Denying Defendant Access To Witnesses Results In Reversal of Robbery Conviction

In 2007, a convenience store robbery took place in which a man showed the cashier a gun hidden in his hooded sweatshirt and demanded the money from the register. The cashier identified a photograph of Daniel Blazas from a photo array shown to him by police the following day at the Sayreville police station. Defendant's ex-fiancee, Jennifer McHugh, provided police with a statement a couple of days after the robbery saying she received a call from defendant indicating he had robbed the "Indian store." Defendant was charged with first-degree armed robbery (N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1); 3rd degree unlawful possession of a weapon (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b)); 2nd degree possession of a weapon for unlawful purposes (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(a)); 4th degree aggravated assault (N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(4)); and 3rd degree theft (N.J.S.A. 2C:20-3). Defendant filed, among other motions, a motion to dismiss the indictment based on bias based on the misconduct of the prosecution in preventing the defense from speaking with Ms. McHugh directly or Sayreville police officers. After certain denials on the part of the prosecution, the trial judge denied defendant's motion. On the appeal of State v. Blazas, the court held that a defendant's right to due process is violated when the government substantially interferes with defendant's ability to present a complete defense. The Constitution guarantees criminal defendants the right to a complete defense which includes access to evidence the prosecution has whether said evidence is negative or favorable according to the Court in State v. Garron, 827 A.2d 243 (2003). In Blazas, the denial of access to witnesses by the prosecution was held to be conduct in violation of defendant's due process rights and requiring reversal of the defendant's conviction. If you or a loved one have been charged with a crime and believe a critical issue in the case will be witness testimony, you should consult with an experienced criminal defense attorney to ensure your rights are protected. A criminal record can have substantial impact in both the short and long term. In the short term, you may be facing prison, jail, drug court, rehabilitation or probation and in the long term you may face inability to obtain employment, denial of educational opportunities, loss of professional licenses, discrimination, registration as a sex offender or other embarrassing and limiting consequences. For more information regarding robbery, burglary, weapons offenses, assault, drug charges or other criminal law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Client Expectations In Criminal Matters

Many accused of criminal activity based on their affiliations with certain entities and organizations of which law enforcement agencies take a negative view have heard, or even worked with, attorneys fabled for the extremes to which they will go on their client's behalf. In the past, the methods employed by such attorneys may have been effective but technology has advanced and most recently led to the sentencing of Paul Bergrin the former assistant Essex County prosecutor, assistant U.S. Attorney in Newark and then private practitioner. Mr. Bergrin had a very successful practice and was frequently selected by noteworthy clients due to the tactics he employed once retained as defense counsel. Mr. Bergrin offered those clients willing to pay the price such services as assistance in arranging witness murders, other methods of resolving witness issues and creating positions at his law firm to assist in the operation of illegal enterprises like call girls and cocaine distribution rings. Mr. Bergrin was convicted to 6 life terms by U.S. District Judge Dennis Cavanaugh. Law enforcement was so intent on the termination of actions taken by Bergrin that U.S. District Judge William Martini, originally assigned to the case, was replaced by Judge Cavanaugh after Martini dismissed 3 RICO counts against Bergrin as well as granting other relief sought by the former defense attorney. This is a message not only to defense attorneys but also to those accused of crimes in regard to what is not acceptable in criminal defense. Although the actions of Paul Bergrin clearly spun out of control as a result of the exorbitant amounts clients were paying for his services, the reality is that clients should not anticipate that their attorneys will employ illegal tactics in their defense. When consulting counsel if you have been accused of a crime, it is the responsibility of the client to advise the attorney of witnesses or alibis favorable to the defendant, physical coercion of co-defendants or law enforcement as an inducement to commit the offense and any other proof demonstrating innocence. You should expect your attorney to zealously advocate on your behalf and to present all evidence which tends to prove your innocence. Defendants should anticipate that motions to suppress will be filed to prevent the prosecution from using any evidence obtained in violation of the defendant's rights. There are methods which should be employed by experienced criminal defense attorneys to protect your rights and obtaining experienced counsel to protect your rights is critical. For more information regarding criminal matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

