Sandy Hook Beach Park Lewd Conduct Criminal Lawyer

New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney, Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., has the experience you need to defend you if you are Accused of Lewd Conduct Charges or other Charges in Sandy Hook Beach, Monmouth County and its Surrounding Beaches

Summer visitors to New Jersey's beaches such as Sandy Hook, Long Branch, Asbury Park, Point Pleasant, Belmar and Seaside Heights often “go wild”, and forget that these towns and federal enclaves have aggressive and vigorous police departments that will vigorously enforce the law.  This is especially true with the federal Park Police who enforce the federal laws at Gateway National Park, also known as Sandy Hook Beach.  Unfortunately, at this beach, especially, the beach called Gunnison (known as the “nude beach” or “clothing optional” beach), many of these trips result in criminal charges for beach visitors for various acts, including lewd conduct due to indecent exposure of one's intimate parts, perceived sexual conduct between sunbathers, and other misdemeanors such as smoking marijuana or the ingestion of other illegal substances.

Because of the risqué nature of the “nude beach” many individuals and couples are charged with lewdness at Sandy Hook Gunnison Beach.  Many of these arrests occur on the gay section of the beach.

Attorney Vincent James Sanzone, Jr., is the criminal defense attorney who has the experience and can help prevent you being convicted of these crimes or disorderly person’s offenses.  The charge of "lewdness" is one that most people find offensive and do not wish to have associated with their names as it may greatly impact their futures in terms of employment and other opportunities. As an experienced and knowledgeable criminal defense attorney, Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr. has and will take great care in attempting to obtain a plea, if necessary, that does not involve any mention of the term lewdness.  Fighting the best Sandy Hook criminal defense attorney is not always an easy decision, but you owe it to yourself and your future to contact one of the best and most experienced Sandy Hook Federal Beach criminal defense attorneys.

Sandy Hook Federal Beach is under the jurisdiction of the United States Government and anyone charged with a crime or a misdemeanor is charged under Title 18 of the United States Code, which are federal crimes or misdemeanors.  Therefore, if arrested or charged by a federal Park Police Officer, it is essential that you seek competent and vigorous representation from an attorney who has extensive federal criminal law experience such as Attorney Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.  In some case the crimes and misdemeanors under federal law can be harsher than New Jersey state law.  Further, federal criminal procedure is different than state court procedure.  Be careful of criminal defense attorneys who are only experienced in New Jersey state law because federal laws and procedure are different.

If you have been charged with such an offense, Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., a CriminalDefenseNJ.com can help. He has been defending individuals against lewd conduct charges in New Jersey for over two decades.  In many of these cases the charges were dismissed, downgraded or diverted, and the offender walked away with no criminal record. 

If you would like to discuss your case in complete confidence and candor with an experienced Sandy Hook Beach criminal attorney contact Attorney Sanzone at (908) 354-7006.  Attorney Sanzone will give you an honest assessment of defending you against these charges, the fines and penalties and the collateral consequences of a plea or finding of guilt.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth, New Jersey 07207

Dated: December 21, 2012

Office Phone No. (908) 354-7006

Cell Phone No.   (201) 240-5716

YourCivilRights@gmail.com

Sandy Hook Beach Criminal Lawyers, Monmouth County Sandy Hook Beach Attorneys, Lewdness attorneys Sandy Hook, Federal Sandy Hook Beach Attorneys, Fighting the lewdness charge in Sandy Hook federal beach, Gunnison Beach Sandy hook lewdness attorney, Sandy Hook Beach DWI attorney, Sandy Hook NJ marijuana attorneys, Best Sandy Hook Beach criminal lawyers.

New Jersey Supreme Court Rules Defendant’s In Post-Conviction Relief Proceedings Entitled To Oral Arguments.

The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled recently in State v. Parker that all defendants in post-conviction relief proceedings are entitled to oral arguments on their petitions and that summary proceedings on the papers are not sufficient.

This case by the Supreme Court is an extension of the Appellate Division case State v. Mayron, which held that there is a strong presumption for oral arguments.

Although the granting of post-convictions petitions are rare, there have been numerous cases in which the defendant has been able to set aside convictions or obtain new trials based on newly discovered evidence or a strong showing that trial defense counsel rendered legal representations which was constitutionally ineffective, meaning in essences that the level of legal representation of defense counsel was so ineffective as to deny the defendant a fair trial.

