City of Bayonne Settles Another Police Brutality Case: Internal Affairs and Police Accountability by Department Supervisors Non-Existent

A federal civil rights law suit, Condo v. City of Bayonne, against the city was recently settled for the sum of $95,000.00. 

The allegations as contained in the complaint assert that two Bayonne police officers engaged in the wonton beating of plaintiffs Condo and DeRocco, by repeatedly kicking and punching them after they came out of a bar in Bayonne.  It is alleged that other officers seeing the brutality failed to intervene.

The plaintiffs alleged that their civil rights were violated under federal civil rights laws pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.  As a result of the beating both plaintiffs’ sustained serious injuries which required medical attention at the local hospital.

Although both plaintiffs were also falsely charged with aggravated assault and resisting arrest against the arresting police officers, all charges against Condo and DeRocco were administratively dismissed by the Hudson County Prosecutor’s Office.  Named in the lawsuit along with the city police department were police officers, Dominick Lillo, William Peterson, Timothy Carey and Timothy McAuliffe. 

This type of abuse will continue in Bayonne by the police department until such time as the department takes serious citizen complaints and engages in honest internal affairs investigations of its officers; and when appropriate the disciplining of errant officers.

Update:  February 20, 2015, Dominick Lillo arrested by the FBI and charged by the United States Attorney's Office for excessive force in the beating of another Bayonne citizen arrested for outstanding municipal warrant.  He was also charged with lying to federal agents.  The Chief of Police, Richard Kubert, knew about this errant officers for years, and did nothing.  Mr. Kubert should be fired immediately, if the department wants to regain any integrity.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

277 North Broad Street

P.O. Box 261

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

(908) 354-7006

YourcivilRights@gmail.com

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Hero Catholic Priest James Manship Exposes Corruption and Abuses Committed by East Haven Connecticut Police Department, Leading to Federal Indictment Of Four East Haven Police Officers.

In 2009 Father James a Catholic Priest assigned to St. Rose of Lima Roman Catholic Church started to investigate abuses and harassment committed against his Hispanic parishioners by police officers of the East Haven Police Department.  To document the abuses Father James would videotape the actions of the East Haven Police Department.  In retaliation the East Haven Police Department arrested  Father James for disorderly conduct when Father James attempted to videotape the police caught engaging in harassment and other illegal conduct against his Hispanic residence. However, a courageous and honorable local prosecutor dropped all the charges against Father James.  However, not deterred, according to the federal indictment, (“Co-Conspirator No. 1”), which is believed to be Police Chief Leonard Gallo, attempted to have Father James transferred and removed from St. Lima’s to another parish outside of East Haven by calling Father James supervisors, and complaining about his actions.

The courageous actions of Father James led to a federal 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 law suit against the East Haven Police Department by the Yale Law School’s Worker and Immigrant Rights Advocacy Clinic.  

As the direct result of Father James and Yale Law School actions the matter got the attention of the FBI and the United States Department of Justice. As a result the Justice Department this week announced the indictments against police officers, Spaulding, Cari, Zullo and Miller.

Similar to standard operating procedures in most towns and cities in New Jersey, abuses committed against people by the police stems from the failure of police departments to investigate and remand errant police officers engaged in illegal conduct. Over and over again it has been shown and proven that police departments cannot police themselves, and that only through outside investigation, including civil review broads, will such flagrant abuses be decreased. 

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

New Jersey and Criminal Defense and Civil Rights Attorney

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

Tel. No. (908) 354-7006

Dated: January 29, 2012

“If you want Peace Work for Justice.” Pope John Paul, I

Elizabeth Criminal Defense Attorney, Elizabeth NJ Criminal Attorney

Recent Miranda Developments in New Jersey: No When to Shut Your Mouth.

When Questioned by Police Request the Assistants of

an Attorney and Not Your Mother: Recent Cases

on Defendant’s Miranda Rights.

On January 12, 2012, the Supreme Court of New Jersey flatly rejected a suppression of a custodial interrogation which was granted by the Appellate Division.

