Another year........

As we celebrate the beginning of 2014 with hopes and dreams of better things to come for all our Firm would like to thank our clients, friends and families for the years of trust, support and business! Happy New Year from all of us to all of you!

Improper Use Of DNA Evidence Is Reversible Error NJ

Dow was convicted of murder (N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3a(1)-(2)) and possession of a firearm with the unlawful purpose of using it against the person or property of another (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4a) for shooting and killing her former lover, William Michael Seidle. The victim was shot 3 times in the home he had shared with the defendant. The police recovered no evidence of a murder weapon or any other incriminating evidence when after a search of defendant's residence and storage unit. Another woman Seidle had been seeing received 2 voice messages from a woman with a deep voice and English accent instructing her to leave Seidle alone. Neighbors testified defendant was outside Seidle's home on the morning he was killed and her car was in the driveway the night before. Defendant was suspected of faxing 2 disparaging letters to Seidle's employer within the days leading up to the murder and was identified by the clerk in the printing store from which the faxes were sent. The day after Seidle's death was reported in the news, defendant attempted suicide leaving a lengthy note indicating her suicide attempt was on that date as it was the anniversary of her daughter's death, implicating her former lover in arranging to have Seidle "fixed", accusing Seidle of beating her regularly and failing to indicate knowledge of Seidle's death but he testified to the contrary on behalf of the State. The State used a DNA expert to explain that comparing DNA to DNA found in evidence can either include or exclude them as present or determine them to be the source of the DNA and tying this into a cut on defendant's nose not seen before Seidle's death. The State's expert did acknowledge that the mixture of DNA did not mean that all of the DNA on the fabric was placed there at the same time and defendant had lived with Seidle for some time prior to their break-up just before his murder. In State v. Dow, the NJ appellate court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial after finding that the prosecutor's use of the DNA evidence was knowingly mischaracterized and the admission of the defendant's suicide note without adequate evaluation of her statement that the suicide attempt, on the anniversary of her daughter's death, was in any way related to guilt or avoidance of prosecution. If you are facing criminal charges, there may be multiple defenses you have and the prosecution will make every effort to utilize any piece of evidence against you. It is critical that you obtain an experienced criminal defense attorney to represent you immediately. For more information about weapons possession or other criminal issues in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Purposeful and Knowing Intent And The Insanity Defense

A defendant pled guilty to kidnapping, attempted murder, burglary, weapons charges and other criminal charges in two incidents involving his wife and mother-in-law then sought post-conviction relief based on a claim that he was under the influence of prescription medication at the time the plea was entered and he was misled by counsel as to the terms of the plea agreement and inadequately informed as to potential defenses of insanity and diminished capacity. Without the benefit of an evidentiary hearing, the Essex County Superior Court Judge denied the defendant’s petition. The defendant, while in a Marine Corp combat unit, suffered a head injury while skydiving which caused him to experience blackouts and he also claimed to hear voices. While incarcerated and awaiting trial at the Essex County Correctional Facility, a psychiatrist found the defendant to be confused. He was also placed on suicide watch while awaiting trial as well as medicated. A psychological evaluation to determine competency to stand trial resulted in the finding defendant was bipolar and suffering serious depressive disorder but competent to stand trial. A pre-trial psychological evaluation revealed that, when defendant regained awareness and realized he was choking the victim, he called 911 requesting assistance for her. It was opined that Njango could not have formed the purposeful and knowing intent required to find guilt, nor could the attack have been premeditated. The State’s psychiatrist found defendant to have an intact memory and incapable of meeting the criteria to utilize an insanity defense. The NJ Appellate Division, in State v. Njango, rejected defendant’s argument that he was under the influence of prescription medication however, the Appellate Division did find he had a colorable defense based on a medical report indicating he was suffering from dissociative disorder and major depressive disorder as to one indictment and as to whether the defense was raised, or even discussed, as to the second indictment. Neither of defendant’s plausible issues was raised at the time the plea was entered and no waiver of the insanity defense or other incompetency defense was discussed at the time of the plea. After review of the matter, the court decided to reverse the decision of the Essex County Superior Court Judge and remand for an evidentiary hearing. If you have been charged with criminal activity the impact of a guilty finding or plea can be devastating on your future. Although many individuals are well acquainted with their rights, there are complexities in the law that dictate individuals are best served by obtaining experienced counsel to represent them. For more information about burglary, weapons charges, defenses or other crimes in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Multiple DUI and Driving While Suspended Charges in NJ