Under New Jersey law post-conviction relief petitions are equivalent to a Writ of Habeas Corpus in the federal system.  The most famous of those federal cases was the case of prize fighter Hurricane Carter who eventually won his habeas corpus petition when federal district court judge H. Lee Sarokin ruled that the Passaic County Prosecutor’s Office had committed prosecutorial misconduct by withholding exculpatory evidence from the defense at trial.  The case was made into a Hollywood movie called the “The Hurricane”, which starring Denzel Washington.

If you have been wrongly convicted or received an illegal sentence you have the legal right to file a post-conviction relief petition no later than five-years after your sentencing date, and thereafter to the federal courts.

The Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., has represented numerous defendants in post-conviction relief proceedings.

This is a public service blog provided to the people from the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

September 11, 2012

277 North Broad Street

P.O. Box 261

Elizabeth, New Jersey

Telephone No. (908) 354-7006

New Jersey post-conviction relief attorneys, Union County Criminal Lawyers, New Jersey Best Criminal Defense Attorney, New Jersey Criminal Attorneys, New Jersey Criminal Lawyers, NJ criminal defense lawyers, NJ criminal attorney, Hudson County Lawyers, Union County criminal attorneys, Essex County criminal lawyers, Best criminal trial lawyer nj, best union county nj criminal attorneys

Another Conviction Overturned Because of Confusing and Erroneous Jury Instructions with The Child Endangerment Jury Charge.

The New Jersey law when it comes to sexual offenses is extremely confusing even for the experienced New Jersey criminal defense attorney.  The law and jury charges that a jury must decipher during a sexual assault trial is some of the most difficult law to understand, and can rival even some complicated tax or security laws.

Much of these sexual offender laws were model charges that were formulated by feminist organizations, which some believe, made the laws so confusing and difficult that most jurors simply give-up and convict, not based on the law and facts of the case, but rather, on the premise that nobody likes someone charged with a sexual offense, especially, when it is against women, children or minors.  As Aye Gruber a law professor from the University of Iowa wrote in a law review article in the Washington Law Review Association titled: “Rape, Feminism, and the War on Crime”

“Over the past several years, feminism has been increase-ingly associated with crime control and the incarceration of men.”

In a recent case, State v. McInerney, the appellate division reversed the conviction of a baseball coach for child endangering because the instructions to the jury were flawed.  In this case the Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office charged Mr. McInerney with second degree child endangering.  In order to be convicted of the second degree charge the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. McInerney had “a legal duty for the care of a child or who assumed responsibility for the care of a child.” N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4a. 

In this case the appellate division held that the jury instructions did not properly define the meaning of “teaching staff member or other employee.”  The appellate division wrote, “... the judge effectively directed the jurors that a school employee, even one without any responsibility for the care of the child, was included in the definition of parent or guardian along with those who have assumed responsibility for the care of a child.”  This instruction was in conflict with the well settled law set forth in State v. Galloway, 133, N.J. 631 (1993)

However, this case did not hold the endangering statute unconstitutional as being vague.  As the model jury charge is currently written, a jury could decide that the defendant engaged in sexual conduct which would impair or debauch the morals of the child, or causes the child harm that would make the child abused or neglected child, as defined in Title 9 of the child protective statutes, N.J.S.A. 9:6-1. 

     This issue was directly addressed in the federal third circuit case in Stubbs v. Attorney General, 452 F.3d 251 (3d. Cir. 2006)  In that case the Third Circuit held that  N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a) is vague and ambiguous on its face since without a specific finding by the jury whether they are finding guilt under the sexual component or neglect component there is no way of knowing what the jury is deciding beyond a reasonable doubt.

As the Third Circuit wrote:

To repeat, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a) provides for conviction of a person who either (a) “engages in sexual conduct

which would impair or debauch the morals of the child”

or (b) “causes the child harm that would make the child an abused or neglected child as defined in

[state protective-welfare statutes].”  A conviction could lie under this statute for “willfully failing

to provide proper and sufficient food.” for a child pursuant to N.J.S.A. 9:6-1, one of the enumerated protective-welfare statutes.  This offense would hardly constitute “sexual abuse of a minor under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(A).  Stubbs,452 F.3d at 255

For the time being there appears to no end in-sight for this confusing law and jury instructions.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth (Union County) New Jersey 07207

Office Phone Number (908) 354-7706

Cell Phone Number   (201) 240-5716

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

YourCivilRights@gmail.com

New Jersey Sexual Assault Attorney, NJ Rape Attorneys, Accused of sexual assault in nj, defending the nj sexual assault case, best nj criminal sexual assault lawyers, nj rape attorneys, Union County NJ Lawyers, Union County NJ Criminal Lawyers, Best Union County Lawyers, Best Union County Criminal Defense Lawyers, Union County Criminal Attorneys, New Jersey Union County Attorneys, Union County Defense Attorneys

Some of the Worst Police Brutality Caught On Camera.

