Friday, December 23, 2011

The Abuse of Growth Hormones and Steroids by Law Enforcement in New Jersey, and the Question of Mandatory Testing.


The Federal Third Circuit of Appeals on December 20, 2011,  ruled and affirmed District Court Judge, Peter G. Sheridan decision in Kramer, McGovern, Bado, Petrillo, Stise, Vargas and Fay,  vs. City of Jersey City, (Docket No. 10-2963), that the Jersey City Police Department did not violate the civil rights of Jersey City police officers, Nicholas Kramer, Brian McGovern and Patrick Fay by removing them from active duty without their weapon when it became known that they were using legally prescribed steroids, and/or  had high unacceptable high levels of Testosterone or Epitestosterone in their systems.

The esteemed and prominent Federal Circuit Judge Julio M. Fuentes rejecting the police officers claim and affirming the dismissal of police officers §1983 law suit against the City of Jersey City and its police department.

Judge Fuentes writing for the court ruled that because police officers “are members of quasi-military organizations, called upon for duty at all times, armed at almost all times, and exercising the most awesome and dangerous power that a democratic state possesses with respect to its residents—the power to use lawful force to arrest and detain them.” Policemen’s Benevolent Ass’n of N.J., Local 318 v. Washington Twp. (Gloucester County), 850 F.2d 133, 141 (3d Cir. 1988).

Judge Fuentes further wrote, “The need in a democratic society for public confidence, respect and approbation of the public officials on whom the state confers that awesome power” is compelling. Id.; see Nat’l Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656, 677 (1989). At the same time, police departments require “officers who are physically and mentally capable of working in dangerous and highly stressful positions, sometimes over long periods of time.” Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 5 v. City of Phila., 812 F.2d 105, 114 (3d Cir. 1987). Thus, “police officers have little reasonable expectation that . . . medical information will not be requested.” Id.


The decision clearly holds that the abuse of steroids by police officers are unacceptable and dangerous to the public, when officers in a split second have the power to inflict serious harm and even death on anyone at any given time while performing their duty as sworn police officers.
United States District Court Judge Peter G. Sheridan finding that “generally high steroid levels are linked to aggressive behavior.” was right on the mark, and the affirmed that finding.  Even the police offices in this case did not deny the uncontroversial proposition that high steroid levels have been linked to aggressive behavior. See generally Nat’l Inst. on Drug Abuse, Nat’l Insts. of Health, Pub. No. 06-3721, Research 5 Report: Anabolic Steroid Abuse 5 (2006), available at http://drugabuse.gov/PDF/RRSteroids.pdf.

For criminal defense and civil rights attorneys who have experienced defending defendant’s, and pursing claims against steroid raged police officers whom have abused citizens through excessive force and other abuses, this decision is long overdue.  The courage of Police Chief Thomas J. Comey is likewise applauded in his goal of cracking down on the use of steroids by police officers in his department.  

Hopefully, this decision will give the courage to other local and State law enforcement agencies in New Jersey to crack down on police officers who abuse steroid use at the expense of our citizens.

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

Sanzone Firm
Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.
P.O. Box 261
277 North Broad Street
Elizabeth, N.J. 07207
(908) 354-7006
Dated: December 23, 2011

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Barbarous Confinement and Now We Treat Incarcerated Inmates in the United States.

It is said that the way we treat the most vulnerable of our citizens is the ultimate and real test of value and morality of our society.  A society that only caters to the rich, famous and well-off of its people, act similar and no different than the pagan Romans did during the time of the Roman Empire.

Sadly it is normal and commonplace for the torture of prisoners in countries such as China, Iran, Pakistan and other oppressive totalitarian regimes around the world. 

If asked most Americans would argue that as a civilized country we do not torture our prisoners.  Unfortunately the facts prove otherwise and they are sadly and tragically mistaken by believing that we do not engage in inhuman conduct on men and women who are incarcerated in this country.

Although admittedly the forms of torture that we apply in United States, in most, but not all cases, is much more subtle, it nevertheless has devastating consequences on the physical and mental well being of the prisoners subject to such abuse.

In the practice of criminal law for over 21 years I have received hundreds if not thousands of letters from inmates complaining of abuses, both physical and mental, which never get addressed by the prison authorites.

Such forms abuse and torture is most often inflicted by the jailers in the form of mental abuse in which prisoners are denied basic medical care, stopping or interfering with mail service, phone calls, and denial of commissary service, to name a few.  Additionally, some guards feel that they have the right and duty to degrade prisoners at-will with various racial, ethic, gender and racial slurs and other insulting
abusive names to numerous and insulting to name in this blog.  The numerous ways which they inflict their mental abusive is as creative and sick as the jailers individual imagination, and sadly the imagination borders on the psychotic, in some cases.

If a prisoner complains, or files a grievance against the guard he is abused even more so as to make an example of the prisoner that complaining will only get you more abuse.  If complains further, and prison authorities suspect that the prisoner is telling the truth, the prisoner is transferred to another prison in which the conditions of confinement are more severe and the abuse continues.  Rarely, are the guards actions disciplined because after all “who would believe the testimony or statement from a convicted felon and inmate.”  The guards know this and continue to abuse with impunity.

It is time that the State of New Jersey appoints an independent advocate to oversee some of the abuses and attempt to abate them.  The money spent would be well spent since it would not only be morally right and conform to the principals of justice, but would ultimately save tens of thousands of dollars which the State must spend every year defending lawsuits filed by prisoners in both the Federal and State courts.  Instead of defending the prisoner jailers when they have committed injustices, the State should attempt to weed these bad jailers out of the system, and justly compensate the prisoners, so as to deter the jailers from engaging in future misconduct. 