In State v. Demetrius Diaz-Bridges, the issue was simply whether a defendant who requested to speak to his mother during a custodial interrogation was asserting his right to remain silent, thus requiring the police to cease all questioning.

The Supreme Court rejected this argument holding that asking to speak to your mom instead of a lawyer affords the defendant no protection from further questions and the admission of the confession as evidence of guilt at time of trial.

Appellate Division Throws-Out Confession Based

On Promises Made To Defendant For Leniency.

On January 10, 2012, the Appellate Division in State v. Carl Hreha threw-out a confession taken by State Police Detectives reversing the trial court’s denial of defendant’s Miranda Motion to suppress his confession. 

In this case Mr. Hreha a computer technician with the Office of the Attorney sent racist literature to all the OAG printers at the Hughes Justice Center.  As a result Mr. Hreha was charged with various second degree computer offenses.

In this case the State Police detectives whom testified at the Miranda Hearing did not remember whether they made any promises of leniency to the defendant, including that if the cooperated that he would not be taken out of his place of employment (Office of the Attorney General), in handcuffs, would go home later that day, and would probably be admitted into the Pretrial Intervention Program in which after one-year the charges would be dismissed.  The Appellate Division held that such promises made by the detectives as testified by the defendant were promises likely to strip the defendant of his capacity for self-determination, citing the seminal cases State v. Fletcher, 380 N.J. Super. 80, 89 (App. Div. 2005) and State v. Pillar, 359 N.J. Super. 249, 272-73 (App. Div. 2003).

Defendant’s charged with a crime must be aware that even when a confession is made it is sometimes possible to have the confession thrown-out in certain circumstances.

Because there was a dissenting Judge in this decision this case will automatically be heard by the New Jersey Supreme Court.  Let’s hope that the decision is not disturbed by the New Jersey Supreme Court.

Sanzone Firm

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

(908) 354-7006

YourCivilRights@gmail.com

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Dated: January 19, 2012

A New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney locating in Elizabeth, New Jersey who will provide competent legal defense for people accused of serious crimes and disorderly person’s offenses in Union, Essex, Bergen, Hudson, Somerset, Middlesex, Morris, Passaic, Monmouth, Ocean, Atlantic, Hunterdon, Warren, and Cape May Counties,

The Question of Jury Nullification Does the Jury have the Right to Engage in Jury Nullification? Making the Argument that You Must Find the Defendant Not Guilty When There is Insufficient Evidence.

In the United States unlike many other countries once a jury renders a verdict of not guilty it is final, meaning the defendant can never be tried again because of principals of double jeopardy, and second, the jury can never be punished for its verdict no matter what it is.

Historically jury nullification was used by some northern juries in refusing to convict people engaged in freeing and helping black slaves hide and escape, in violation of the U.S. Fugitive Slave Act.  On the flip side sometimes southern juries sometimes refused to convict defendants, especially police officers engaged in blatant violation of federal civil rights laws especially applied to African-Americans and other minorities.  Unfortunately this all too frequently happens even today when police officers are placed on trial and acquitted or held liable when they should be convicted of violating the law or held liable for abusing others.

Evidence of jury nullification by the jury is sometimes manifested by the jury convicting of lesser included offenses, or hung juries.

Under New Jersey law under the definition of reasonable doubt which is given to each jury at the beginning and end of each criminal trial, the jury is instructed that if “you are not firmly convinced of defendant’s guilt, you must give defendant the benefit of the doubt and find him or her not guilty.

The powerful and operative words are you must. An honest jury which is sworn to uphold the law cannot violate its sworn duty to fairly and impartially follow this jury instruction.  Accordingly, in that case the jury must enter a verdict of not guilty, if the State does not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.  Accordingly, any doubt, which is reasonable, must be a vote of not guilty for that jury.

 

Accordingly, whether that acquitting juror is in the majority or the minority is of absolutely no significance since it is that juror who has made his or her individual decision which is scared and irrevocable and based on his or her own conscience.

