Wednesday, November 30, 2016

New Jersey Appellate Division Ruled Aggregation of Two Types of CDS Not Permitted



The Appellate Division on November 14, 2016 held that Judge Marilyn C. Clark, J.S.C. was correct in ruling that N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(c) does not permit the aggregation of two different types of drugs, which in this case was Heroin and Cocaine for the purposes of charging the defendant with a first degree crime.

Judge Clarke held at the trial level, which the Appellate Division affirmed that under the plain language of the statute and under the doctrine of lenity, the language of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1) states that it is illegal to “manufacture, distribute or dispense, a controlled dangerous substance.”  The key word being substance, not the plural, substances, as the prosecutor argued to the court.  Judge Clark did however ruled that aggregation is permitted with the same substance, sold on different dates to reach the first degree level.  Further, because possession with intent to distribute different substances do not merge is further support that Title 35 controlled dangerous substance crimes, are crimes that must be dealt with separately.  State v. Jordan, 235 N.J. Super. 517, 520 (App. Div. 1989).

In joint prosecution for co-defendants, the jury must also decide under N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(c), the court noted: “Where the degree of the offense for violation of this Section depends on the quantity of the substance, the Quantity involved shall be determined by the trier of fact... in determining the grade of the offense, whether distribution or dispensing is to the same person or several persons.”

This is a good decision for the defense bar because it interprets an area of the New Jersey Drug Law which is often misinterpreted.

Quote of the Day: “God offers to every mind its choice between truth and repose.  Those who choose repose receive release from the mandates of truth; but it is only temporary. No man or woman can reject truth forever.  Those who choose truth, on the other hand, have no rest—and so they continue to fight for justice.”  Ralph Waldo Emerson. 



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

Elizabeth, N.J. Union County, Essex, County, Ocean, Monmouth, Hudson County, Bergen County, Passaic County


Telephone: (908) 354-7706

YourCivilRights@gmail.com




Friday, November 4, 2016

The Evil of Moral Relativeness


In 1992, Justice Anthony Kennedy, wrote in Planned Parenthood vs. Caseythat “at the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
That is the type of disordered thinking that can lead to the absurd judicial decision, to wit, the killing of the unborn child for any reason based on the subjective belief of the mother that the physical or mental wellbeing of the mother could be adversely affected.   Yes, even under the absurd pretext that it would cramp the mother’s life style.  Justice Kennedy should be reminded that our founding Fathers actually believed that the right to life is given to us in the Bill of Rights by our Creator, and not by the Supreme Court.

No Justice Kennedy, this type of thinking leads to moral relativeness, which means that there is no objective truth, that anyone can decide what is true, and it is for the individual to decide what is truth, no matter how absurd and evil that might be.  If everything is true, as Justice Kennedy says, there is no absolute truth.  No Justice Kennedy there is objective moral truth, and to turn ones back on objective moral truth will lead to the absolute destruction of a civilized society as we know it.

There is no question that this type of disordered thinking leads us down the road to moral destruction.  If we can kill the unborn baby because an individual decides that this is not a person and has (“defined one’s own concept of existence”), why not kill the infirmed, the mentally handicapped or the elderly.   For that matter anyone that does not follow one’s own concept of existence. 

A distorted view of the natural law as espoused by Justice Kennedy is simply a recital of the positive law concept espoused by dictators and tyrants, who have turned their backs on God and the natural law.  History has gave us a multitude of tyrants and evil dictators, especially in the 20th Century who decided who was a person, and who was worth of having the protection of the state.  Wasn’t it Adolph Hitler who decides that people of the Jewish faith were none person, worthy to be only to be murdered by the State. 
Where does such disordered thinking end.  If our judges of the highest court in the United States ascribe to such nonsense is anyone safe?  What has the sexual revolution brought us but the seeing of another, not being of beauty made in the likeness and imagine of God, but rather an object to be used and sometimes sadly even abused.

Equally troubling is the dictatorship of the followers of this post-pagan hearses.  These proponents of such disordered thinking will not hesitate to demonize anyone who will not follow and subscribe to this type of pagan and destructive thinking.  They falsely label themselves as progressives and people of acceptance and inclusion, but in reality they are the ones who in the end will force all of us to accept, or be eliminated, if their “concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life,” is not accepted. The dictatorship of moral relativism is already upon us and few of us even know what is happening.