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

Sanzone Firm
Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.
P.O. Box 261
277 North Broad Street
Elizabeth, N.J. 07207
(908) 354-7006
Dated: December 14, 2011

  



Thursday, December 1, 2011

Obtaining a Not Guilty Verdict-How To Win Your Criminal Case: The Lying Witness

A jury in essence is a twelve man and woman human lie detector machine.

Very few criminal cases tried in New Jersey courts have anything to do with real evidence or other types of science or forensic evidence as seen on crime drama popular television series such as CSI.  The overwhelming majority of criminal cases have little or no crime scene investigation. 

In reality most case are decided on the credibility of witnesses whom simply tell their side of the story.  From an undercover detective who tells the jury that from 100 yards away, at night, and without any enhanced eye vision he was able to say with 100% certainty that it was the defendant who exchanged a small vial of cocaine in a drug sale, to the lay witness that says that it was the defendant who robbed her at night, a jury of twelve men and women must decide if the witness is telling the truth, lying or simply mistaken.

Unfortunately with most jurors the perception is that with police witnesses they have no motive to lie, and consequently are telling the truth.  In reality, police witnesses even more so than with lay witnesses, will be dishonest with a jury when testifying.  In fact, surprisingly, they often have more of a motive in testifying falsely.  Why this is case is hard to understand and after engaging in the cross-examination of hundreds of police officers I have come to a few conclusions.  First, all police officers engaged in an arrest or engaged in a larger investigation have a vested interest in seeing that their “team to wins”; that is, that law enforcement get their man, and that as they perceive it, “the good guys win."  Second, like most people in general cops want to feel vindicated in their job.  Accordingly, most cops when testify will never admit they made a mistake in their investigation or made something up or fabricate a fact which will make the defendant look guilty.  When the defense attorney smells a lie or fabrication by the testifying  police officer, it is the job of defense counsel to capitalize on such testimony since it often becomes a treasure chest of bigger lies and inconsistent testimony, which in the end should make the officers testimony incredible in the eyes of fair and impartial jury.

Over the years I have learned that witnesses whom engage in such false testimony will begin to testify in certain patterns.

First, for example for every lie someone tells they have to create two or more lies to support the first lie, to protect them from the first one.  Therefore, in this first scenario you will notice how the lies start to become bigger and bigger, and sometimes more and more bizarre.  It is the natural progression of a liar (or lies) in progress.

Second, people who lie have to have a great memory; people cannot remember what they said before if they are lying.  Therefore, in this second scenario you will see that the person lying forgets what they just said a few minutes ago on the stand, or what they had previously testified to on another occasion.  Therefore, when you cross-examine this witness subtly and simply go back to the same question, asked slightly differently, and you will probably hear a completely different, or slightly different answer.  In other words if they continually change there story it is because they are making it up as they go along.

Even people well rehearsed and professional witnesses like police officers who testify in hundred of cases will fall victim to the experienced defense attorney who uses effective cross-examination techniques, if they decide to engage in false testimony.

Third scenario is when someone is lying they will qualify their statement before they give their answer.  For example they will say things like, “we picked up the drugs”, instead of the simply “I picked up the drugs.”  Or, when the person is caught in an obvious lie and then says, “I don’t remember”, or “I don’t recall.” 

Therefore, in closing the jury is the ones who determine whether anyone is telling the truth at trial.  They are in essence, the collective human lie detector test, and if the witnesses for the State, no matter who they are fail, the jury must return a verdict of not guilty as the law and their oath demand. 


Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.
December 1, 2011
Elizabeth, New Jersey
Tel. No. (908) 354-7006

How to win your criminal case in New Jersey, NJ best criminal attorney, Elizabeth Criminal Lawyers, Witnesses that lie, Effective Cross Examination Techniques, Criminal Trial Lawyers in NJ.

Law Providing Superior Court Judges To Now Waive or Reduce Parole Ineligibility or Grant Probation for Drug-Free School Zone Offenses Under Certain Circumstances.


Being charged with a CDS offense in New Jersey is serious, and the possibility of being sentenced to jail even for the first offender is a possibility.  However, recent case law has made it easier for the sentencing judge to now waive some of the previously mandatory sentencing provisions.

N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7 provides that upon conviction of a 1000 foot school zone offense the sentencing court most sentence the offender to a period of incarceration with a period of parole ineligibility from between 1/3 to ½ of the sentence imposed, or one year which ever is greater.  However, this statute has been amended to permit the trial judge to sentence a person convicted of a drug school offense to waive the mandatory sentence if the court determines that a number of favorable factors are present which weight against the imposition of sentence.  In the event that some or all of these factors are present the court may waive or reduce or the period of parole ineligibility or even sentence the defendant to a period of probation.  Said considerations include: (1) defendant’s prior criminal record and seriousness of the offense; (2) specific location within the school zone and whether any children were present; and, (3) whether school was in session.  The court cannot waive the mandatory jail and parole ineligibility if the defendant used or threatened violence, was in possession of a firearm, or committed a violation of subsection b. of N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2.

If you are charged with a school drug offense or any or drug offense in New Jersey you are advised to immediately seek the counsel of a competent and vigorous criminal trial narcotics attorney and the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.  For 21 years Mr. Sanzone has successfully defended many individuals charged with serious.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.
New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney, Winning the Drug Case in New Jersey, Union County Drug Trial Attorney, Elizabeth Drug Trial Attorney.

December 1, 2011