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

Code Word By Police “Stop Resisting”; and What Does It Really Mean?

For year’s law enforcement in New Jersey have kept hidden a dirty little secret which now is starting to come to light and being exposed by civil rights attorneys and federal prosecutors.  For years some law enforcement officers engaged in the beating of handcuffed prisoners and jail inmates have used the code words, “stop resisting” “or stop fighting” while beating non-resisting prisoners in handcuffs.

For years the New Jersey State police have been notorious for using this disgusting trick in an attempt to blame the handcuffed prisoner who is not resisting.  This dirty trick is often used by police officers who know that their beating is outside the view of a video camera but being recorded by a body-mic.  This cruel trick gives the person viewing the video tape in believing that the prisoner is actually resisting when in fact the prisoner is not.

In the last several months, especially in California, civil right group has amassed 70 declarations from former prisoners and civilians who witnessed beatings. The statements suggest few patterns — the complaints span all times of day and multiple units in the jail. But, the A.C.L.U. says, the guards do seem to use the same terms repeatedly, shouting, “Stop resisting!” and “Stop fighting!” while they hit inmates, even when inmates are not moving or are in handcuffs.
In one specific case Paulino Juarez, a Roman Catholic chaplain who was assigned to the Los Angeles County Jail (Twin Towers and Men’s Central Jail) has worked in the jail since 1998, was visiting an inmate’s cell early one morning in February 2009 when he heard several thumps and gasps in the hallway. When he moved to the cell door, he saw three deputies hitting a man and yelling, “Stop fighting!”
“But he wasn’t fighting; he wasn’t even defending himself,” Mr. Juarez said in an interview. “When they saw me, they froze. I was frozen, too. I didn’t say anything. I was too shocked, and I was terrified.”
Mr. Juarez filed a report with the Sheriff’s Department but did not hear anything about it for several months. More than two years later, during a meeting with his supervisor and Sheriff Baca, Mr. Juarez was told that the department found that the inmate had resisted going into his cell. There was no record of Mr. Juarez’s report, although a guard indicated in the file that the chaplain had exaggerated what he had witnessed. He was told that the inmate, whose name he did not know at the time, had later been released.
“I really don’t trust anymore,” Mr. Juarez said. “They always say inmates are liars and nobody believes them. But I saw them treated like this.”
While the sheriff has repeatedly dismissed complaints from prisoners, the number of civilians who have witnessed beatings has steadily increased, showing the brazenness of many of the guards in the jails, said Peter Eliasberg, legal director for the A.C.L.U. Foundation of Southern California.
Another chaplain said he saw deputies punching an inmate until he collapsed to the ground. They then began kicking the apparently unconscious man’s head and body.
“This situation, the length of time it has been going on, the volume of complaints and the egregious nature are much, much worse than anything I’ve ever seen,” said Tom Parker, a retired F.B.I. official who led the agency’s Los Angeles office for years and oversaw investigations into the Rodney King beating and charges of corruption in the Los Angeles Police Department. “They are abusing inmates with impunity, and the worst part is that they think they can get away with it.”
Of course, Los Angeles Sheriff Lee Baca has repeatedly dismissed any suggestion of a systemic problem in the jails, saying that all allegations of abuse are investigated and that most are unfounded.  Instead of attempting to solve the problem, again, police supervisors are the root of the problem because they continually sanction and turn a blind eye to their fellow errant and rogue officers.
When the Sheriff learned that F.B.I. agents sneaked a cell phone to a prisoner as part of an investigation to catch criminal corrections officers, Sheriff Baca reacted to the investigation angrily, with the shameless and pitiful comment, saying that the agency did not know what it was doing and was putting prisoners and guards in danger.
In one of my civil rights cases New Jersey State Troopers engaged in exactly this dirty trick when they beat an African-American motorist who was handcuffed while still in his motor-vehicle but outside the trooper’s motor vehicle recording camera, or MVR.
In that case the troopers repeatedly yelled “stop-resisting as they kicked, punched and struck the motorist over the head with a metal flashlight causing the motorist extensive external and internal injuries.
Another trick routinely used by the cops is to isolate the prisoner or suspect into the “hole” or jail for several days or weeks so that the external bruises and cuts and abrasions heal before seen by any witnesses.