In a true democracy it is not so much as what we can do, but what we ought to do.  When we fail to do what is “right and justice” there can be no real true freedom.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.
Elizabeth, (Union County, Essex County) New Jersey
(908) 354-7006
CriminalDefenseNJ.com


Monday, October 24, 2016

Winning Strategies for a Successful NJ Criminal Trial Lawyer


This blog is being prepared as a public service by the Attorney Vincent J. Sanzone,Jr., and is not meant for specific legal advice.  In the event that you are charged with a crime, disorderly persons offense or misdemeanor you are directed to seek the legal advice of an experienced and acknowledgeable New Jersey criminal defenseattorney.

Often it is asked what makes a good criminal defense trial lawyer, and what does it take to convince a judge or jury that your client is innocent, or that state or government has presented a case with reasonable doubt in which the law requires an acquittal, or a finding of not guilty.

The first thing that the attorney must be is real, when I say real, I mean that you must present yourself to a judge and jury in such a way, that judge or jury perceives the attorney as actually believing in his client’s innocence, or in the alternative that the reasonable doubt is in fact real and present and that it would be a miscarriage of justice to render a verdict of guilty on the facts presented by the prosecutor.

How can a judge or jury give the benefit of doubt, which is reasonable doubt to the defendant, if the attorney who knowns the defendant best, acts and speaks as if he could care less about the outcome, and is only going through the motions.  Yes emotions do count, and most people in fact live most of their life through emotional responses.  Few people look at things totally analytically and logically.  Yes jurors and judges are no different.  Passion and dedication do matter, and attorneys who fail to dig down deep to their core being will not be able to convince the jury of their client’s side of the story.  Yes every defendant needs their side of the story to be told, and it is only his or her attorney that can do that through opening statements, cross-examination, presenting of defense witnesses and summations.  Yes a true criminal defense attorney who wins cases will have three things at his disposable, mind, heart and soul. 

Quote of the Day

Philosophy and theology are blueprints for life which can tell us right from wrong.  Although most people wrongly think that science and history can do just that, to wit, give us a moral framework which it cannot.  A hammer (science) can help you to build a church (history), but the hammer can’t tell you want the church should look like or what message will be taught in the church. Only when we adhere to solid moral teaching can we be assured of not repeating history and making the same awful mistakes.



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

New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney with 26-years of successful trial experience. Union, Hudson, Middlesex, Essex, Ocean, Monmouth Counties and others.

Elizabeth, N.J. www.criminaldefensenj.com

(908) 3540-7007



Friday, September 30, 2016

Supreme Court Kicks Out State's Drug Expert in Intent to Distribute Cases




State v. Cain, New Jersey Supreme Court (March, 2016)

New Jersey Supreme Court breaks new ground and essentially overrules State v. Odom, which was a virtual killer for criminal defendants going to trial for intent to distribute CDS case.

Under State v. Odom, prosecutor’s used so-called law enforcement experts to give opinions before the jury that the method of packaging, purity and quantity, among other things, of the CDS found, was consistent with possession with intent to distribute, and not for personal use.

Finally, our Supreme Court has ruled that such statements by prosecution witnesses encourages upon the ultimate issue of the guilt of the defendant, is highly prejudicial and no longer permissible.  New Jersey now follows similar rulings in Florida, Connecticut and New York.

The Cain case originated out of Bergen County, in which a Hackensack Police Detective testified as that the Marijuana recovered at the defendant’s residence was with the intent to distribute.

The Court also frowned on the prosecutor’s repeated reference to the fact that the CDS drugs were seized after a judicial search warrant on the defendant’s residence. Although the court did not issue its reversal of the defendant’s conviction on that basis because it reversed on the expert opinion.

If you are charged with a drug offense your choice of a criminal defense attorney is very important, and experience in handling these types of cases is very important. 

Before you hire a criminaldefense attorney you must investigate his or her experience in handling the complex drug case.  It could mean the difference of going to jail or your freedom.

AttorneyVincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq., has been practicing criminal law, and his a criminal trial attorney with 26-years of experience in trying criminal cases throughout New Jersey Superior Court and Federal District Court of New Jersey.

(908) 354-7006
Bergen County Criminal Defense Attorney







Tuesday, May 3, 2016

Choosing the Right Attorney to Handle Your Motor


Like anything else choosing the right attorney to handle your motor vehicle summons might make all the difference in the world.  Choosing an attorney with many years of experience might make the difference between a fantastic disposition of the motor vehicle charges as opposed to an adequate result.

Like all areas of the law the handling of motor vehicle summons in municipal court takes a level of experience and skill which is acquired over many years of practice. 
Attorney Sanzone has handled thousands of motor vehicle cases in his 26-years of practice and has achieved many very favorable dispositions.

Just last week for example Attorney Sanzone achieved the complete dismissal of a CDS in a motor vehicle charge and possession of CDS in municipal court, (Somerset County) after filing a motion to suppress evidence.  On the same day, in Hudson County, in other case municipal court achieved a complete dismissal of the charge of leaving the scene of the accident in which property damage was allegedly made.

In this time of attorney direct mailings it is important the client research carefully the attorney’s track record and years of experience before retaining an attorney to handle your motor vehicle case.  Like all decisions, choosing the attorney who has the lowest price might not be the smartest decision. 
Today, yes, even motor vehicle convictions can have adverse consequences on obtaining a good paying job, not to mention the collateral consequences of having a bad driving record. 

A criminal defense attorney in New Jersey who handles motor vehicle case in all cities and towns in New Jersey, including Bayonne, Jersey City, Kearny, and all other cities in Hudson County.

Elizabeth New Jersey Office, (908) 354-7006
Bayonne, New Jersey Office, (201) 240-5716

 

 

Friday, April 15, 2016

The Cunard of the Resisting Arrest Charge



This blog is being presented as a public service and for informational purposes by the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.  Telephone Number (908) 354-7006

In 26-years of practicing criminal defense in the State of New Jersey it continually shocks me as to how many fabricated resisting arrest charges are filed on suspects who have not resisted arrest.  These false charges by police officers seem to be a routine standard charge that is filed against all suspects that the cop does not seem to like.  In addition, this charge will always be falsely lodged after the cop uses excessive forces, or beats up the suspect during the arrest.  This is done to justify the beating of the innocent suspect, and as false justification for the beating.  The Elizabeth, New Jersey Police Department, among others, are notorious for such charges, especially when the cop is looking for some downtime-vacation by saying he hurt is back to take off a couple of weeks in the summer.
It is often difficult to defend against such false charges because it is the word of the defendant against the word of the police officers, and most judges and juries, have no idea that some law enforcement people engage in such abhorrent tactics.  Sometimes the only way to defend such charges is to hope that somehow the incident was recorded.  Even with a video which clearly shows that the defendant was not resisting most judges will not dismiss the case but leave it to the jury to decide. That is why cities such as Newark, Elizabeth, Paterson, Jersey City, Orange, East Orange, Plainfield, refuse to install MVR video cameras in their patrol vehicles.

As written in a previous blog many cops knowing that they are being video recorded by an MVR tape, (motor vehicle recorded video) will continually yell out “stop resisting” to the defendant, even though he is not resisting, just so the cop creates a false record (show for later use) that the cop is trying to stop the defendant from resisting.

However, a recently decided unpublished opinion decided on April 13, 2016, State v. Pavan Patel, give some hope to defendants charged with this offense.  In this case the defendant was charged with resisting arrest after the defendant was unjustly assaulted by security guards at an Atlantic City casino.  The officer seeing the assault took the side of the security guard and started wrestling with the defendant attempting to put him under arrest. However, in this case the defendant was never told that he was under arrest.  Even though the municipal court and law division found the defendant guilty, the appellate division reversed in a good well written decision. 
In this case there was no question that the arrest was unlawful, however, even an unlawful arrest can result in a conviction for resisting arrest, if the suspect gives resistance to being handcuffed.  State v. Branch, 301 N.J. Super, 307, 321 (App. Div. 1997) However, it must be noted that the defendant might be justified in resisting arrest, and defend himself, if the police are using excessive force.  State v. Mulvihill, 57 N.J. 151, 156-57 (1970).

However, if the arrest is unlawful, as was in the Patel case, if the officer does not announce the intention to arrest, than the conviction cannot stand.  State v. Kane, 303 N.J. Super. 167, 182 (App. Div. 1997).  The defense to resisting arrest is not an affirmative defense but an ordinary defense as stated by the decision in Patel.  Accordingly, the State, not the defense, has the burden of disproving the defense. N.J.S.A. 2C:1-13(b); State v. Moultrie, 357 N.J. Super. 547, 555-56 (App. Div. 2003)
The appellate division reversed the conviction by holding that mere actions of the police officer that he was engaged in an attempted arrest was insufficient and therefore the conviction could not stand.

Law office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.
277 North Broad Street, Elizabeth (Union County) N.J. 07207 (908) 354-7006, CriminaldefenseNJ.com.

 

 

Tuesday, April 5, 2016

The Witness Tampering Trap

 
N.J.S.A. 2C:28-5, Witness tempering states in subsection (a) Tampering. A person commits an offense if, believing that an official proceeding or investigation is pending or about to be instituted or has been instituted, he knowingly engages in conduct which a reasonable person would believe would cause a witness or informant to: (1) Testify or inform falsely; (2) Withhold any testimony, information, document or thing; (3) Elude legal process summing him to testify or supply evidence; (4) Absent himself from any proceeding or investigation to which he has been legally summoned; or (5) Otherwise obstruct, delay, prevent or impede an official proceeding or investigation.  Depending on the factors, a violation is a crime of the first degree (if the tampering involves a crime in which an 85% sentence could be imposed, a crime of the second degree if violence was used, otherwise it is a crime of the third degree.
 
As one can see from reading this statute the language of the law is extremely broad, vague, and subjective.  Does this law deter a defendant, his attorney, or his investigator from seeking out witnesses to prove his innocence?  Such a law would seem to have a chilling effect on the search for truth by the accused, fearing that any contact by the defense with any alleged victim/witness or witness could be construed to amount to a violation of the statute.
 
Could such activity be considered by law enforcement, if they wanted to be unfair and aggressive charge a defendant with witness tempering for actions which are in fact legal and do not amount to witness tampering? 
 
In fact, in one particular case in which Attorney Sanzone handled in Ocean County, the Ocean County Prosecutor did such a thing.  In this case the defendant was charged with burglary.  A witness at the scene (an employee of the suspect/defendant) told the police at the scene that his employer (suspect/defendant) did not enter the house.  Not satisfied with the witnesses’ response, and animosity toward the suspect, the Toms River police on the scene told the witnesses that if he did not give an official sworn statement that the suspect/defendant entered the house that the witness would be arrested as an accomplice.  Afraid the witness went to police headquarters and gave a sworn statement saying that his employer entered the house.  A few days later, the witness having remorse that he allowed the police to intimate him in lying for the police, wrote a certified letter to the police chief stating that he wanted to retract his statement, was intimated at the scene and wanted to give a truthful statement that in fact his employer did not enter the house.  A week later not having heard a response the witness sent another letter.  A week later the two detectives from the Toms River Police Department appeared at his home around 11:30 P.M. without notice.  Angry, the two detectives again threatened the witness telling him to if he did not stick to his original story that the witness would be arrested for filing a false police report.  If that was not enough the police told the witness to say that his employer/defendant told him to write the retraction letter, and if the witness did not he would be arrested.  Unfortunately, for the two detectives, the witness had audio recorded the detectives suborning perjury, committing official misconduct, and engaging themselves in witnesses tampering.  The defendant a few days later sent a copy of the audio tape to the Toms River Police Department and Ocean County Prosecutor’s Office.
 
Amazingly, even though the Ocean County Prosecutor had possession of the audio tape in which the detectives committed witness tampering, they nonetheless indicted the employer/defendant for witness tampering.  Four years later, and two days before jury selections, the Ocean County Prosecutor dismissed the witness tampering charge.  The defendant went on trial in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Ocean County for second degree burglary represented by Attorney SanzoneJury acquitted defendant of all charges.
 
Yes this is a true story and court records are public and well documented.  This unfortunately is what can happen with the witness tampering law.  Sadly, the two Toms River Police Department detectives were never prosecuted by the Ocean County Prosecutor, admonished, or disciplined by Toms River Police Department for their gross violation of law and official misconduct.  Beware. 
 
Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.
277 North Broad Street
P.O. Box 261
Elizabeth, N.J. 07207
(908) 354-7006