to have occurred in a specific location.

Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.
CriminalDefenseNJ.com

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