Anyone driving or walking through many of the towns and cities of New Jersey see the surveillance videos located in almost every major intersection.  This is in addition to the many private security cameras affixed to the store fronts of many commercial establishments.

However, when police are caught on camera committing police brutality the video is often destroyed by the police.  In the Denver case shown below the police officer who was monitoring the video surveillance camera is caught intentionally pans away from the brutality to protect the officer’s brutality.  http://youtu.be/aBnXJED7t_I

A badge, a gun and no brains is a perfect storm for police brutality. Studies have shown hire more police and crime will go up. They often create more crime and suffering to the people. This video is a perfect example. What happened with a little talk and compassion? Did these two cops thing they would prove their manhood by attacking an unharmed female. America should understand what is happening before it is too late.

The following videos are some examples of police brutality caught on tape.  You are warned that some of these videos shock the conscience, and are not for the faint of heart.

1.   September 26, 2009.  Greenville County Police teaser and punch and kick an 18-year-old in the face 13 times.

http://youtu.be/prCEGmytKmE

2.   August 29, 2012, LAPD police officers slam defenseless non-resistant woman to the ground.

http://youtu.be/aw06ANLJNAQ

3.   August 17, 2010.  Denver police brutality caught on tape while camera pans away intentionally to cover-up brutality.

http://youtu.be/aBnXJED7t_I

4.   October 27, 2012.  Police Officer beats special-ed student over an un-tucked shirt.

http://youtu.be/HU5fAGOVvEM

5.   February 7, 2011.  Houston police beat handcuffed 15-year old boy. http://youtu.be/JlKmiPCVStc

6.   September 2, 2012.  Rhode Island police officer kicks woman in handcuffs. http://youtu.be/A9yYsI-HGpo

7.   September 23, 2009.  Police officer turns off security camera and beats woman arrested for DWI to a bloody

http://youtu.be/uD0qYRfCuNM

8.   May 8, 2012.  Fatal police brutality in which a homeless man is killed by police.  The man suffered from mental illness and schizophrenia.

http://youtu.be/zPNkimffOKQ

9.   April 18, 2012.  The murder of Eugene Gruber.  Police brutality and murder by jail security officers in Chicago.

http://youtu.be/FYD-hT7aiDg

This the most sad and scary video of them all.  As the Chicago Tribune article said:  “Eugene Gruber was drunk, hostile and uncooperative when he walked into the Lake County Jail, but a day later, he was paralyzed, had a broken neck and barely registered a pulse after an encounter with guards, records show”

If you are a victim of police brutality captured on tape you are urged to call the criminal defense and civil rights lawyer Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq., to talk about your rights.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CrimiminalDefenseNJ.com

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth (Union County), New Jersey 07207

Office Phone No. (908) 354-7006

Cell Phone No. (201) 240-5716

YourCivilRights@gmail.com

Dated: October 9, 2012

NJ Civil Rights Attorney, NJ Police Misconduct Attorney, NJ Police Misconduct Lawyer, NJ police brutality lawyer, NJ police corruption lawyer, New Jersey Civil Rights Lawyers, New Jersey Police Brutality Attorneys, Union County Civil Rights Lawyer, NJ federal civil rights police misconduct lawyers.

New Jersey County Prosecutors Denying People Access to the Drug Court Program.

According to the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, prescription medications (such as the pain killer, Oxycodone) more people die from the ingestion of these legal drugs than from heroin and cocaine combined.

The addiction rates in New Jersey for such pain killers as Oxycodone, as in other every other state has raised to an epidemic.  More people unable to obtain enough of the drug, because of the crack-down on physicians prescribing the medications, are resorting to obtaining the drug through the black market illegally.  The costs of one black market pill of Oxycodone can be has high as $30.00.  Because of this more and more users are committing crimes to afford enough of the narcotic to satisfy their addiction.  In some cases people are taking as much as twenty pills per day. 

The New Jersey Drug Court Program was initiated for just such people.  However, more and more county prosecutors in New Jersey are denying enter into the program for people addicted to Oxycodone because they have committed crimes such as robbery, thefts, burglary or strong armed robberies to fuel their addictions.  The prosecutors that are doing this fail to understand that but for the addiction these people would not have committed the crimes in the first place. 

