What is the Best Practice if You Are Summoned to Appear before the Waterfront Commission for an Interview under Oath

Prepared as a Public Service of the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone.

If you are a longshoreman, checker, port security employee or maintenance worker you might be summoned before the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor to be interviewed under oath.  The reasons for such interviews vary, from work related activities and actions, to non-related work activities and actions regarding your personal life.  The Waterfront Commission has a wide range of powers to investigate anyone with a waterfront license to insure that the ports of New Jersey and New York are being serviced by employees with a high degree of ethics and integrity. 

However, it has been argued by some in this field of practice with a high degree of credibility, that sometimes the Commission in its quest to fetter out crime and nefarious undesirable influences on the ports have become over zealot and sometimes move for revocation of waterfront passes for reasons which are not entirely justified and sometimes outright unfair and unjust.

It is without dispute that if you are called before the Waterfront Commission for any reason, one for which you might not even be aware until the questions are being asked at the interview, you must obtain the advice of an experienced Waterfront Attorney.  The best practice in such cases is to consult an experienced attorney, and have the attorney present at the interview.  To do otherwise might have devastating consequences for the licensee and render further representations moot, because without legal representation at the interview you will not have the legal knowledge or experience to object to a line a questioning which might be unfair, unduly personal, or a violation of your constitutional rights.  Remember at the interview you have one-bite at the apple do not waste it and possibly lose your ability to earn a living as a longshoreman, checker, maintenance worker or port security officer.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

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

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

Tel: (908) 354-7006

Attorney Sanzone is an experienced Waterfront Attorney for 25-years, and is qualified to guide you through the laws and procedures of the Waterfront Act

 

The Dastardly Murder of the French Cartoonist (A Different View).

For those not familiar with the Ten Commandments, let’s start with the first commandment, “Thou shall not Kill.”

Of course in Judeo-Christian morality, nothing justifies the killing of innocent people, and anyone that claims to believe in God and does such a thing is nothing more than the agent of evil (the devil).  There is little doubt that anyone that believes that they can murder because their

religion was offended will have a very steep climb into the gates of Heaven, to say the least.  As Pope Francis recently said, killing in the name of God is a perversion of religion.

It appears now, however, that the media, is now attempting to make the slain employees of Charlie Hebdo champions of freedom of speech.  Although on a lower level it is true that these cartoonists believed and engaged in publications under their right of freedom of expression, but the story does not end there.  The deeper question is did they, the cartoonist at Charlie Hebdo, have the moral right to publish obscene cartoons of religious figures?

As one philosopher once states, freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought. With freedom comes the collateral obligation of responsibility and moral virtues.  Because without those two components there can be no true freedom, but only chaos.

With freedom comes responsibility.  Does anyone in the name of freedom of speech have the moral right, the sensibility, to engage in sacrilegious speech and publication against any one’s faith, no matter how, misguided and foolish that faith may be?  No answer is no.

The bigger debate, which has not been addressed by the media is the why should anyone be allowed to engage in sacrilegious speech and press against anyone religious figure.  No matter how foolish and comical those religious teaching may or may not be. 

As a Christian and specifically, a Roman Catholic, I have witnessed the relenting Christian, and more specifically, Catholic bashing.  This bashing is common place in Hollywood movies, television, talk show hosts, “artists” comedians, and the press.  This bashing is often outright false, obscene, pathetic and sometimes pornographic.  I too, am saddened and sensitive to these blasphemies against my Church and my God.  I can sympathize with the followers of Muhammad who feel the same sadness when their faith is unfairly bashed.

My position is this: the murderers are fully responsible for what they did and should be treated with the full force of the law. Nothing justifies the killing of innocent people for acting foolishly and publishing obscene material. However, although they had the legal right to publish obscene portrayals of religious figures, they certainly do not have the moral right to do so.

Charlie Hebdo’s obscene portrayal of religious figures has zero redeeming value.  If people want to debate the redeeming values of Islam or the lack of redeeming values of this religion, that is a fair an honest debate that no one should be allowed to sensor.  However, no one in a civilized society should believe that portraying any historical religious figure in obscene pornography depictions is either wise, or morally acceptable.

This is the real debate, something that the politically correct “talking heads” in the media have refused to address. 

It is unwise and morally unacceptable to portray any religious figure obscenely and call it art or freedom of express.  The publishing of filth serves no legitimate purpose, has no redeeming values, and is certainly not moral or virtuous.