In a case involving 3 prior driving while intoxicated (DWI) convictions and 4 prior convictions for driving while suspended, a woman was charged with a 5th driving while suspended (DWS) charge. Such matters involving multiple prior events are forwarded from the municipal court to the county prosecutor’s office for resolution. The jury, in State v. Sharp, indicted the defendant on two counts of 4th degree driving while suspended and the defendant applied for pre-trial intervention (PTI). The defendant was accepted into the PTI program but the prosecutor objected to her entry based on her prior driving record which they found to reflect a lack of interest in rehabilitation and a pattern of disregard for the safety of other motorists and passengers. The defendant filed a motion for admission to PTI over the prosecution’s objection and the judge found in favor of Sharp, permitting her to enter the PTI program. In matters of PTI, the prosecutor has broad discretion in making the determination of whether defendants should be admitted. The standard for a judge to overrule the prosecution in requests for PTI admission is patent and gross abuse of discretion on the part of the prosecution. The state appealed the judge’s decision and the NJ Appellate Division found the judge to have erred in making the decision to overrule the prosecutor’s denial of admission to the PTI program. A guilty finding or plea in a DUI or other criminal matter can have substantial negative consequences on your future. PTI is a diversionary program which permits certain defendants to avoid more serious charges on their record and also is expungeable after a period of time. For more information about PTI, driving under the influence, driving while suspended, controlled dangerous substances (CDS) in a motor vehicle and other municipal and superior court criminal matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Insanity Defense Does Not Require Bifurcated Trial

From the ruling in State v. Khan, 175 N.J. Super. 72 (App.Div. 1980) through the ruling in State v. Handy, a 2004 murder case in Paterson, NJ, the rule was that criminal defendants seeking to employ an insanity defense would have bifurcated trials in which their insanity defense was tried separately from any other defenses they may have. For the foreseeable future, criminal defendants will be forced to make difficult decisions, judges are going to have to give detailed explanations to juries about inconsistent defenses and juries will have to learn to compartmentalize the defenses presented and consider them separately. There is definite reason for concern on the part of defendants given the complexity of this approach for juries and the ease with which a judge may fail to properly instruct a jury. Robert Handy was charged with the January 2004 murder of his uncle Arthur Cooper who died from a single stab with a knife to the heart. Handy had a history of mental illness which included his hospitalization in psychiatric facilities. Handy also made the claim that his uncle was high on cocaine and hit him with a piece of metal pipe maintaining that the stabbing was in self-defense. Passaic County Superior Court Judge Joseph Falcone found that handy was not competent to stand trial after an insanity defense was presented and without being permitted to raise his self-defense claim, Handy was confined to a mental institution. Handy was thereby prevented from presenting the weapon he claimed his uncle used against him, a bloody piece of metal pipe partly hidden under a couch which the uncle was apparently next to when stabbed. The pipe had the words "King Reveal" painted upon it and the same words were tattooed on the uncle's body. Defendant appealed and sought the opportunity to present his self-defense claim. According to the ruling of NJ Appellate Division, a defendant does not have to raise an insanity defense first subjecting themselves to commitment to a mental institution. Alternatively, however, if defendants opt to utilize an alternate defense initially, they may not then utilize an insanity defense if their first defense fails. In making its ruling, the Appellate Court evaluated Khan in light of our State's Criminal Code and found it to be in conflict with several aspects. Additionally, the Appellate Division determined Khan to be contrary to the approach used in other states and based upon District of Columbia law that is no longer valid. Serious criminal charges are certain to have a lasting impact on your future. A guilty plea or verdict in a murder case, even to a lesser charge, will change your life forever through incarceration, loss of future opportunities and social stigma. If you are facing criminal charges, you should consult experienced criminal defense counsel immediately to begin preparing your defense. For more information about murder, weapons, drugs (CDS) or other serious criminal charges in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