In many cases the individuals addicted to these pain killers are men, many construction workers, who need the use of their physical bodies to perform their job and support themselves and their families.  Without the pain killers their pain is just too unbearable to work.  Others, were involved in serious accidents and live with serious depilating pain, and cannot get by the day without such medications. 

It is time that some of these short-sighted prosecutors with no compassion or understanding for the less fortunate understanding what is happening to these individuals addicted to these prescription drugs, and give them a second chance in the Drug Court Program.  A lawyer or any paper-pusher can perform his or her work even with physical pain from a injury, but try to bend, twist and lift for an eight-hour day doing physical labor and see how fast your perspective changes. 

Locking these individuals up for 10 or 15 years, which is not uncommon with many prosecutor plea offers, because they committed a crime(s), in pursuit of satisfying their addiction is not the answer, and does not serve the people of New Jersey.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth (Union County) New Jersey 07207

Office Phone Number (908) 354-7706

Cell Phone Number   (201) 240-5716

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

YourCivilRights@gmail.com

New Jersey Drug Court Program, Union County Lawyers, Union County NJ Criminal Lawyers, Best Union County Lawyers, Best Union County Criminal Defense Lawyers, Union County Criminal Attorneys, New Jersey Union County Attorneys, Union County Defense Attorneys, Beating the Drug Case, NJ Drug Attorneys, NJ CDS trial lawyers,

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

Domestic Violence Testimony in Final Restraining Order Can Now Be Used for Impeachment in a Subsequent Criminal Trial

The Appellate Division in State v. Duprey ruled that a criminal defendant in a criminal case can use the testimony of the accuser in a domestic violence final restraining order trial to impeach the testimony of the accuser at the criminal trial. 

The Superior Court Appellate Division in Duprey recently ruled that the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires that every defendant has the right to impeach the accuser with his or her prior contradictory or inconsistent statements in any subsequent criminal trial, notwithstanding the language found in N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(a).

However, this case does not appear to interfere with the defendant’s right to testify in his or her domestic violence restraining order trial, and fear that what he or she says would be used against him or her in a subsequent criminal trial.  In other words, testimony given by a defendant in a domestic violence trial can not be used against the testify defendant.

Therefore, it is recommended that transcripts be ordered of the accusers’ testimony even if the court denies the final restraining order because the testimony might be relevant in a future proceeding.

Defending someone against a domestic violence charge is a civil proceeding and not criminal.  However, many of the trial skills needed to defend such a client are similar to those used by experienced New Jersey criminal defense attorneys. 

Therefore, if you are served with a temporary restraining order and must appear in court for a final hearing you are urged to contact the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

A charge of domestic violence or violating a domestic violence restraining order (a criminal charge) in New Jersey is a serious matter and can have serious consequences with obtaining and keeping employment.

If you are charged with a domestic violence complaint you are urged to seek experienced competent legal advice from Attorney Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., who has been representing and defending for 23 years individuals charged with these types of offenses.

Attorney Sanzone a Union County criminal defense attorney, has successfully represented hundreds of individuals charged with domestic violence in Union, Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Middlesex, Mercer, Ocean, Passaic, Monmouth and Somerset counties.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Elizabeth, N.J.

Tel. No. (908) 354-7006

Dated: October 1, 2012

New Jersey Domestic Violence Attorney, New Jersey Domestic violence lawyers, NJ defending against the domestic violence case, criminal defense domestic violence attorney

Inaccuracy in Criminal Background Checks and the Need To Expunge Records, and Monitor and Delete Damaging Information from Records.

Increasingly former clients and prospective clients have been informing me that they have been rejected from employment based on criminal background checks which are erroneous.  It appears that the companies that are in the business of doing criminal background checks on job applicants have no interest in reporting information to their customer/employers which are accurate.  Often the data submitted is old, outdated, or simply wrong. 

Some of the issues which I see with frequency are the following.  (1) an arrest which results in the charges being dismissed are reported as a conviction; (2) an erroneous report stating that the defendant was convicted of a more serious charge than the defendant plead guilty to; (3) arrests being reported, which did not result in a conviction; (4) conviction listed erroneously for a person that was never convicted of any offenses.

The damage done to job applicant victims of this type of flawed and unreliable information is devastating.