NJ Robbery Matter leads To Another Jail Credit Decision

In a case stemming from two separate robberies in Essex County, allegedly committed by Amerigo Rodriguez, the NJ Appellate Court considered the manner in which jail credits accrue. Rodriguez pled to two 2nd degree robbery charges and was sentenced to two consecutive 10 year terms, each of which carried an 85% parole disqualifier under the No Early Release Act (NERA), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2. Before a parole detainer was lodged against Rodriguez, he received 4 days of jail credit on one judgment of conviction and none on the other. Rodriguez appealed the decision regarding jail credit and the NJ Appellate Division, in State v. Rodriguez, reviewed the facts in light of other NJ cases in which parole detainers were lodged against defendant's awaiting disposition of other charges. In State v. Harvey, 273 N.J. Super. 572 (App. Div. 1994), Harvey was charged with 3rd degree possession of cocaine with intent to distribute within 1,000 of a school zone and 3rd degree conspiracy to distribute cocaine. The Harvey court considered Rule 3:21-8 to uphold a decision that defendant would receive only 3 days of jail credit for pre-sentence custody. In Harvey, the Appellate Court reasoned that, had the defendant bailed out on the new charges he would have remained in custody due to the parole violation and therefore no jail credits would accrue on the new charges. In State v. Black, 153 N.J. 438 (1998), a case commonly cited to when courts are considering jail credits, the NJ Superior Court held that any confinement served as a result of a parole warrant did not qualify in the accrual of jail credits during the pendency of sentencing on later matters. Ultimately, the guidance of prior decisions led to the court's affirmation of the decision below in Rodriguez If you are facing criminal charges in New Jersey while under supervision for other charges, the view the prosecution or finder of fact may take of you and the final sentence you may receive are likely to be affected by the prior supervision issue. It is imperative that you seek experienced criminal defense counsel when facing any charges against you and prior supervision only serves to complicate your matter by magnification of any negative issues the prosecution can find against you. For more information about robbery, burglary, drug charges or other serious criminal or municipal court offenses in NJ visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of legal counsel.

DUI Discovery Rules Apply To Defendants, Not State

Right to speedy DUI trial, as long as the state wants one, and the right to know the evidence the state will use against you but anything they leave out will be admissible later. Hardly sounds fair right? In State v. Wolfe the defendant was convicted of driving while intoxicated based only on his Alcotest result. The DUI was the second for defendant, carrying harsher penalties. The state failed to provide discovery, including the Alcohol Influence Report (AIR) which includes machine test blanks, defendant’s test times, breath sample quantities and provides the defendant’s blood alcohol content (BAC) level to determine whether defendant is over the legal limit of .08%. At the time the trial began Wolfe, not having received the results of his breathylizer test, believed the trial would be based only on the observation of officers on the scene of the arrest regarding his balance, coordination and ability to process information mentally. Midway through the trial the state provided the results and defendant was convicted of per se driving under the influence based on the Alcotest result. The New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed the conviction because defendant suffered no prejudice as a result of the delay and the state’s failure to submit the document was an error and not intentional. By way of contrast, if the defendant failed to provide notice of exhibits or witnesses, was not ready to proceed or otherwise sought to alter the standard procedure in the trial of the matter it is unlikely, based on experience, that judges would allow for such measures by defendants. Driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs in New Jersey can have serious and lasting consequences including the loss of license which limits freedom, can preclude you from certain jobs or other opportunities, bears substantial fines and penalties including the possibility of an interlock device being installed in your vehicle and even jail time. If you are charged with DUI, you should consult an experienced attorney immediately to provide you with the best defense possible and ensure your rights are protected. For more information about DWI, controlled dangerous substances (CDS) in a motor vehicle, reckless driving, driving while suspended or other serious municipal court matters visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Eyewitness Identification And Criminal Defense

