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

YourCivilRights@gmail.com

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Dated: December 23, 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

YourCivilRights@gmail.com

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Dated: December 14, 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

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

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.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

December 1, 2011

Record of Conviction for N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5 Is Eligible for Expungement.

Under new law, possession with intent to distribute is now expugnable after five years from the last day of probation or parole, if the petitioner can demonstrate to the court that it would be in the public interest, giving due consideration to the nature of the offense, and the applicant’s character and conduct since the conviction.

Further, a possession with intent to distribute can be expunged pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:52-2c(3), after five years, if the conviction was of a fourth or three degree offense.

However, this change in the law does not change the prior law which prohibits, and bars, an Expungement for anyone who has two separate convictions, including a disorderly person’s offense. 

Many people who qualify for this Expungement are unaware of this opportunity to expunge their criminal record, and get a fresh start.

For more information regarding your rights to expunge a criminal record you are invited to call the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

The following information blog is for information purposes only and does not constitute legal advise for anyone particular individual since a various factors will determine whether anyone applicant/petitioner will qualify for the Expungement of a criminal conviction.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

Elizabeth, N.J.

NJ Criminal Defense Attorney, Elizabeth Criminal Defense Lawyer, NJ Expungement Lawyers

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Tel. No. (908) 354-7006

Elizabeth, New Jersey

November 30, 2011

City of Elizabeth Hit with 1.5 Million Dollar Verdict in Civil Rights Suit in Federal Court, Police Department Needs to Reform Internal Affairs Unit.

A federal jury held that Elizabeth Police Officer David Conrad acted wantonly and/or maliciously when he assaulted and pistol whipped an arrestee, Therman Brown.  

Two other police officer Athanasios Mikros and Vincent Flatley were also named in the lawsuit.  In the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights law suit all three police officers were alleged to have filed false police reports. 

Similar to the majority of New Jersey Police Departments the internal affairs investigation regarding the Brown assault was whitewashed by the Elizabeth Internal Affairs Unit, and ruled by the internal affairs unit that it “didn’t happen.”  One of the reasons that errant police officer are allowed with impunity in the Elizabeth Police Department is the lack of a genuine internal affairs investigations that will honestly investigate citizens complaints.  Until this happens police officers like Conrad will continue to abuse the civil rights of citizens that they are sworn to protect.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Elizabeth, N.J.

(908) 354-7006

Dated: November 22, 2011

Criminal and Civil Rights Attorney in New Jersey

The Center for Constitutional Rights A Front for the Abortion Industry.

The latest ridiculous claim by The Center for Constitutional Rights (“CCR”) located in New York City, is their claim that the Roman Catholic Church has engaged in crimes against humanity. 

Recently the CCR filed a formal complaint to initiate an investigation with the International Criminal Court (“ICC”).  The ICC is located at The Hague in the Netherlands, and was formed to enforce the Rome Treaty (“Treaty”).  A copy of the full version of the Treaty can be found at:    http://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/ADD16852-AEE9-4757-ABE7-9CDC7CF02886/283503/RomeStatutEng1.pdf

With all due respect to some of the legitimate and worth while cases that the CCR has pursued in the past, this complaint against the Church is a baseless false attack on the Catholic Church at the behest of their friends and financial supports of the abortion industry and assorted other anti-Catholic groups.

The suit has no basis whatsoever in fact or law but was filed for media hype, with the goal of fanning hysteria and to continue to find, or manufacture, any news, even news dating back 50 years or more, claiming that the Catholic Church has been involved in a great conspiracy to molest children.

The claim in essence by the CCR is that the Holy Father Pope Benedict and other members of the clergy have engaged in a conspiracy and cover-up of priests who may have committed crimes while still members of the clergy.

The ICC was established on July 17, 1998 to investigate war crimes committed by individuals.  The ICC was established under the terms of the “Rome Treaty”.  For many reasons not part of this discussion the Treaty was never ratified by a number of countries.  It is worth noting that both the United States and the Vatican are not signatories of the Treaty.  However, it is suspected that one of the reasons that the Vatican and the United States never ratify the treaty was the argument that becoming part of this treaty would give the ICC jurisdiction against a country by a run-away court pursing false claims.

