Prosecutors in the Casey Anthony Trial Caught Failing To Disclose Exculpatory Evidence to the Defense

Although Casey Anthony was acquitted of killing her daughter and could never be re-tried again in Florida (under the doctrine of double jeopardy) for charges in which she was acquitted of, it has now been revealed by one of the prosecutions witnesses that even if she had been convicted the conviction would have been overturned on appeal.

During the trial the prosecution proffered the expert testimony of their computer expert from the Orange County Sheriff’s Office, Sgt. Kevin Stenger, whom testified that Ms. Anthony’s computer searched for the word “chloroform”, 84 times, and that he determined this by using the forensic software called, “CacheBack.”

However, back in late June of 2011, the developer of the software John Bradley notified the prosecutors that their findings were wrong because of a flaw in his software which he later discovered and corrected.  Upon correction Mr. Bradley learned that the Anthony computer only searched for the word “chloroform” once.

Upon discovering the error, Mr. Bradley the developer of the software called “cacheback”, which is commonly used in law enforcement to discover computer search history, offered at his own expense to fly to Orlando and testify to his findings.  Mr. Bradley is the chief executive officer of Siquest a Canadian company which manufactures the software.

In violation of Brady v. Maryland, the prosecutors never disclosed Mr. Bradley’s findings to the defense, and it is without doubt that even if she was convicted with this type of blatant misconduct by the prosecution her conviction would have been overturned on appeal.

I wonder whether there was additional misconduct committed by the prosecution in this case, and I applaud the jury for doing the right thing in this case and following the law of reasonable doubt.   

It is yet too been seen if Sgt. Stenger and the prosecutors in the Casey Anthony will be investigated for their misconduct and unethical conduct.  Unfortunately, I suspect not.

By: Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

Dated: July 28, 2011

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Elizabeth, New Jersey

(908) 354-7006

NJ criminal attorneys, NJ criminal lawyers, NJ criminal defense lawyers, NJ criminal defense attorneys, Newark criminal lawyers, Elizabeth nj criminal attorneys, Elizabeth criminal defense lawyers.  Union county nj criminal lawyers. Newark criminal lawyers, Hudson County Criminal Lawyers.

Cross-Racial Identification, Conditional Discharge Bar to PTI, and Consent to Enter Apartment Does Not Mean Consent to Search

Defendant Discharged from the Municipal “Conditional Discharge Program” cannot Be Admitted into

Pretrial Intervention Program.

In State v. O’Brien the Appellate Division held that a defendant who was admitted and successfully discharged from the conditional discharge program pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:36A-1 cannot be admitted over the prosecutor’s objections to the Pretrial Intervention Program pursuant to Rule 3:28.

Defendant Entitled to Cross-Racial Identification

Jury Instructions where Identification is a

Critical Issue and No Independent Corroboration of

Victim’s Identification.

In State v. Walker the Appellate Division held that when identification is a critical issue in cross-racial identification, and there is no independent cooperation of the suspect’s identity, the Court must give the jury the cross-racial identification charge.

This case reaffirms the New Jersey Supreme Court’s seminal case, State v. Cromedy which held that eye-witnesses experience a “cross-racial impairment” when identifying members of another race, with “decreased accuracy in the recognition of other-race faces that is not within the observer’s conscious control.

Police Officers Who Gain Entry into an off-Campus College Apartment by Consent, Investigating a Noise

Complaint, do Not Have a Right to Prance Around

the Apartment looking for Contraband.

In State v. Kaltner, the Appellate Division held that warrantless searches of homes are presumptively unreasonable, and accordingly, held that ecstasy pills found in plain view of an off-campus college apartment at Monmouth University, must be suppressed.  In this case although the police officers had consent to enter the apartment, they did not have consent to search the apartment without a warrant.  This holding was based on the additional fact that there was no apparent emergency which permitted the officers to fan out into the various rooms once inside the apartment.  The community-caretaker exception was not applicable in this case and could not justify the search.

By: Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

Dated: July 28, 2011

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Elizabeth, New Jersey

(908) 354-7006

NJ criminal attorneys, NJ criminal lawyers, NJ criminal defense lawyers, NJ criminal defense attorneys, Newark criminal lawyers, Elizabeth nj criminal attorneys, Elizabeth criminal defense lawyers.  Union county nj criminal lawyers.

No Reasonable Expectation of Privacy for Cell Phone Tower Locations on Cell Phone

The Appellate Division in State v. Earls came down with a decision which held that tracking a suspect’s general location using cell phone towers is not unconstitutional under the State or Federal constitutions, and that a judicial warrant is not necessary for that information to be disclosed to law enforcement by the cell phone carrier, without the suspects consent or knowledge.

The decision is not shocking and is in conformity with the general rule of law that a suspect does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy with anything that is open to public view.  Of course it is legal for a law enforcement officer to follow a suspect who is out in public without a warrant.  That same logical and legal reasoning holds that a someone who has in his possession a cell phone which is turned-on; can reasonably suspect that his location will be tracked through the satellite signals to and from the nearest cell phone tower nearest to his cell phone.

In one particular criminal case in Somerset County, I was able to obtain an acquittal and obtain a not guilty verdict on every count of the indictment when it was pointed out to the jury that law enforcement could have pinpointed the general location of the defendant, who was in Essex County and not in Somerset County at the time of the alleged crimes, but failed to do so.  With all advanced technology if used properly it can be a useful tool of both law enforcement and the defendant to help exonerate an innocent defendant.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Elizabeth, New Jersey

Dated: July 15, 2011

Cell Phone Tower Tracking in New Jersey, Legality of Cell Phone Tower Tracking of Suspect in New Jersey, Cell Phone Carrier Tracking of Suspects, Whether it is Legal to Cell Phone Tower Track of Cell Phones.

Prominent European international news wire service, AFP reporter Stephane Jourdain of Paris France interviews Attorney Vincent Sanzone on the Dominique Strauss-Kahn Case.

On July 5, 2011, the prominent international European news wire interviewed attorney Vincent Sanzone and his prediction that the sexual assault criminal charges against Dominique Strauss-Kahn will be dropped by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office because the alleged victim has lost all credibility and the D.A. office will not risk losing another high profile case.

http://es-us.noticias.yahoo.com/cargos-eeuu-jefe-fmi-retirados-prensa-152913139.html

The Sanzone interview was also covered by the prominent European news papers, El Economista and Terra.

http://eleconomista.com.mx/internacional/2011/07/05/ven-fracaso-acusaciones-contra-strauss-kahn

http://www.terra.com.mx/articulo.aspx?articuloId=1151256

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Elizabeth, New Jersey

New Jersey Criminal Trial Lawyer, NJ. Criminal Attorney, Union Count, Essex County, Bergen County, Hudson County, Middlesex County, Monmouth County, Somerset County, Ocean County criminal lawyer.

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

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