In State v. Henderson, 27 A.3d 872 (N.J. 2011), an indictment for first degree murder was issued by a grand jury and the defendant was ultimately convicted of manslaughter, aggravated assault, and weapons charges after a jury trial in which much weight was placed on an eyewitness identification. In the underlying matter, a man was shot and killed while another, who had been smoking crack and drinking wine, was held at bay in another room by an armed accomplice. The accomplice was identified by the man he held at bay during a photo lineup in the police station 13 days after the shooting. A Wade hearing was granted to determine the admissibility of the eyewitness ID and applied the Manson/Madison test to determine whether the criteria were met. The trial court decided the ID procedure implemented by the police was not impermissibly suggestive nor did it imply a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification and the eyewitness ID was admitted. The New Jersey Supreme Court considered factors which may affect an individual's memory and divided them into lineup procedures, controlled by police, and estimator variables, including the witnesses age, lighting, lapse of time between the event and ID as well as other similar variables over which the police have no control. The defendant has the initial burden of showing police procedures were "impermissibly suggestive." Unless there is irreparable harm, the court should present the jury with appropriately tailored instructions. The lineup, 13 days after the crime, was presided over by a detective other than the primary investigator, the eyewitness did not make an ID until told by the police to "do what he had to do" so they could be finished and the eyewitness testified he felt pushed to selecting the defendant from the lineup presented. The Court held that suggestive comments of the investigating officers during the identification procedure were substantial enough to entitle Henderson to a pretrial hearing and remanded the case for a hearing that weighs all system and estimator variables, meaningfully deters police from suggestive procedures, permits jurors to knowledgably evaluate the effects of factors on memory and flexible so as to guarantee fair proceedings. Eyewitness identification procedures are exceedingly fallible. If you have been charged with a crime as a result of eyewitness identification, there are multiple ways to attack the state's case against you and it is critical that you obtain an experienced criminal defense attorney immediately to protect your rights. For more information regarding aggravated assault, weapons charges, drug charges and other criminal matters in NJ visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Alcotest to Stay For Now In NJ

The New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that, for the time being, the Alcotest, the chemical test formerly known as the Breathylizer, given to drivers arrested for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) to test their blood alcohol content (BAC) or alcohol to blood ratio, will stay after much debate. For months there has been much discussion of the possibility of dispensing with the Alcotest as a result of the State's failure to comply with the ruling in State v. Chun, 194 N.J. 54 (2008), the monumental case pertaining to the implementation of the Alcotest in place of the Breathylizer and wheher the Alcotest was scientifically reliable as a means of measuring BAC levels. In Chun, the NJ Supreme Court held the Alcotest to be scientifically reliable at the time and that, with the nine software revisions to be implemented over time by the manufacturer, Draeger, it would remain reliable. The recent litigation was over the fact that Draeger never did the software updates and a database that set up to store information regarding Alcotest device logs, including service dates and test results, which attorneys could use in trying DUI matters in the event of errors or discrepancies with machine results. In the past two years there have been an increasing number of people questioning the reliability of the device based on errors in the database and lack of software updates. The result of unreliable machine or data could be a significant detriment to those facing charges of driving under the influence. The NJ Supreme Court has now made it clear that they are deeming the machine to be reliable yet intend to replace its use in the State of New Jersey within the next 3 years. The court expressed that if a suitable replacement can be found they will consider the device, however, in spite of the Courts reversal of it's own prior requirement for updates and database maintenance, with the three years ahead on them there is no rush. DWI in NJ will have a serious impact on your life and can have significant implications in related matters such as later personal injury. If you are charged with a DWI in NJ you should seek an experienced attorney immediately to protect your rights. For more information about DWI, DUI, possession of a CDS in a motor vehicle, reckless driving or other serious municipal court or traffic matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.