This is one of the reasons why the Vatican made the prudential judgment not to become a signatory because it would subject it to having to defend such a frivolous charge as evidence by the recent charge by the CCR.

In that regards the ICC, under Article 5 of the Act sets forth four types of crimes which it has jurisdiction: (1) The crime of genocide; (2) Crimes against humanity; (3) War Crimes; and, (4) The crime of aggression.

Under Article 7 of the Act “crimes against humanity” means any of the following acts committed as a part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, which are (a) murder, (b) extermination, (c) enslavement, (d) deportation or forcible transfer of population, (e) imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules or international law, (f) torture, (g) rape or any type of sexual violence of comparable gravity, (h) prosecution against any identifiable group because of race, national ethnic, cultural, religious or gender, (i) enforced disappearance of persons, (j) crimes of apartheid, and (k) other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering or serious injury or body or to mental or physical health.

A review of the criteria for the ICC’s jurisdiction clearly shows that the ICC has no jurisdiction to investigate the CCR’s claim.

Today the only organized entity that unceasingly defends the natural law and the rights of all peoples regardless of their economic status, religion, ethnicity, legal status, and race is the Catholic Church.

The CCR loses all credibility when they make such foolish claims against the only institution in the post-modern area that continually defends the unborn, children and depressed peoples of the world regardless of their nationally, gender or religion.

With such a foolish filing it is obvious that the CCR is a front and mouth piece for the abortion industry such as the likes of Planned Parenthood and other abortion advocates which financially support CCR.  The death service providers understand all to well that a false attack on the Church will distract people from the Church’s mission of peace and the protection of the unborn.  A truth (that life begins at conception) that the abortion industry and CCR has a vested interest in hiding.

Competent histories of all the religions of the world for over two thousands years have extolled the virtues of the Catholic Church which humanized the West by insisting through its teachings the sacredness of all human life.  The Catholic Church was the institution that developed the concept of hospitals, universities and modern science.

Pursing such a blandly false case by the CCR against the Catholic Church hurts their credibility and distracts people of good will, intelligence and reason, from supporting such an organization.  If the CCR truly believes what they claim they believe they would defend the rights of all peoples and withdraw this false claim against the Catholic Church and apologies.

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

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

Civil Rights and Criminal Defense Attorney

Elizabeth, New Jersey

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Dated: October 25, 2011

Occupy Wall Street Movement and the Constitutional Right of Every American to Engage In Peaceful Protest, And the Need for the Police Not To Engage In Police Brutality.

The First Amendment to the Bill of Rights which is part of the United States Constitution makes it clear that neither the Federal, State or local government can pass no law or abridge in anyway whatsoever the people from engaging in the lawful exercise of the right to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, right to peaceably assemble or from petitioning the government to redress the peoples grievances against the government.

This grass roots movement which is growing day by day is a movement by a segment of the population that understands that the current two party system is going to maintain the status quo, and is not interested in redressing the many injustices present today in the United States.

It is true, and it is no longer a secret, that both the Democratic and Republican parties have only one goal, at the expense of all others, that is doing everything possible to perpetuate their grab for power.  As soon as they achieve their grab for power they reward their close cadre of loyalist, and party friends.  In their quest for power demagoguery and rhetoric has no limits.

    

Politicians are brought and sold by the highest bidders like cheap pawns at an auction.  They have neither the ethics nor fortitude to do the right thing, because doing so would immediately kick them out of their exclusive club.

People are tried of multinational corporate creed and executives and the people whom control these corporations whom are obscenely rewarded for their creed.  Multinational corporations have no loyalty to the people of the United States, and this has been proven time and time again, by their willingness to close factories in the United States and ship them anywhere in search of the cheapest labor cost and tax avoidance.  They hoard billions of dollars in overseas profits overseas, and dare not send the money back to the United States for fear of paying their fair share of taxes.  Thus, the money sits or is invested overseas, thus creating more and more jobs for people overseas.

The working middle class are people who are drowning in housing debt, tuition debt, and medical debt.  The banks have robbed the people in this country with impunity and have been rewarded by government handouts, and higher bonuses and salaries for their executives.  No bank official has been prosecuted for their reckless use of derivative swaps, which carried our nation to the cusp of another great depression.

Recent college and high school graduates cannot obtain a decent job.  And blue collar workers in the millions are left without jobs and no prospect of every finding another job paying a livable wage.

