Jersey City

Prior Convictions Unlawfully Preventing Defendants from Testifying at their own Trials

Published on: February 7, 2022 | by Stephen J. Natoli

Jersey-City-Criminal-Lawyer-Testifying-Witness--300x169 Witness “impeachment” refers to the process of attacking a witness’s credibility and the accuracy of their testimony at trial. The Federal Rules of Evidence and the New Jersey Rules of Evidence both allow the impeachment of a witness’s credibility by use of their prior convictions. However, when the witness is a defendant testifying in their own trial, there are specific rules that apply to the State’s use of their prior convictions.

Under the N.J.R.E. 609, the use of a prior conviction is limited “[i]f, on the date the trial begins, more than ten years have passed since the witness’s conviction for a crime or release from confinement for it, whichever is later.” The rule also states that when a conviction is ten years remote, it “is admissible only if the court determines that its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect, with the proponent of the evidence having the burden of proof.”

On December 27, 2021 the Supreme Court of New Jersey decided in State v. Tywaun S. Hedgespeth that a lower court’s ruling, allowing the use of Defendant’s prior convictions for impeachment purposes was not harmless error.

Criminal Statute Partially Struck Down on First Amendment Grounds

Published on: December 16, 2021 | by Stephen J. Natoli

Jersey-City-Criminal-Lawyer-Natoli-Free-Speech--300x300 On December 9, 2021 the New Jersey Appellate Division published a decision which struck down a portion of New Jersey’s terroristic threats statute. In State v. Calvin Fair, the defendant was charged with and convicted of terroristic threats. On appeal, Defendant argued constitutional over breadth regarding N.J.S.A. 2C:12-3(a). Said section criminalizes threats of violence made with the purpose to terrorize another […] or in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror. A three-judge panel agreed with the appellant’s arguments and struck down subsection (a). This resulted in a reversal of Defendant’s conviction and a remand for a new trial.

In Fair, the court analyzed different opinions throughout our nation’s state and federal courts. The court analyzed this case, in part, through the lens of the “true-threat” doctrine. The “true-threat” doctrine recognizes that our nation has a “profound national commitment to the debate on public issues which may well include vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks […]” as well as “vituperative, abusive and inexact language.”

The court then focused on Virginia v. Black which held that Virginia’s criminal statute did “not run afoul of the First Amendment” because it did not just ban cross burning; it banned cross burning “with intent to intimidate.” The Court in Black held that a state can punish threatening speech or expression only when the speaker “means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.”

Knock and Announce Warrants must be Scrupulously Honored by Law Enforcement

Published on: December 9, 2021 | by Stephen J. Natoli

The United States Constitution, through the Fourth Amendment, protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. Article I, Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution, however, provides even greater protections against these unreasonable searches and seizures.

Evidence obtained in violation of these constitutional protections is usually inadmissible as per the exclusionary rule. The “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” is a legal metaphor used to describe such illegally gathered evidence and the inadmissibility of any additional evidence derived from it.

On November 3, 2021 the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey addressed the appropriate remedy for such unreasonable searches and seizures in State v. Caronna and State v. Collado.

New Jersey Court Allows Law Enforcement Identification of Suspect on Video

Published on: September 21, 2021 | by Stephen J. Natoli

In New Jersey, the rules of evidence indicate that lay opinion testimony, which is non-expert witness testimony, is admissible when two conditions are met. First, the witness’s testimony must be rationally based on their perception. Secondly, the testimony must assist in understanding the witness’s testimony or determining a fact in issue.

However, assessing the admissibility and helpfulness of lay opinion testimony may present challenges when the potential for undue prejudice surfaces.

In State v. Sanchez , the Defendant filed a pretrial motion to exclude the lay opinion testimony of his parole officer who had identified him as a suspect in connection with a homicide and robbery investigation.

Supreme Court Ruling Has Sweeping Implications for Car Stops

Published on: September 13, 2021 | by Stephen J. Natoli

Over the years, thousands of motorists have been stopped for having their license plate partially blocked. Often times, the stops are pretextual in that law enforcement’s real interest in the vehicle and its occupants is the desire to conduct a criminal investigation. In State v. Roman Rosado and State v. Darius Carter, two individuals that had been pulled over in a pre-textual manner challenged the statute on constitutional grounds. Rosado and Carter prevailed in their challenges.

The Supreme court ruled that N.J.S.A. 39:3-33 should be read narrowly and afford individuals whose license plates are partially blocked but otherwise legible the benefit of the doubt. More specifically, the court stated that, “if a frame conceals or obscures a marking in a way that it cannot be reasonably identified or discerned, the driver would be in violation of the law.” Conversely, if a phrase like “Garden State” is partly covered but still recognizable, there would be not violation.

This decision is immensely important for individuals who are pulled over in a pre textual manner only to have a subsequent investigation lead to a car search and the recovery of alleged criminal contraband.

Statutory Requirements for Compassionate Release in New Jersey

Published on: September 10, 2021 | by Stephen J. Natoli

A petition for compassionate release is typically granted to inmates who suffer from a terminal illness or profound incapacity that renders them physically incapable of committing a crime in the future.

In New Jersey, there are specific requirements that must be met prior to a court’s consideration for compassionate release. First, an inmate must present a Certificate of Eligibility from the Corrections Department indicating that two department-designated physicians have determined that the inmate suffers from a terminal condition or permanent physical incapacity that did not exist at the time of sentencing.

After such a certificate is presented, the court may grant compassionate release but only if the court has found, by clear and convincing evidence, that the inmate is physically incapable of committing future crimes and that they pose no threat to public safety.

Supreme Court Deals with IEC Claim in Jersey City Homicide Case

Published on: August 30, 2021 | by Stephen J. Natoli

Ineffective assistance of counsel is a claim that a criminal defendant may assert when their defense attorney’s inadequate representation constitutes a violation of their Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

However, not all cases concerning an attorney’s unsatisfactory performance entitle a defendant to relief. The 1984 landmark Supreme Court case of Strickland v. Washington outlined the two requirements for proving ineffective assistance of counsel: (1) counsel’s performance must be deficient under the circumstances, and (2) but for the counsel’s deficient performance, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the case would have been different.

Since inadequate representation creates unfair disadvantages to defendants, and often wrongful convictions, successful ineffective assistance of counsel claims may allow for an overturned conviction, vacated sentence or even a new trial.

Peremptory Challenges: Discouraging or Inviting Discrimination in Jury Selection?

Published on: August 18, 2021 | by Stephen J. Natoli

During the process of jury selection, attorneys from either side may seek to remove jurors they deem unfit to serve. A “for cause” challenge allows attorneys to exclude potential jurors that do not meet the standard criteria or cannot remain impartial when applying the law.

A peremptory challenge, on the other hand, permits attorneys to excuse potential jurors without any explanation. The Federal and State Constitutions allow attorneys to use a limited number of peremptory challenges as long as jurors are not rejected based on their race, gender, religion or class. New Jersey courts have established a specific analysis that allows parties to contest a peremptory challenge if it is believed to be discriminatory.

In State v. Andujar, the Defendant was accused of stabbing his roommate multiple times with a knife. A few days after the incident, the roommate died as a result of the stab wounds. In 2017, the Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and two weapons offenses.