As a Public Service from the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

License Suspension or Custodial Sentence May Be Imposed on Defendant Convicted of Careless Driving In the Appropriate Case.

The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in State v. Palma that the municipal court may impose a license suspension and/or a jail term on a defendant convicted of careless driving pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:4-96, but only if the judge identifies aggravating circumstances from evidentiary sources from the record.

The court held that the seven factors set forth in State v. Moran, a case dealing with reckless driving can be used in deciding whether to impose a jail term and/or license suspension for a conviction for careless driving.  The Moran factors are: (1) nature and circumstances of the defendant’s conduct; (2) defendant’s driving record; (3) whether the license suspension would impose a hardship on the defendant and his dependents; (4) need for personal deterrence; (5) driving cause property damage or personal injury, (6) any other factor the court determines to be relevant; (7) whether the character and attitude of the defendant indicate that he or she is likely or unlikely to commit another violation.

New Jersey Appellate Court Reverses Manslaughter Conviction Because of Prosecutorial Errors During Opening Statement

Prepared as a Public Service by the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

In State v. Land, the appellate division opinion written by Judge Fisher reversed a first degree aggravated manslaughter and possession of a weapon for unlawful purpose convictions when the prosecutor in its opening statement cited facts and testimony of a witness which the prosecutor had reason to believe would not be testifying in the case.

Nonetheless the prosecutor knowing this, recited facts during her opening statement that could only be testified to by the unavailable witness.  The appellate division did not buy the State’s argument that the prosecutor was not sure that the witness would not testify.  In fact, at the time of trial, although the witness was granted immunity, refused to testify at trial, and none of the facts which the prosecutor claimed would come in through this witness never came in.

The appellate division held that even if the comments during the opening were made in good faith, and coupled with the fact that their was less than overwhelming evidence of guilt, the court was constrained to reverse the conviction . 

This case stands for the proposition that criminal defense counsel must listen carefully to prosecutor’s opening statement and make the appropriate objects at trial, and if necessary, on appeal.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

277 North Broad Street

P.O. Box 261

Elizabeth (Union County), New Jersey 07207

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Office Phone No. (908) 354-7006

Cell Phone No.   (201) 240-5716

NJ Criminal Defense Attorney Who Has the Skill and Experience to properly represent you in all types of federal and state criminal cases in Union, Essex, Bergen, Middlesex, Hudson, Passaic, Somerset, Ocean and Monmouth Counties.

Municipal Courts in New Jersey Must Provide Court Records, Files on All Municipal Court Cases

Prepared as a Public Service to the People by Attorney Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

New Jersey Court Rule 1:38 and Administrative Office of the Courts Directive No. 15-05 requires that the public have access to all municipal court records which include tape recordings of all court proceedings upon request by any party.

Many local municipal courts will hesitate to furnish these records and audio recordings but the law is clear, they must produce records of all court proceedings upon request. 

Interesting website on workings of local government can be found at www.njrandomgovt.blogspot.com.

Your decision in choosing a New Jersey criminal defense lawyer is important, make that choice wisely.  I invite you to look at the proven results of Attorney Sanzone. CriminalDefenseNJ.com

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

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth (Union County), New Jersey 07207

Tel: (908) 354-7006

YourCivilRights@gmail.com

Court Reverses Conviction Holding Identification of Defendant By His Large Penis by Victim was Prejudicial

Prepared as a Public Service by the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

In State v. Pena, Mr. Pena received some good news when the appellate division held that testimony of a prior case regarding Pena’s penis was prejudicial.  In this case Mr. Pena was charged with first-degree sexual assault when it was alleged that he inserted his finger inside her.  In this case the victim, E.D. claimed that she could identify him based among other things on the abnormally big penis. 

At trial the defendant presented pictures of his 4-inch penis and argued that in fact he had not an abnormally large penis but an abnormally small one.  Initially, the trial judge ruled that the pictures were not relevant, but on interlocutory appeal, the pictures were admitted at trial. 

Unfortunately, at trial the trial judge also allowed the prosecutor to introduce evidence regarding a prior lewdness conviction in which Mr. Pena’s seize was an issue.  In that case the witness reported that while erect Mr. Pena’s penis was 8” in length. 

The appellate division reversed the conviction holding that the trial court misapplied and did not make proper findings as to why the other crimes 404b evidence should have been admitted.  Because it appeared from the record that the trial judge allowed the evidence to refute the defendant’s contention that he had a small (identity) penis. 