In reference to the Occupy Wall Street protesters, I hope that the police monitoring these peaceful protest do not engage in police misconduct in the form of police brutality, or by tricking protesters in marching into areas which they are prohibited and then arresting them. This type of unlawful behavior by the police has already occurred in New York City last week when many hundred of protesters were told to walk into a particular area and then arrested without notice for being in a prohibited area.  In New York City all of the protesters, except a very small minority, have been peaceful and have exercised their constitutional rights with exemplary behavior.

If the police use unlawful police techniques this will not only anger the protesters, but the general public who by in large support these protests.  The mayors and police commissioners of the respective cities should not tolerate any police brutality.

"If you want peace work for justice." Pope John Paul I

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Elizabeth, N.J.

Telephone: (908) 354-7006 

Dated: October 14, 2011

Occupy Wall Street, Freedom to Protest in NYC, NJ Civil Rights Attorney, Criminal lawyers NJ, NJ criminal and civil rights attorneys, Union County Criminal Law Defense.

The Execution of Troy Davis: The Criminal Justice System That Refuses to Admit It Might Have Made A Mistake.

Jurors are not Gods, they are human, and sometimes more times they we want to admit they convict the innocent.  This is especially true when law enforcement engages in police misconduct, coercion, and presenting false or misleading evidence to the jury.

More than 75% of the death row inmates exonerated by DNA evidence were convicted solely on faulty and unreliable eyewitness identification.

In the Troy Davis trial there was no DNA evidence against him, no reliable and conclusive forensic or ballistic testimony.  There was no murder weapon found.  Over the years seven of the nine witnesses whom testified against him at trial said that they had been coerced and pressured to identify Mr. Davis as the shooter.  Remarkable another witness came forward and stated through a sworn statement that another person actually admitted committing the crime.  There was overwhelming evidence that Troy Davis was innocent of the crime.

All of this reasonable doubt as to the guilt of Mr. Davis was insufficient to save his life.  Courts turned their back to him with legal minutia.  The Governor of Georgia and President of the United States turned their back on him.  And most damaging was the political hacks of the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles.

New Jersey was the first State in the United States to abolish the death penalty, and as attorney in this great State I am proud that New Jersey leads the United States in its progressive policies in protecting the rights of the criminally accused.   

The voice of the Catholic Church and other prominent anti-death penalty and death penalty individuals and organizations to stop the execution all fell on deaf ears.

I am convinced that because of Troy Davis’ execution it will bring an end to this disgrace and plight to this country’s morality, and because of his unjust execution the death penalty will be abolished forever through the United States.  Yes, Troy Davis has accomplished more in death than in life.  This case is not over.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.  
CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Elizabeth, New Jersey
Telephone: (908) 354-7006

Office Located at:  
277 North Broad Street
P.O. Box 261
Elizabeth, N.J. 07207
YourCivilRights@gmail.com

New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney who has been practicing criminal law for 21 years.  Admitted State and Federal Court in New Jersey.  Admitted to the federal appeals courts for the Third and Fourth Circuit.  Also admitted pro hac vice for the federal Southern District of New York and Northern District of Ohio.

How to Win Your Criminal Case: The Use of A Forensic Meteorologist.

A forensic meteorologist does not predict future weather patterns but rather testifies as to what was the weather like yesterday, or two years ago, on a certain date, in a certain town or city.

The use of such an expert might be of extreme importance to discredit witnesses version of the lighting conditions, temperature, rain or snow fall, or wind speed, or other weather factors which might play a pivotal role in the guilt or innocence’s of a defendant.

Stephen Wistar (State College P.A.) a senior forensic meteorologist as well as other forensic meteorologist with AccuWeather have testified throughout the country in both civil and criminal cases as to weather conditions at a certain time and place in the past.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Dated: August 24, 2011

Elizabeth, Union County, New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney

The Strauss-Kahn False Accusations of Rape Ends With the Manhattan District Attorney Doing The Right Thing and Dismissing All Charges.

To often in the criminal justice system the local county prosecutors in New Jersey fail to do the right thing by not dismissing cases which have little or no merit.  Unfortunately to often in New Jersey when a police officer swears out a criminal complaint against someone the factual basis of the complaint is never fully investigated by the county prosecutor’s office to determine whether the complaint has any merit. 

