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.
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
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
Dated: January 8, 2013
Friday, December 21, 2012
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.
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
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.
Friday, November 2, 2012
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.
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
Monday, October 15, 2012
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
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
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
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.
2. August 29, 2012, LAPD police officers slam defenseless
non-resistant woman to the ground.
3. August 17, 2010. Denver police brutality caught on tape while camera pans
away intentionally to cover-up brutality.
4. October 27, 2012. Police
Officer beats special-ed student over an un-tucked shirt.
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
8. May 8, 2012. Fatal
police brutality in which a homeless man is killed by police. The man suffered from mental illness and schizophrenia.
9. April 18, 2012. The murder
of Eugene Gruber. Police brutality and
murder by jail security officers in Chicago.
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.
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
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.
Monday, October 8, 2012
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)