This reversal seems to be of questionable validity since 404b evidence can be introduced to prove identity, and at first glance it appears that the trial judge made a correct call.   Obviously, this conviction did not sit well with the appellate division panel and hence, this is what they hung their reversal on.  

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

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth (Union County) New Jersey 07207

Tel: (908) 354-7006

CriminaldefenseNJ.com

The New Graves Act Increased Penalties in New Jersey

Prepared as a Public Service to the People by the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

On August 8, 2013, the Governor signed a new law with effective date of August 8, 2013, which now upgrades the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm to a crime of the first degree in certain circumstances. (See New Law)

Specifically, anyone with a prior conviction for a crime which triggered the no-early release statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2, will now be charged with a first-degree gun possession, and must serve a period of parole ineligibility.  Anyone else in possession of handgun, rife or other firearm, who has no prior record, will be charged as a second-degree crime.

In addition, if the firearm was used in the commission of a crime a mandatory period of parole ineligibility from one-third to one-half the sentence, or three-years which ever is less.

Looks like the New Jersey legislatures are making it harder for defendants to take pleas on these offenses and there will be more trials for experienced competent New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorneys.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

Elizabeth (Union County) New Jersey 07208

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Raymond Building

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

Tel: (908) 354-7006

Cross-Examination of Prosecution Intent To Distribute Expert

Prepared as a Public Service by the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

In New Jersey state court prosecution of defendant's charged with possession with intent to distribute,  similar to federal prosecutions, the state is permitted to introduce testimony from a law enforcement officer in their organization that the defendant possessed the contraband drugs not for personal use but with intent to distribute.

On might ask the logical question as to how this so-called expert is able to testify as to the intent of another.  Of course, few people have the ability to read the mind of some else.  In fact, in truth, most people cannot read their own mind with any reliability.  However, the state or government is permitted in having its so-called "expert witness" testify as to mind of another.  In reality, the state or government expert will always testify that the quantity of drugs seized is consistent with intent to distribute and not for personal use.  The expert will give this conclusion without knowing anything about the drug usage and habits of the defendant.

The courts have attempted to mitigate this powerful testimony with the legal fiction that the expert can only testify in the form of a hypothetical question, and not refer to the defendant by name.  The courts have decided that somehow this protects the defendant from the expert giving an ultimate opinion about the guilt of the defendant.  This meeker attempt to protect the defendant from the expert's opinion of guilt fails miserably and is no use to the defendant, because everyone in the court room knows who the expert is talking about, since he recites as the basis of his opinion, the facts elicited at trial.

In cross-examining these witnesses it is always important that the attorney stress, that this is in fact his or her opinion only.  That no empirical testing has been done to disprove or disprove his or her theory.  That no peer review was done with this opinion.  That no supervisor reviewed his or her opinion.  That the expert receives his or her paycheck from the same source as the prosecutor.  That they work in the same office.  That they never testified for the defense.  That the opinion is only as good as the investigation conducted.  That they have not done any independent investigation.  That they have not reviewed the defendant's medical records.  That they have not reviewed the defendant's treatment records.  That they never attempted to interview the defendant as to his drug use, and how long he or she has been using drugs.  Never attempted to interview family members of the defendant.  The list goes on and on.

If you have been charged with a drug offense, either with possession, distribution or intent to distribute case you are urged to contact the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.  An experienced and successful New Jersey criminal defense attorney, serving all state courts.  Union, Essex, Hudson, Morris, Middlesex, Bergen counties. 

Attorney Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., is Please To Announce His Achievement In Receiving the Avvo Clients’ Choice Award for 2012

New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr. is please to announce that he has received the Avvo Clients’ Choice Award for 2012.  This award is based on the high percentage of favorable client reviews in representing these clients as their New Jersey criminal defense attorney.

To see these reviews please go to Avvo webpage.

If you are charged with a serious federal or state crime you owe it to yourself to contact the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., to discuss your case in confidence.  Deciding who will represent you before the criminal courts in New Jersey is one of the most important decisions you will make, choose carefully.

Newark, Elizabeth, New Brunswick, Jersey City, Bayonne, Irvington, Linden, Plainfield, Union, Hackensack, Somerville, Criminal defense attorneys.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

277 North Broad Street

P.O. Box 261

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

Office:  (908) 354-7006

Cell:     (201) 240-5716

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Dated: January 8, 2013

Lawyer Vincent Sanzone | Lawyer Criminal Defense

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