It has been my experience that to often instead of dismissing the case outright as did the Manhattan District Attorney did in the Strauss-Kahn case, the assistant prosecutor handling the case will attempt to extract from the defendant some sort of plea.  Typically they will threaten the defendant with further prosecution unless the defendant applies for Pretrial Intervention (PTI), or accept a plea to a disorderly person’s offense or municipal ordinance.  The purpose of PTI is not to extort a plea against a defendant who is innocent, but rather to give a guilty defendant, a second chance with a diversionary program. 

In the Strauss-Kahn case the alleged victim, Nafissatou Diallo, in one of her meetings with the district attorney recounted a brutal rape which she endured in Guinea. Diallo recounted the event with great emotion and conviction. However, after being convinced by her attorney to come clean she admitted that the rape in Guinea was a complete fabrication and a total lie.  In the eyes of the prosecution team that was enough to dismiss the case because how could they ask a jury to believe someone whom they themselves could not.   The key is that the district attorney in New York could not believe her story beyond a reasonable doubt, so therefore, ethically, they could not ask a jury to what they could not.

Recently in Union County instead of dismissing completely a sexual contact charge against my client, the prosecutor last offer was for the client to plea to a non-criminal municipal ordinance charge.  Of course faced with further criminal prosecution my client like 99% of all defendants accepted the non-criminal ordinance plea.  In that case the prosecutor after learning that the alleged victim’s story was not credible should have simply dismissed the charges completely.  If a prosecutor cannot believe an alleged victims story beyond a reasonable doubt, they cannot ethically ask a jury to do what they cannot do.

Again I applaud the District Attorney in Manhattan for doing the right thing in the Strauss-Kahn case and see no reason why that same policy should not be followed in New Jersey.  After all the job the prosecutor is not force everyone to plea to something, but to do the right thing and to insure that justice is done no matter what the result is.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Dated: August 24, 2011

Elizabeth, New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney

Day Care Facility Which Includes Kindergarten Class Does Not Qualify as an Elementary School For 1000 Foot School Zone Charge.

In a rare victory in the fight against the oppressive and draconian 1000 foot school charge, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7, the New Jersey Supreme Court in State v. Shelley held that a Day-Care Center even one that has kindergarten classes is not an elementary school for purposes of this charge.

The statute makes it a crime for anyone to distribute or intent to distribute any controlled dangerous substance within 1000 foot of an elementary or secondary school.  The Supreme Court strictly construded the definition of elementary school as grades 1 through 6.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Elizabeth, N.J.

Dated: July 27, 2011

NJ criminal lawyer, NJ criminal attorneys, NJ federal criminal lawyers, union county nj criminal lawyers.

Roger Clemens’s Perjury Trial Ends in Mistrial By Blunder By Federal Prosecutors

Federal District Court Judge Reggie Walton declares mistrial in baseball great, Roger Clemens perjury trial as to whether he lied to the Congressional Subcommittee investigating the use of steroids in major legal baseball.

Judge Walton declared that the mistake in the prosecutor’s opening statement was so egregious that even a “first year law student” would not have made it.

In the opening statement federal prosecutor’s played a audio visual tape to the jury of statement of a witness that the judge had previously ruled would be double hearsay, and hence, not admissible. 

Although Judge Walton could have simply gave the jury instructions not to consider the evidence, he took the draconian step and declaring a mistrial stating that the trial was now tainted with extremely prejudicial evidence.

This case demonstrates the need for defense counsel to be extremely vigilant in insuring that prosecutors, negligently or intentionally, do not attempt to introduce into evidence hearsay testimony which can be extremely harmful to a defendant since defense counsel has no way of testing the credibility of such statements.

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.

The Use of Deferred Prosecutions and Non-Prosecution Agreements by the Department of Justice for White Collar Defendants

The current trend by the United States Department of Justice in pursuing violations of federal law as it pertains to corporations and corporate executives is the trend by the feds of in offering deferred prosecution agreements and/or non-prosecution agreements for these white collar defendants.

Many United States corporations such as Beazer homes (engaged in mortgage fraud), American International Group (AIG, accounting fraud), Computer Associates International (stock fraud), Bristol-Myers Squibb and the major financial and insurance company Prudential Financial, have all benefited from these types of agreements over the last several years.

Such agreements are at the discretion of the United States Attorney prosecuting or investigating the individual case, and are offered early on in the prosecution of the individual corporate executive or the corporation itself.  The offers are usually made only in the pre-indictment stage of the case or investigation.  Further, the offending party or entity must show good faith in the early and voluntary disclosure of all wrongdoing committed, must cooperate fully with the feds investigation, and show the willingness and desire to remediate and/or substantial restitution or compensation to any victim pool.  A defendant who is recalcitrant or denies any wrongdoing or fails to come forward with a full disclosure during the investigative vase will not be considered for such deferred or non-prosecution agreements.

Although these programs have generated much criticism by the general public as being soft on corporate crime and offenders in the end such programs are both beneficial to the offending party and saves the taxpayers the immense costs of investigating and prosecuting the offending entities, because much of the actual investigation of the federal crimes is done by the corporate itself, through independent auditors and investigators with zero tax payer cost.

For further information regarding the defense of white collar criminals and corporations go to CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

Tel. No. (908) 354-7006

Yourcivilrights@gmail.com

Elizabeth, New Jersey federal trial lawyer, federal criminal trial attorney, NJ white collar criminal defense lawyer, NJ criminal attorney, Federal Criminal NJ lawyer.

Union County criminal lawyer.

Dated: July 11, 2011

The Need for New Jersey to Comply with our Obligations under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and the U.N. Charter.

The United States of America is a signatory of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. 

Pursuant to Article 36 of treaty upon the arrest of a foreign national within the boundaries of the U.S. and its territories, that law enforcement immediately notify the defendant's embassy of the arrest of one of their citizens.

The treaty which we are obligated to enforce under international law makes no distinction between federal, state and local law enforcement officials.

In 2004 the International Court for Justice in The Hague, in which we are obligated to obey under international law, ruled that a death row inmate in Texas, Humberto Leal Garcia, Jr., and other death row inmates in the United States, must be granted by the American courts “review and considerations” to determine whether their criminal cases were hurt by the failure of local authorities to allow the defendant to consult their respective consular officials.  On May 17, 2004 the United States Congress issued its report regarding the U.S. requirements and implementation of the treaty. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32390.pdf

In the Leal Garcia murder trial Mr. Garcia was appointed a public defender who did little to defend his client, or attempt to mitigate the penalty portion of the trial to save Mr. Garcia’s life.  Also, in that case the Mexican embassy was never notified of Mr. Garcia’s arrest, and they never had an opportunity to  determine whether to aid in his death penalty trial.

As a practical consideration in New Jersey for all criminal defense attorneys handling post conviction appeals for ineffective assistance of counsel, or other claims or issues, it is essential that in all such cases in which the defendant received a sentence of substantial magnitude that defense counsel examine and investigate this issue to determine whether the failure of law enforcement to notify the defendant’s embassy detrimentally affected their criminal cases.

Unfortunately in New Jersey like most other states law enforcements are not familiar with the requirements of Article 36 of the treaty, and if they are simply ignore it.

Because Texas has blatantly refused to honor the treaty and the judgment by the International Court, the United Supreme Court decided in 2008 ruling that the States were obligated to comply with the treaty and the international law judgment for review of all death penalty cases in which the defendant’s consulate was not informed of the arrest.

However, the Supreme Court also held that the President could not enforce the treaty by executive order without congressional approval.  Although the bill was submitted to the Senate the bill is not yet law, and it is not expected to be signed until after Mr. Leal Garcia is scheduled to be executed on July 7, 2011.  It is now up to the Federal District Court in San Antonio to stay the execution until the bill is passed by Congress.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.
Elizabeth, New Jersey

(908) 354-7006

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

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

The “War on Drugs” Has Been Lost, and It is Time That We Change Direction and Treat the Problem for What it is a Mental Health Problem.

After spending trillion of dollars on the so called “war on drugs” during the last forty-years, we have accomplished nothing.  In fact there are more drug addicts and more illegal drugs flowing into this country now than ever before.  Law enforcement is unable to stop the flow, and with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan the amount of heroin coming into this country is astounding.  Because of our monetary payments and cooperation in turning the other way to the tribal leaders for help in stopping terrorism, these tribal leaders in Iraq and Afghanistan have never had it better in smuggling heroin into Europe and eventually the United States.

Recently the United Nations Global Commission on Drug Policy took the courageous step and stated that the world war on drugs, especially the one waged in the United States was a “total failure.”  The total consumption of opiates has increased 34.5% in the last forty-years, cocaine, 27%.

The report states that the problem with the war on drugs is that it punishes the users with draconian prison sentences when this money should be spent on treatments to cure the addicts, and thus dry up the demand.  Instead of locking up and prosecuting users, or low level sellers trying to support their habit, law enforcement must concentrate on the violent criminal organizations, starting with our tribal leader friends in Iraq and Afghanistan and their friendly governmental officials.  As former President Jimmy Carter wrote in his Op-Ed in the New York Times on June 17, 2011, at the end of his term in office 1980 there were approximately 500,000 people in prison in the United States, and that number increased in 2009 to 2.3 million.  The vast majority of these incarcerated individuals were there because they were drug users addicted to illegal drugs.

Other countries in Europe, Australia and other places have gotten the message and have decriminalized many drug possession offenses with great results.

Over the last forty years the only people who have benefited from this war on drugs charade are people employed in law enforcement, criminal judicial system and our jails.  

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

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Elizabeth, N.J.

(908) 354-7006

Dated: June 21, 2011

The Use and Misuse of Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS), and Prohibition of the CSAAS Expert Giving the Jury Statistical Data

In the infamous Kelly Ann Michaels case in New Jersey, in which Ms. Michaels conviction was eventually overturned in State v. Michaels, 264 N.J. Super. 579, 598-99 (App. Div. 1993), the Appellate Division held that case that CSAAS testimony can never be used as probative testimony of the existence of sexual abuse in a particular case.

Therefore this expert testimony is permissible only when the testimony does not opine whether the particular child was abused, or “connect the dots”, between the victim’s behavior and the syndrome.

In general CSAAS testimony explains to the jury some of the factors which a child-victim might experience and the particular behavior associated with such abuse which can encompass, secrecy, helplessness, entrapment and accommodation, delayed disclosure, and retraction.

In the recent New Jersey Supreme Court case State v. W.B., the State’s expert in CSAAS admitted on cross-examination that some children do falsely report sexual abuse, but added, “the great majority of them do not.”  On redirect by the prosecutor the question was asked to “estimate for us in your clinical experience how many children have lied in your experience.”  Over objects of defense counsel the expert stated anywhere between 5% and 10%, but the great majority do not lie, and that children actually under report what happens to them.

The Appellate Division held that such expert testimony which states statistical credibility of victim-witnesses is inadmissible.  It further held that “statistical information quantifying the number or percentage of abuse victims who lie deprives the jury of its right and duty to decide the question of credibility of the victim based on evidence relating to the particular victim and the particular facts of the case.”

Unfortunately, the defendant’s conviction in this case was not reversed because the court believed there was overwhelming evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

(908) 354-7006

Elizabeth, New Jersey

Dated: June 8, 2011

A Surrogate Lab Technician Does Not Satisfy the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause in Criminal and Quasi Criminal Cases in New Jersey

April 29, 2011, the Appellate Division in State v. Rehmann held that the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution requires that the State produce the person who actually performed the forensic test, or, as in this case, the person who witnesses the test being performed, and certify that all the proper steps were performed, before an laboratory report will be admitted into evidence.

In this case the State proffered the testimony of a State lab technician in a DWI blood case for the purpose of presenting the defendant’s blood alcohol level (or BAC) was above the legal limit. However, the State in this case did not actually produce the technician who performed the gas chromatograph test but rather his supervisor who witnessed the test being performed. Under these circumstances the Court ruled that the supervisor was not a surrogate witness and because he actually witnessed the proper procedure being performed could accordingly testify without violating the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him.

Although this was a narrow ruling limited to the facts of this particular case, this case however reaffirmed the well stated rule of law in New Jersey that any lab report is inadmissible hearsay without the testimony of the forensic lab technician.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

Tel. No. (908) 354-7706

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Police use of the Phenolphthalein Test a/k/a Kastle-Meyer Test to Determine the presence of Blood Not Admissible in New Jersey.

