How to Win Your Criminal or Traffic Case In New Jersey Municipal Court.

In practicing criminal law in New Jersey for the last 21 years in federal, state and municipal court it is without any doubt that the best way to win your case outright, or get the best possible results for your client, especially in municipal court practice is the necessity with virtually ever case that pretrial motions be filed and that these motions be filed with the first appearance letter to the court.

In almost every criminal case in municipal court whether  it be a driving while intoxicated case or controlled dangerous substance case in an automobile it is essential that the attorney file a number of pretrial motions.  In almost ever case I file the following motions.

First, and foremost, is the motion to suppress evidence based on the officer’s unlawful stop of the automobile or unlawful search.  In most cases local police officers after they have stopped a motor vehicle take it upon themselves to search the vehicle, and do so without probable cause.  Of course such behavior runs contrary to law.  They do this   because they are ignorant of the law or simply are too lazy to obtain a judicial warrant.  In addition, often the reason for the stop is pretexual and the motion should be filed on that basis as well.  If the prosecutor is honest and understand the law he or she will often dismiss the matter even before the matter reaches the judge. 

The second motion is for a speedy trial.  This motion is filed to put the court and prosecutor on notice that the defendant is requesting a speedy trial and object to the constant adjournments by the court and police who fail to appear for trial time and time again.  In most cases if the officer knows that he has failed to follow the law or engaged in other type of police misconduct he will continually fail to show-up for trial, hoping that the defendant and his or her attorney will give up because of the high costs of coming to court over and over again.  Also, this motion will allow defense counsel to ask the judge that the case be set down for a trial or dismissal after the first or second no-show of the cop, or adjournment request by the prosecutor.

The third motion is to compel the State to supply all discovery by a date certain as to unable the defendant to have his or her speedy trial.  Of course the defendant cannot proceed to trial unless defense counsel first obtains the police discovery.

The fourth motion would be exclude any alleged confessions, admissions, or statements made by the defendant which is not set forth in the police reports.  Often police officers who are trapped on cross-examination will blurt out during testimony (never in the police report) that the defendant admitted to possessing the drugs, or some other type of false admission.  Of course, the admission is never in the police report but the police officer will attempt to get it in when he knows his testimony and case is going down the drain.

Of course there are many more motions that can be filed depending on the case and evidence and it is important that anyone charged with an offense in municipal court seek and consult an experienced criminal defense attorney regarding all the possible motions and defenses which might be available for his or her case.

Attorney Sanzone a Union County criminal defense attorney, has successfully represented hundreds of defendants in Newark, Elizabeth, Jersey City, New Brunswick, Irvington, East Orange, Orange, West Orange, Linden, Rahway, Bayonne, Passaic, Brick, Toms River, and almost every other town in the State of New Jersey

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Elizabeth, N.J.

Tel. No. (908) 354-7006

Dated: September 24, 2011

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

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