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

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

277 North Broad Street

P.O. Box 261

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

Office Phone: (908) 354-7006

Cell Phone:   (201) 240-5716

Dated: November 6, 2012

“If you want peace work for justice.” Pope John Paul, I

NJ Civil rights lawyer, New Jersey Police Misconduct Attorneys, New Jersey State Police Dirty Tricks, New Jersey Criminal Defense Lawyers, NJ best criminal lawyers, Union county criminal lawyers, best union county nj criminal lawyers, unlawful arrest in nj, best nj criminal defense lawyers, essex county criminal lawyers, nj best civil rights lawyers, best civil rights lawyers, police misconduct attorneys nj

Hearings Before the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor.

The mission of the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor is to root-out illegal activities and corruption on the Ports of New Jersey and New York.  There is no dispute that the ports of New Jersey and New York, like all industries have there share of illegal activities and corruption.

Accordingly, pursuant to the Waterfront Act every person working as a Longshoreman, Checker or Maintenance Person is required to possess a Waterfront Pass and these passes are issued by the Waterfront Commission.  Accordingly, every Longshoreman, Checker and Maintenance Man is subject to the jurisdiction of the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor.  The Waterfront Commission is a bi-state agency and covers every shipping port in New Jersey and New York.

It is important to understand that every Longshoreman, Checker or Maintenance Person is subject to revocation of his or her Waterfront Commission pass for engaging in behavior which the Waterfront Commission believes in its opinion shows lack of good character.

Unfortunately, the term lacking in “good character” is an amorphous word and is subject to numerous interpretations by the Commission.  What might be bad character in one case might not be bad character in another case.  Of course as with all governmental agencies, they have in essence the final say in the matter, subject only to appeal to the Superior Court, Appellate Division, for all Longshoreman living or working in New Jersey.

The Commission considers Longshoreman convicted of a crime or disorderly person’s offenses are person’s lacking “good character”, and are subject to a revocation hearings, and permanent loss of his or her waterfront pass.  In these cases the commission will move for an immediate suspension of the Longshoreman’s pass.  In those cases the Waterfront Commission will file a formal complaint and Administrative Law Hearing to revoke the waterfront pass.

Well less known, however, is the fact that the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor will often seek termination or suspension of a waterfront pass for Longshoreman not convicted of a crime or disorderly person’s offense.  Such as Longshoreman entering a conditional discharge program, or Pretrial Intervention.  Amazingly, even if the charges are dismissed by the prosecutor, or a court or jury finds the Longshoreman not guilty the Waterfront Commission in some cases continue to seek revocation of the waterfront pass, if the Waterfront Commission finds evidence that the Longshoreman lacks good character, through the testimony of the Longshoreman himself, or from the testimony of others. 

Traditional constitutional protections of the accused and other criminal procedural right protections do not apply to the Waterfront Commission because the proceedings are civil in nature and not criminal.  Of course the Longshoreman can always assert his or her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent; however, asserting the Fifth Amendment before the Waterfront Commission is unlikely to inure to the benefit of the Longshoreman. 

However, because all Waterfront Commission depositions and sworn, there have been numerous occasion in which the Waterfront Commission has sought criminal prosecution for false swearing under oath before the Commission.  Therefore, under the Waterfront rules the Longshoreman is forced to admit to wrongdoing which will ultimately be used against him or her.

A hearing or deposition under oath before the Waterfront Commission is a proceeding filed with mine-fields and trap-doors for the unprepared and un-counseled.  If you are called in to give a deposition under oath or hearing it is essential that you seek the legal advice from a Waterfront Lawyer who is experienced in this field of practice.  Your job and lively-hood might hinge on picking the right Waterfront Lawyer for your situation.  If you are in need of a New Jersey Waterfront Attorney, before the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor you are urged to call the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

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

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth, New Jersey 07207

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Office Phone No. (908) 354-7006
Cell Phone No.   (201) 240-5716






New Jersey Waterfront Commission Lawyer, NJ Longshoreman Attorney, N.J. Waterfront Attorney, New Jersey Waterfront Commission Lawyer, Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor Waterfront Attorney, best Waterfront Attorneys

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

The United States Supreme Court Muddles The Law in Williams v. Illinois

Sandy Williams was arrested on a sexual charged in Chicago and convicted of that offense.  Like New Jersey, Illinois requires that everyone convicted of a crime (felony), be required to give a DNA sample to the state police laboratory.  After Mr. Williams’ DNA sample was run in the national DNA data base it was determined that his DNA matched a sample from another crime scene.

At trial a person for the prosecution testified that Mr. Williams DNA matched the sample found at the crime scene.  This testimony was allowed in spite of the fact that the crime scene sample was analyzed by Cellmark Diagnostics Laboratory in Maryland. 

Interesting in this case, know one from Cellmark testified about the testing of this specimen, and Mr. Williams was convicted. 

This case unfortunately appears to have eroded the seminal case Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts and its progeny, Bullcoming v. New Mexico.

In New Jersey, however, because our state affords greater constitutional protections than at the federal level, it would be highly unlikely that such a conviction would occur without the testimony of the forensic chemist from the lab who analyzed the DNA from the crime scene.  In her dissent Justice Kagan pointed out that in another case the technician from Cellmark admitted in cross-examination that she had tested the wrong bloodied search.

The need to confront all witnesses for the prosecution is essential under the Sixth Amendment to the United States and State’s constitution and that right cannot be eviscerated by any court.

In a recent case Attorney Sanzone was able in cross-examination at trial to get the chief forensic chemist from the Ocean County Sheriff’s Office Crime Laboratory to admit that her test results finding Marijuana were flawed and she admitted that there was reasonable doubt as to whether the samples taken were in fact Marijuana.  Specifically, she stated that because she was not a botanist and the other test she performed gives false positives, there was reasonable doubt as to whether her conclusions as to whether the substance tested was in fact Marijuana as she stated in her laboratory report.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth (Union County) New Jersey 07207

Office Phone Number (908) 354-7706

Cell Phone Number   (201) 240-5716

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

YourCivilRights@gmail.com

Union County Lawyers, Union County NJ Criminal Lawyers, Best Union County Lawyers, Best Union County Criminal Defense Lawyers, Union County Criminal Attorneys, New Jersey Union County Attorneys, Union County Defense Attorneys, Beating the Drug Case, NJ Drug Attorneys, NJ CDS trial lawyers,

Running from the Police is Not Sufficient Probable Cause to Arrest Suspect; Weapons Found in Apartment Suppressed.

The federal Third Circuit appellate panel held that the federal District Court erred by not suppressing weapons found in Mr. Navedo’s apartment after Newark police detectives after him arresting him as he was entering his apartment.

In the United States v. Navedo two Newark police detectives were conducting an undercover operation when they saw an individual (Pozo) walk over to Mr. Navedo open a book bag, pulled an object which appeared to them as a handgun.  The detective seeing this ran after Pozo and Navedo catching and tackling Navedo as he was attempting to enter his apartment.  The detectives claim that the apartment was open and that they tackled him inside the apartment (you really believe this).  Navedo was immediately cuffed and inside the apartment were numerous handguns and rifles which the detectives claim were in plain view (sure).

A motion to suppress was filed, and denied by the District Court, and Navedo appealed to the Third Circuit that the detectives did not have probable cause to arrest him because mere flight is sufficient to arrest a suspect without probable cause.  The court agreed with Navedo holding that under the totality of the circumstances there was no evidence that Navedo was engaged in any criminal activity.  Specifically, Navedo did not hold the gun, did not initiate the encounter with Pozo, and did not appear to making a purchase of the handgun, that the police had no right to arrest him, even if Navedo ran.  In short, the appeals panel held that the detectives were in essence attempting to transfer the reasonable suspension which they had for Pozo on Navedo.  The court further relied on Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000), which held that flight from the police is not an automatic reason or reasonable suspicion for a brief “Terry Type” detention, because there are many reasons why someone might want to get away from a police officers.  In any event, they held that even if they had reasonable suspicion to stop Navedo they certainly did not have probable cause to arrest him under these facts.

This is a good case for the defense because it encompasses many facts which regularly play out with strike force arrests in the Essex, Hudson, Union, Passaic, and Middlesex County strike forces which typically detain and arrest suspects without reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

If you are charged with a federal or state 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 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 4, 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