Because the federal government has failed to monitor these reporting agencies it is important that everyone obtain a fingerprint check with the New Jersey State Police.  This number can be found on the State Police Website.  The number is (877) 503-5981. https://www.bioapplicant.com/nj

Once the fingerprints are obtained they will be sent to the New Jersey State Police for a record of all arrests and convictions, if any.  Once that criminal history is obtained you can either move to expunge those arrests and convictions, if possible, or compare those records to what is on file with the criminal background reporting agencies.  Further, if you are denied employment because of a criminal record, you must demand that the employer that denies employment give you the name and address of the agency which they used, so that you can obtain a copy of the information that was sent to the employer that rejected your job application.  If the information was in error you can demand that it be checked and corrected, and if they refuse to do so, they can be sued civilly for deformation, and pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act.  The law requires that criminal background agencies notify consumers when information is being sent to prospective employers.

However, often this is not done; therefore, the job applicant has no way of challenging the information that was supplied.

One such agency, HighRight Solutions was recently sued by the Federal Trade Commission for abuses, which includes the company’s failure to follow reasonable procedures to insure or help to prevent inaccurate information from being sent to employers.  Although HighRight paid a fine of 2.6 million dollars, other agencies continue to report obviously inaccurate information to employers, and being responsible for thousands of people from being employed.

If you are faced with some of these issues and being denied employment because of your past history, you are urged to seek the counsel of an experienced New Jersey Expungement Lawyer, the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

Lastly, at a minimum if you are a victim of such abuse by a criminal background check agency you must file a complaint with the FTC or the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau which both have jurisdiction over this issue.

This is a public service blog provided to the people from the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

September 11, 2012

277 North Broad Street

P.O. Box 261

Elizabeth, New Jersey

Telephone No. (908) 354-7006

New Jersey Criminal Expungement Lawyer, New Jersey Best Criminal Defense Attorney, New Jersey Criminal Attorneys, New Jersey Criminal Lawyers, NJ criminal defense lawyers, NJ criminal attorney, Hudson County Expungement Lawyers, Union County Expungement Lawyers, Essex County Expungement Lawyers, Best criminal trial lawyer nj, best union county nj criminal attorneys

Defending Longshoremen, Checkers and Maintenance Union Members When Charged with an Infraction by the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor.

The Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor is a bi-state agency (New Jersey and New York), which in the 1950’s was delegated the task, with full police and enforcement powers, to monitor and protect the shipping docks and piers of New Jersey and New York.  The agency mission was in essence to weed out corruption from the piers and to protect the dockworkers from exploitation, extortion, and other crimes and abuses, which was traditionally found to be prevalent against dockworkers working the piers of New Jersey and New York.

The majority of the shipping piers are located in New Jersey with piers and terminals in Bayonne, Jersey City, Port Newark, Port Elizabeth, and Perth Amboy, with the majority of the dock workers licensed by the Waterfront Commission working or residing in New Jersey. 

The Waterfront Commission is guided by specific rules, regulations and laws, which in many respects are unique to this agency.  Violators of the law can be prosecuted under federal law, or by the criminal statutes of New Jersey or New York, depending on the location of the offense, type of offense, or domicile of offending party.  All dockworkers employed at the New Jersey and New York piers must be licensed by the Waterfront Commission in order to be employed on the docks.  Any violation of the Waterfront laws will subject the offender to a suspension or termination of his or her Waterfront pass, thus, precluding the worker from stepping pass the gates of the pier once the license is suspended or revoked.  The loss of the Waterfront license can be temporary or permanent, depending on the character of the offender and the violation charged.

Any person in New Jersey who is charged with a 1^st, 2^nd or 3^rd degree criminal offense or felony in New York is subject to an automatic temporary revocation of his or her Waterfront pass at the Waterfront’s discretion.

If the charge is not amicably resolved between the licensee and agency, the matter is heard before an administrative law judge.  In the event that the longshoreman receives an adverse ruling he or she can appeal the decision to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey for all longshoreman living or working in New Jersey.

Therefore, it is essential that any longshoreman, checker of maintenance worker who has been charged by the Waterfront Commission with violating the Waterfront Act, immediately obtain the services of an experienced criminal defense and waterfront attorney, who is experienced in both the laws and procedures in defending a longshoreman, checkers of maintenance worker employed on the docks of New Jersey or New York.  For over 23 years the law office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., has been defending dockworkers for matters before the Waterfront Commission for the piers of New Jersey and New York.

Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

Dated: April 7, 2012

277 North Broad Street

P.O. Box 261

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Tel. No. (908) 354-7006

New Jersey Waterfront Attorney, Longshoreman Attorney, New York Harbor Waterfront Lawyers, New Jersey Checkers Lawyer, New Jersey Union longshoreman Attorneys, Best NY Longshoreman lawyers, NJ Criminal Defense Attorneys, NJ Best Criminal Lawyers, Elizabeth Criminal Attorneys, Union County Criminal Lawyer, Best Bayonne Criminal Attorneys, Bayonne Criminal Lawyers, Jersey City Criminal Lawyers, Hudson County Criminal Lawyers, Newark Criminal Attorneys, Essex County Criminal Lawyers.

The Sanctimony of the Middlesex County Prosecutor’s Office in the Dharum Ravi Case.

The prosecution of Dharum Ravi for the alleged hate crime against Tyler Clementi was overreaching and in my opinion an abuse of the New Jersey hate crime statute.

The purpose of hate crime legislative enacted in almost every state of the union is to punish offenders who commit specific crimes against people because of their ethic, religious, racial, or sexual standing.  In other words if an offender attacks someone because of his or her hatred of particular group, that is a hate crime in New Jersey.  Further, under the New Jersey hate crime statute you are guilty of the crime based on the state of mind of the victim and not of the offender.  Hence, the mens rea or the state of mind of the defendant/offender is irrelevant. If the alleged victim believed that he or she was a victim of a hate crime that is sufficient under the law.

The fundamental question is whether the State under any circumstances should be punishing people for who they are?  Where is the line to be drawn between a prosecutor that punishes for thought, i.e., George Orwell’s classic 1984, and the offenders who actual commits a crime against a class of people because who they are?  The question arises should a burglar be prosecuted under a hate crime because he only burglarizes homes in “rich” neighborhoods, and hence commits a hate crime against the rich. The answer of course is no; but what would stop an overzealous prosecutor for doing such a thing, under these types of hate crime laws? 

In other words if you commit a crime while thinking a vile thought you commit a hate crime.  It has never been the law that people be prosecuted for their thoughts, but that is preciously what occurs with these hate crime prosecutions, when abused by the prosecutor.

This case is a perfect example in which the prosecuting authority over-charged a defendant.  Whether Mr. Ravi engaged in a college prank, did something stupid or was a jerk is not a hate crime.  The overcharging of Mr. Ravi with a hate crime against Mr. Clementi is typical of many prosecutors in New Jersey and is clearly the norm not the exception.  The overcharging of a defendant for a crime which was not committed is a common strategy in New Jersey to extract a guilty plea from the defendant, and forcing the defendant to either "take the plea" or risk doing serious time on the over-charged offense.  Further the prosecution of Mr. Ravi is a perfect example of how hate crime laws can be abused by juries, which happened in this case.

There is no doubt in this New Jersey criminal defense attorney's mind that Mr. Ravi will prevail on appeal and that New Jersey’s hate crime statute will eventually be held unconstitutional or stricken down by the courts on some other form procedural due process grounds by the New Jersey courses. 

Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

Dated: April 7, 2012

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Tel. No. (908) 354-7006

NJ Criminal Defense Attorneys, NJ Best Criminal Lawyers, Elizabeth Criminal Attorneys, Union County Criminal Lawyer, Best Bayonne Criminal Attorneys, Bayonne Criminal Lawyers, Jersey City Criminal Lawyers, Hudson County Criminal Lawyers, Newark Criminal Attorneys, Essex County Criminal Lawyers.

United States Supreme Court Decides Defendants Are Entitled to Correct Legal Advice in Deciding Whether to Accept or Reject Plea Offers.

The United States Supreme Court, (Missouri v. Frye, No. 10-444); (Lafler v. Cooper, No. 10-209) in a split decision decided that criminal defendants have the constitutional right under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution to have effective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations.  The Court ruled that attorneys whom give bad legal advice to their clients during plea negotiations are ineffective and that the Courts are now required to take a more active role in plea negotiations.

The Court noted that nationally 94% of criminal defendants take a plea offer, and in federal court the number is 97% whom take pleas.  Accordingly, the Court noted in reality the criminal justice system is not a system of trial but of pleas, and accordingly, one of the most crucial stages in criminal procedure is not trials, but plea negotiations and the plea bargaining system.

In Frye, the defendant was offered a 90 day jail sentence by the prosecutor for operating his motor vehicle without a driver’s license.  Mr. Frye was not advised by his attorney of the plea offer, went to trial, was convicted and sentenced by the judge to three years in prison. 