Harvard Law school graduate, and former federal prosecutor and now law professor at the George Washington University National Law Center (my undergraduate alma mater), Paul Butler, argues that under the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution ever jury has the right to engage in “jury nullification.”  Professor Butler in his OP-Ed article in the New York Times is perplexed why the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of in New York is prosecuting Julian P. Heicklen a retired chemistry professor for handing out leaflets in front of the United States Court House for advocating jury nullification that Professor Butler has been advocating through such forums at The Yale Law Journal, “60 Minutes” and You Tube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8eQ_EYwQQI

Professor argues that founding fathers John Hancock and John Adams believed that in the concept of jury nullification.  Citing Adams, each juror has the duty to vote based on his or her “own best understanding, judgment and conscience, though in direct opposition and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.”

Professor Butler even suggests that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia appeared to be open to the suggestion that jurors can engage in jury nullification when he appeared before the United States Senate, when Justice Scalia stated that jurors “can ignore the law” if the law “is producing a terrible results.”

This New Jersey criminal defense attorney respectfully submits that because New Jersey criminal law allows for a verdict which is based on all the evidence and facts of any given case it is improper for anyone to second guess the decision of jury and their decision making process.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Elizabeth, New Jersey

YourCivilRights@gmail.com

Tel. No. (908) 354-7006

Dated: December 23, 2011

NJ Criminal Defense Attorneys, NJ Criminal Attorneys, NJ Criminal Lawyers, NJ Best Criminal Lawyers, NJ Best Criminal Defense Attorneys.

  

Motion to Suppress Evidence: How to Beat the Criminal or Driving While Intoxicated Charge in New Jersey

December 22, 2011, today, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division in State v. Thomas W. Bernokeits, Jr., affirmed well established case law regarding the right of a police officer to order a motorist out of his vehicle in order to perform a field sobriety test.

In that case Mr. Bernokeits was driving in Seaside Heights, New Jersey (his first mistake), after spending some time at the “Bamboo Bar” (his second mistake).

Mr. Bernokeits vehicle was stopped as claimed by the police officer because the vehicle and tinted windows and a loud muffler.  Once pulled over, the officer asked Mr. Bernokeits whether he had consumed any alcohol beverages.

Of course, Mr. Bernokeits had the right to remain silent and not give a response, but he didn’t, and gave the standard usual reply, “I only had one beer" (his third mistake).

The officer then decided to order Mr. Bernokeits out of the vehicle to perform a field sobriety test.  The officer’s reason for that, according to his testimony, was that first, he smelled hard liquor on his breath and not beer, and second, he admitted that he had just left the “Bamboo Bar”, and third, it was late at night.

Mr. Bernokeits argued before the Appellate Division that the officer needed probable cause to ask him to perform the field sobriety test relying on the seminal case State v. Jones, 326 N.J. Super. 234 (App. Div. 1999).  In that case the appellate division held that the mere smell of alcohol emanating from the motorists breath or vehicle, and the admitting that alcohol was consumed, without more facts (for example the plain view sight of an open container), was insufficient to sustain probable cause to search the motor vehicle.  Therefore, Mr. Bernokeits argued that the police officer erred in requesting him to take the test because of the officer’s smell of alcohol on his breath.

The court rejected this argument, citing the State v. Adubato, 420 N.J. Super. 167, 181 (App. Div. 2011), which held that the officer requesting a motorist to submit to a field sobriety test, although a de facto arrest, does not need probable cause but only a factual basis for articulable reasonable suspicion that the motorist is driving while intoxicated or impaired.

The lesson of this case is that any motorist who admits to having any alcoholic beverages prior to operating a motor vehicle, and has consumed enough to leave traces of it on his breath can be required to perform a roadside field sobriety test to determine whether there is probable cause to arrest the motorist for driving while intoxicated.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

December 22, 2011

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Elizabeth, New Jersey

Tel. No. (908) 354-7006

Charged with a Drug or Narcotics Offense In New Jersey; Best Criminal Defense.

Being charged with a narcotic drug offense in New Jersey requires the experience of a criminal defense drug attorney who has the legal knowledge and skill acquired over many years of preparing, counseling and trying hundreds of these types of cases.  No two cases are alike, and every case poses its own set of unique facts which poses its own set of problems.

In every drug case the attorney must first make an analysis of the strength of the State’s case to determine best how to succeed.  Is this a case best left for a quick resolution or a plea?  Is this a case in which the evidence should be thrown out because there was a violation of the defendant’s Fourth Amendment right in the method in which evidence was obtained?  This type of analysis takes the skill of an attorney who understands the probability and likelihood that such a motion will succeed based on the law and facts of the individual case.

For purposes of example, on December 6, 2011, in Hudson County Superior Court, I was able to obtain a complete dismissal of a narcotics drug case in which the defendant was charged with possession and intent to distribute Phencyclidine or commonly known on the street as PCP, within 500 feet of a public park.  In this case the credible evidence lead to the conclusion that the strike force detectives that had made the automobile stop lied about making a cell phone call to the defendant’s cell phone in connection with a prearranged sell to the undercover agent. 

After further investigation by subpoenaing the phone records of the defendant and comparing them to the CAD and dispatcher reports it was ascertained that the strike force officers had lied about the time of the call. In that case the phone call to the defendant at a certain time was critical the credibility of the officers testimony.  The results, before the motion was to be heard by the Court, the Hudson County Prosecutor’s Office dismissed all charges.

In that case the undercover police officer stated in the police report that he had made a cell phone call to the defendant’s phone while the defendant was still in the automobile to determine whether the phone number in which he had the previous phone conversation with the alleged potential seller, rang while the officers stood over the vehicle to listen to the ring. This was done according to them to establish and identify the potential seller.  However, in truth the call by the police was never made because the phone of the defendant was turned over prior to the officers approaching the vehicle.  Therefore, it was established that the phone call was never made by the police officer and that information contained in the police report was a bold face lie. 

Nonetheless, the officers not being able to consummate the deal decided to follow the defendant’s vehicle several miles and pulling the defendant over next to a public park.  Continuing to lie the officers than claimed that after stopping the vehicle the defendant just so happened to admit to the crime and pull from his pocket a quantity of narcotics which was a complete lie.  In truth the officers after the stop immediately pulled the defendant out of his vehicle with guns drawn and immediately search the defendant and vehicle without probable cause. 

In the end the lies of the police officers were completely exposed and all charges were completely dismissed.  Of course, the Hudson County Prosecutor’s Office never brought charges against the police officers for official misconduct and preparing a false police report.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Elizabeth, N.J.

Tel. No. (908) 354-7006

Dated: December 20, 2011

Hudson County Criminal Defense Attorney, Jersey City Criminal Defense Attorney, Jersey City narcotics attorney.

Obtaining a United States Visa through the EB-5 Immigration Visa Program.

Few people are aware of the EB-5 United States visa program which was created by the Immigration Act of 1990.  That program allows the granting of permanency residence status (green cards), to any individual who invests at lease $500.000.00 in a targeted employment area which creates or preserves at least 10 jobs for United States workers.  If the investment is not within a specific targeted employment area the investment is $1,000,000.00.  Under the law the targeted area are designated areas in which the unemployment rate is at least 50% above the national rate.

In New Jersey there are numerous areas which have designated as specific targeted employment areas, such areas are included in Union, Essex, Passaic and Middlesex Counties.  Under this program there are many types of investments which qualify for program such as hotel development, restaurants, retail stores, office buildings, light and heavy industry, warehouses, civic buildings, apartment/condominium development and other mixed use I (hotel/retail apartments) and II types of construction (office buildings/retail/condominiums).

Although the program as been questioned as elitist and catering only to wealthy, the program nonetheless allows wealthy investors to contribute to the United States economy through much needed investments in plighted urban and rural areas.

Lastly, it is important to note that anyone interested in obtaining the EB-5 visa should be aware of the many bogus and fraudulent EB-5 agents which promise to match a qualified applicant to a qualified project investor for a substantial fee.  For more information regarding this program who are invited to contact the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

Note, this information regarding obtaining a EB-5 is for informational purposes only and is not offered, or can be construded to give individual legal advice to any person.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Elizabeth, New Jersey

YourCivilRights@gmail.com

Tel. No. (908) 354-7006

Dated: December 20, 2011