NJ Municipal Courts Prepare To Roll Out Diversionary Program

Until now, Municipal Court defendants accused of drug charges could apply for a Conditional Discharge and Superior Court defendants accused of other crimes could apply for Pre-Trial Intervention (PTI) but Municipal Court defendants accused of disorderly or petty disorderly persons offenses had no such opportunities available. Now, municipal courts are preparing for the new Conditional Dismissal program to take effect. Legislation was signed in September by Governor Christie to remedy the unfairness municipal court defendants faced as a result of the lack of a "second chance" program for certain minor offenses. Previously, the only thing that could be done was to downgrade disorderly or petty disorderly persons offenses to local ordinance violations which would still result in a criminal record for the defendants. Defendants who successfully complete the Conditional Dismissal program, including a year on probation, restitution to any victims, court costs, fines and other mandatory or discretionary assessments will not appear as a prior conviction for the defendants. Defendants are eligible for only one diversionary program in their histories. Meaning, if you have used a Conditional Discharge or PTI, you will not be eligible for a Conditional Dismissal. Additionally, if you utilize the Conditional Dismissal program you will not be able to use it again in the future. Additionally, defendants charged with DUI, gang activity, animal cruelty, offenses against the elderly, disabled or minors and official breach of public trust are ineligible for entry into the program. Those facing charges for controlled dangerous substances (CDS) in municipal court are eligible for a Conditional Discharge but not Conditional Dismissal. Criminal charges of any kind, even disorderly or petty disorderly persons offenses such as shoplifting or simple assault committed while young or during a lapse of good judgment can have significant and lasting impacts on your ability to enter certain schools, obtain certain professional licenses, obtain employment requiring public trust, security clearances and the like as well as the stigma that can accompany a criminal record. As a result of the way criminal charges can restrict your future opportunities, earnings, lifestyle and associations it is critical that you seek and experienced criminal defense attorney to assist you in any criminal charges you face, no matter how minor those charges may seem at the moment. For more information regarding Conditional Dismissal, Conditional Discharge, Pre-Trial Intervention, disorderly persons offenses, petty disorderly persons offenses, controlled dangerous substance, shoplifting, simple assault or other Municipal Court matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Drug Suppression Motion For Warrantless Search Denied

In State v. Salladino the defendant was indicted for 3rd theft of movable property (N.J.S.A. 2C:20-3) and 3rd degree possession of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS) (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10a1). The defendant won a suppression motion relating to the Oxycodone found during the warrantless search by police. The prosecution filed an interlocutory appeal and the N.J. Appellate Court determined that, although the Oxycodone was found during a search of the defendant's person exceeding the scope of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the drugs would have inevitably been discovered when the defendant was searched incident to the arrest for the robbery charges. According to the court's holding in State v. Sugar, 100, N.J. 211 (1985) if the evidence would have inevitably been discovered as a result of an independent and predictable circumstance, it remains admissible even if seized by other unlawful means. The Appellate division held that the suppression motion should not have been granted and remanded for further proceedings. Following a call from a robbery victim, police located 2 suspects in the vicinity matching the description given by the victim. The officer in charge of the investigation ordered that the suspects be brought before the victim for a show-up identification. Prior to transporting Salladino to the show-up, a police officer conducted a pat-down search of the defendant to ensure the defendant has no weapons. During the frisk, the officer felt a "hard bulge" and retrieved a pill bottle without a label or lid which contained 83 Percocet pills. The officer seized the pills but made no arrest regarding the Percocet. The suspects were positively identified by the victim during a show-up identification and they were arrested. At no time between the stop and the arrest could the defendant have removed the pills from his person without notice by the police, therefore, the Percocet would have been inevitably discovered during the search incident to arrest even though retrieving the pill bottle from the defendant's person exceeded the scope of a Terry stop as there was no reasonable basis to conclude the defendant was armed and the officer never claimed he believed the "hard bulge" was a weapon. If you are facing drug charges and believe evidence obtained against you may have been obtained in violation of your rights, you should consult with an experienced criminal defense attorney immediately. For more information about controlled dangerous substances, robbery, warrantless searches, CDS in a motor vehicle or other criminal issues in NJ visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney.