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.

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