In Cooper the facts are even more bizarre in that the defense attorney advised his client that because he shot his victim four times below the waist that he could not be convicted of attempted murder.  Because of the bad legal advice Mr. Cooper rejected the plea offer of between four and seven years and went to trial.  Convicted a trial for attempted murder Mr. Cooper was sentenced to 15 to 30 years.  The Supreme Court in Cooper held that the Mr. Cooper should be reoffered the plea that he was never advised about, and that if he accepts it, to be re-sentenced by the Judge.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr. 

A New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney who has 21 years of experience and skill to fight for your acquittal, and achieve your not guilty verdict.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Tel. No. (908) 354-7006

YourCivilRights@gmail.com

Dated: March 22, 2012

 

New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney, New Jersey Criminal Defense Lawyers, Union Essex Bergen Passaic Hudson  Criminal Defense Attorneys, Middlesex Criminal Attorneys, Hudson County Criminal Lawyers, Elizabeth NJ criminal attorneys, best new jersey criminal defense attorneys, nj best criminal lawyers, Newark criminal lawyers, New Brunswick Criminal Lawyers, NJ DUI Attorneys

The Crane Brothers Looking to Make another Easy Money Score Against the Catholic Church, on the Backs of the Faithful Catholics Who Support the Church.

Twin brothers Tom an Bill Crane are either two of the most unluckiest brothers, or consummate con-artists looking to make another easy money score against the Catholic Church claiming that they were sexually abused.

One payoff was not enough for the Crane brothers whom were part of a settlement of 5 million dollars divided by 12 different plaintiffs and their attorneys when the Crane brothers claimed that a Priest from St. Joseph’s Roman Catholic Church in Mendham New Jersey molested them.

Now remarkably these two brothers are now claiming that two other priests molested them when they were living with their Father, an administrator and teacher at the prestigious Delbarton Catholic pre-school in Morris Township.  Of all of the tens-of-thousands of young men who have been educated by the great Benedictine monks from Delbarton these two unlucky men were abused by not only monks at that school, but at their local parish.  These two brothers claimed that the abuse occurred over thirty-years ago, but told no one, including there Father who worked there as a teacher and administrator.

One would need the help of a quantum computer (not yet invented), to finger out the miniscule likelihood of such abuse to have occurred by three separate Priest, at two different locations, when these two brother were growing up, while not telling anyone.

It is time that the Catholic Church and its religious orders put an end to monetary payouts to these so-called, “abused” scam artists and fight them in court to expose their lies and incredible stories, such as the one concocted by the Crane brothers.  Otherwise there will be no end to these scam artists looking to the Church for a quick payoff on the backs of the millions of faithful Catholics who give their hard earned money every Sunday to the Church which they love and respect, and which has withstood the test of time and history for 2000 years.

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

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.
CriminalDefenseNJ.com
Tel. No. (908) 354-7006


New Jersey Criminal Attorneys, Union County Criminal Defense Attorney, NJ Criminal Lawyers, NJ Best Criminal Trial Attorneys, Best NJ Criminal Trial Lawyers, Newark Criminal Lawyers, Elizabeth Criminal Lawyers, New Brunswick Criminal Lawyers, Jersey City Criminal Attorneys

Dated: March 21, 2012

The Necessity of Expunging All Criminal Records, When Possible, Even Arrests which Did Not Lead to Convictions.

A recent survey conducted found that over 90% of employers run criminal background checks on every job applicant.  Additionally, another 60% screen all job applicants with credit report checks.  Amazingly, in some cases even a bad driving record will exclude most applicants from the employment position.

Even more troubling is the fact that over 65 million potential job applicants will be excluded from any type of gainful legitimate employment because of a criminal record.

Most people do not understand and are not aware that even the mere arrest, which did not lead to a conviction, will in most cases also bar a job applicant from employment.  Most employers seeing an arrest also see with the background check what the person was arrested for.  This is especially true with someone arrested for a serious charge. 

Therefore, it is absolutely essential that anyone convicted of a crime, which is subject to an Expungement obtain one.  Further, anyone arrested but not convicted most likewise obtain an Expungement of the arrest, so that the arrest does not come up in the background check.  It is too easy for employers in this tough job market to eliminate job applicants with criminal background checks.

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

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Tel. No. (908) 354-7006

NJ Expungement Lawyers, Elizabeth New Jersey Criminal Attorney, Union County Criminal Defense Attorney, Middlesex County Criminal Defense Attorney, NJ Criminal Attorneys, NJ Criminal Defense Attorneys, NJ Criminal Trial Attorney, Union County Criminal Defense Lawyers, NJ Federal Criminal Trial Attorneys, Criminal Lawyers NJ, Newark Criminal Lawyers, Jersey City Criminal Lawyers, Bergen County Criminal Lawyers, New Brunswick Criminal lawyers, Passaic County Criminal lawyers.