On May 13, 2011 the Appellate Division in State v. Pittman ruled that Phenolphthalein Test, a/k/a Kastle-Meyer Test is inadmissible to prove the presence of blood.

In this case a police detective took a cotton swap from the defendant’s clothing to determine whether the defendant’s cloths had the presence of blood. The Court ruled that there is no evidence that this test was generally accepted in the scientific community. Accordingly, although this test is useful tool in a preliminary investigation of the presence of blood, such a test is not admissible in court, without the testimony of an expert witness by the state. Although some states have allowed the admissible of this test it is based on specific jury instructions which concede that false positives can be triggered by potatoes, rust, bleach, red beet and tomatoes, as well as other common substances.

For a full discussion of this test by the State Police Forensic Laboratory go to:

http://www.state.nj.us/njsp/divorg/invest/Criminalistics.html.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

Tel. No. (908) 354-7706

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Beating the Municipal Court Traffic Ticket Takes More than Showing Up for Court

All to often attorneys who specialize in representing motorist charged with a moving violation are to quick to recommend that their client plea to N.J.S.A. 39:4-97.2 (unsafe driving), which is a no point ticket, but carries a fine with surcharges in the amount of $450.00, depending on the municipal court judge. Also, many insurance companies consider that moving violation in determining insurance rates. Further, that ticket can only be used twice, and a third conviction for this offense will result in four points being assessed against the motorist.

However, with a little work, diligence and multiple court appearance it is often possible to have the moving violations dismissed totally.

The first thing that the attorney must do in every case is request discovery. If it is a speeding case and the police officer contends that the motorist vehicle was paced the prosecutor must turnover all discovery on the police vehicle to determine whether the odometer was calibrated properly to record a correct speed. In addition, with radar cases all radar calibration must be turned over to the defense. Often a careful review of the discovery reveals that much of the required radar calibration material is either missing or unavailable.

Specifically, with all speeding summons by New Jersey State Police in which the Stalker Lidar Device was used our New Jersey Appellate Division in State v. John Green, has held that the device is not admissible to gauge the speed of an automobile because it has never been specifically tested by the New Jersey courts to be scientifically accurate, and accordingly, all such speeding ticket issued on the basis of that machine must be dismissed.

In addition, an experienced attorney in this field will have some understanding of norms and local customs of the specific court he or she is before, and be able to give the motorist some good advice, and hopefully good results in the ultimate outcome of the case based on the attorneys experience and reputation in that court.

For further information in beating the municipal court traffic ticket consult the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq., CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Sanzone Firm, P.O. Box 261, 277 N. Broad St. Elizabeth, NJ

Tel: (908) 354-7006

Motion to Suppress, and the Smell of Raw or Burnt Marijuana

Law Enforcements often reliable ace in the hole for probable cause: “I Smelled Raw or Burnt Marijuana in the Vehicle”, appears to be no longer sufficient for probable cause and in one case the court suppressed forty pounds of weed.

In State v. Ender Pompa, 414 N.J. Super. 219 (App. Div. 2010), the New Jersey Appellate Division gave solace to criminal defense attorneys in New Jersey attempting to defend the “plain smell” marijuana cases, in which the police officer after conducting an illegal search and discovering marijuana in a motor vehicle later claim that the reason for the search was that the officer had smelled raw or burnt marijuana in the vehicle during the motor vehicle stop.

In these types of cases, and the subsequent motion to suppress evidence it was virtually impossible to cross examine the officer to disprove whether he or she did in fact smell anything, and present any evidence that the cop was fabricating a justification for the illegal search.

However, in the Pompa case, the Appellate Division gave a remarkably good weapon in the arsenal of defense attorneys when it held that the “plain smell” of raw marijuana in the sleeping compartment of a tractor was insufficient to allow the New Jersey State Trooper to search that compartment, and that a search warrant was necessary before a search could be done.

This case is of tremendous importance because now it will be more difficult for police officers to fabricate an excuse to search an automobile without a search warrant, and should finally close this loophole for police officers whom routinely disregard the defendant’s Constitutional rights and the Fourth Amendment protections against unlawful and unreasonable searches.

For more information regarding your rights in a criminal case and defending the serious drug and narcotics case in New Jersey criminal courts, consult the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., at CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

YourCivilRights@gmail.com

Tel: (908) 354-7006

Cell: (201) 240-5716