Dated: March 21, 2012

Attorney Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., seeks Pretrial Intervention Program For Client Alleged to Have Impersonated her Ex-Boy Friend a Parsippany New Jersey Police Detective using Facebook.

February 14, 2012

In the high profile prosecution by the Morris County Prosecutor’s Office, Dana Thornton is accused of using Facebook to impersonate her ex-boyfriend.  As set forth in the Grand Jury Indictment, Ms. Thornton is being charged with the crime of fourth degree identity theft, when it was alleged that she opened an account under the detective’s name and posted a number of postings, which according to the papers submitted by the Morris County Prosecutor’s Office, were injurious to his personal and professional repudiation as a police detective.   Today, Superior Court Judge David Ironson gave both Attorney Sanzone and the prosecutor thirty days to workout a plan as to whether Ms. Thornton would again be permitted to enter the Pretrial Intervention Program.

This case appears to be the first case in New Jersey were the identity fraud statute is being used to prosecute someone in the use of a social media website such as Facebook, under false pretenses.  There is dispute among legal commentators as to whether the New Jersey statute as enacted would cover such conduct as alleged by the State.  Many States have amended their statutes to cover such conduct, which has not yet occurred in New Jersey.  Although Judge Ironson had ruled in this case on a previous occasion that the statute does apply, no appellate decision has made a ruling on this issue.

Today’s full story from the Star-Ledger can be found at: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/02/belleville_woman_accused_of_cr.html

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

Criminal Defense Lawyer, NJ, New Jersey Criminal Defense Lawyer, NJ Criminal Defense Attorneys, New Jersey Best Criminal Defense Attorneys, NJ Criminal Trial Lawyers, Newark Criminal Lawyers, Elizabeth Criminal Attorneys.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

(908) 354-7006

The United States Supreme Court Scores a Great Victory For The Fourth Amendment Protection Against Unreasonable Searches, and Again Justice Scalia Becomes a Champion of Criminal Defendants.

On January 23, 2012, the United States Court ruled that the placement of a Global Tracking Device or System on a suspect’s vehicle for 28 days violated the suspect’s constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In the case, U.S. v. Antoine Jones, Washington D.C. police suspecting that Mr. Jones was involved in a cocaine-selling operation, placed a tracking device on Mr. Jones’s Jeep Grand Cherokee and tracked Mr. Jones’ movements for 28 days.  At trial the prosecutor used that information to secure his conviction, which resulted in the court imposing a life-sentence of imprisonment.  The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia overturned his conviction holding that the amount of information obtained through the GPS tracking device violated Mr. Jones’s Fourth Amendment rights to the Constitution.  The Supreme Court affirmed, and Justice Scalia writing for the majority held that monitoring a vehicle’s movements without a judicial warrant constitutes a search.

The decision by the nation’s highest court sends a signal to law enforcement in the United States that they can no longer track a vehicle with such devices without a court warrant approved by a judicial magistrate.  This is great news for New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorneys who have been waiting in anticipation for this decision.  Criminal Defense attorneys here in New Jersey and other states have anxiously waited from our highest court to signal whether they would be increase the constitutional protections as set forth in the Bill of Rights which prohibits the States or government from using excessive and unreasonable surveillance techniques as now available to law enforcement.  Similarly, based on this decision it can also be argued and inferred that the placing of a tracking device on a suspect’s computer, without a court order, to track someone’s website history would likewise be held to be unconstitutional.

Also, this case appears to be in conflict with a recent New Jersey Appellate Division case, State v. Earls, ____ N.J. Super. _____ (App. Div. 2011) which allows law enforcement in New Jersey to track a suspect’s location data through cell-phone towers without a judicial warrant. 

Lastly, with this new decision the question is now posed is whether law enforcement in this State can use toll cameras, E-ZPass, and surveillance videos (which are numerous on major highways in the State of New Jersey), to track suspects accused of, or suspected of committing crimes?

The decision raises serious questions as to whether these surveillance devices present on our major highways also violate our Fourth Amendment protections.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr. 

A New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney who has 21 years of experience and skill to fight for your acquittal, and achieve your not guilty verdict.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

(908) 354-7006

Dated: January 24, 2012

 

New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney, New Jersey Criminal Defense Lawyers, Union Essex Bergen Passaic Hudson  Criminal Defense Attorneys.