New Jersey Criminal Defense Law Blog : New Jersey Criminal Defense Lawyer & Attorney : John Marshall Law Firm : Drug Crimes, Domestic Violence : Monmouth, Middlesex & Union Counties

I have posted many times on the subject of Assault by Auto in DWI cases. Many individuals may think that these types of charges only effect "problem" individuals. This interpretation could not be more off base and, if you read the StarLedger recently, you would have witnessed this first hand. In this regard, a 55 year old woman from Westfield, who never had any problems with the law previously, struck a pedestrian in the parking lot of Lord & Taylor. It later turned out that this driver was driving while intoxicated.

The suspect in this case was originally issued several motor vehicle summonses. Further investigation apparently substantiated probable cause to issue indictable felony charges. As a result, the motorist was arrested this week on a charge of Aggravated Assault. This offense can be very serious and even includes a grade of Second Degree where injuries are serious enough. I would suspect that this charge is Third Degree based on the facts and the bail amount of $20,000, which is in the range of a Third Degree Aggravated Assault. The defendant is definitely in need of a solid Union County Aggravated Assault Attorney as incarceration could be a possibility depending on the seriousness of the injuries involved, the position of the victim on sentencing, and other factors. My real point is that someone from an affluent community, who is otherwise law abiding, can also be the subject of an Aggravated Assault. The poor judgment in getting into her car drunk could lead to severe penalties for this middle aged suspect.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Our firm has occasion to represent many individuals charged with shoplifting every year and, not surprisingly, this results in numerous cases involving the Mall at Short Hills. The question that prospective shoplifter clients almost uniformly ask is "what is going to happen to me". This inquiry is not easy to respond to with respect to Shoplifting Charges in Millburn Municipal Court. The reason for this statement is the fact that the Short Hills Mall and its prosecutor take the sanctity of the community especially serious as it relates to shoplifting. The amendment of shoplifting charges to a municipal ordinance, something that allows individuals to avoid a criminal conviction and record, is not the norm in Millburn Municipal Court. It takes much more in terms of lawyer effort and skill to accomplish this objective. Thankfully, the attorneys at our law firm possess significant knowledge in this area and this paid off for our client yesterday.

I represented a 57 year old woman in Millburn Municipal Court yesterday for attempting to steal a Burberry raincoat from a well known establishment in Short Hills.  We initially attempted to get the client approved for Pretrial Intervention (PTI) but the Superior Court remanded the offense to Millburn notwithstanding the dollar amount involved.  We thereafter encountered resistence in amending the complaint to a local ordinance violation. Our office was persistent and, with the assistance and cooperation of our client, we were able to have the charge amended. The client avoided a criminal record which was extremely important as she not a citizen of the United States - a shoplifting conviction could have been devastating. I believe that the same approach can be utilized by others in the future in hopes of overcoming the general rule against amendment of shoplifting charges in Short Hills and Millburn.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Individuals involved in a major conspiracy to commit credit card fraud and identity theft were indicted last week. The Justice Department claims that those arrested were involved in the largest case of its kind ever prosecuted in this country. The defendants were allegedly stealing credit card and debit card information and then reselling the information. Prosecutors believe that as many as 130 million numbers were involved thereby implicating many in New Jersey. The ringleader of the conspiracy, a 28 year old resident of the US, has been in custody since 2008 on separate charges of theft of computer data.

As technology and the use of credit cards becomes more and more prevalent in NJ, so too is the incident of fraud involving the computer, credit cards, and indentity theft. We have occasion to defend more and more individuals charged with these offenses and the law can be particularly problematic in this regard. In this regard, the legislature has recently adopted and/or amended New Jersey criminal laws related to tampering with computers and identity theft. We find that a thorough understanding of the technology, as well as audit principals and the law, are really handy in these cases. I have little doubt that the feds are well up to speed on this fronts as it relates to this case.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In an effort to provide the public with free and helpful legal information, our office has launched a wordpress site titled Union County NJ Criminal Attorneys. The information contained on the site includes a review of the law for common offenses enountered in Union County. The topics include theft crimes, marijuana and cocaine charges, dwi, simple and aggravated assault, and an assortment of other Union County Superior Court and Municipal Court offenses.

Our firm will continue to represent individuals in Union County out of our Cranford Office. Anyone seeking advice or representation for one of the aforesaid charges is encouraged to consult our Union County NJ Criminal Attorney.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

We are frequently retained to assist individuals on post conviction relief petitions so as to avoid deportation. The deportation can result from any number of criminal convictions but most often involves some type of drug offense. In this regard, Federal Law allows for deportation whenever an individual is convicted of a drug charge other than one involving possession of less than 30 grams of marijuana.

Monday evening I was consulted by a family in dire need of assistance. The father in the household had immigrated to the US in 1990. In 1995, he was convicted of a drug possession charge that was ultimately dismissed via a conditional discharge in 1996. The gentleman applied for a green card years later in or about 2008. It was his desire to obtain adjustment of his status in the United States to Permanent Resident (Green Card Holder). His application for adjustment was reviewed and he was directed to provide proof that his conviction was based on possession of less than 30 grams of marijuana. Unfortunately, there was no lab report to indicate the weight of the drugs and, based thereon, Homeland Security concluded that he was not only not entitled to adjustment but should be detained for deportation. The gentleman had been in detention for almost two weeks by the time the family got to me. The indication was that he would be deported within 10 days.

I immediately prepared a petition for post conviction relief that sought an Order concluding that, as a matter of law, the conviction was based on less than 30 grams of marijuana. Based on the fact that the police report confirmed that the marijuana comprised one joint and a small tin foil of green vegetation believed to be marijuana, it was my position that our client could not have possessed a prohibited amount of drugs. The Court agreed with my claim that these items simply could not amount to 30 grams of marijuana and filed an Order confirm that this was the case. The Order shall prevent the gentleman from being deported and it is also hoped that it will allow him to obtain the waiver necessary for him to become a permanent resident of the United States.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

NJ has adopted guidelines for how juvenile proceedings, including communications with minors, are to be undertaken by police and other officials. In this regard, N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-39 mandates that juveniles be represented by counsel at all critical stages of a case. The question addressed by the Court last week in State in the Matter of P.M.P concerned when a "critical" stage of a juvenile case is triggered. To wit, the Supreme Court concluded that every stage is critical from the point that police file a juvenile complaint and obtain an arrest warrant. Any questioning of a child following institution of the complaint and issuance of a warrant would require the presence of counsel or a valid waiver of this right following consultation with their defense attorney.

In P.M.P., the police began questioning of the juvenile prior to involvement of counsel. Since any interrogation undertaken following issuance of the warrant was at a "critical stage", an absolute right to counsel attached. The confession, which was procured following this stage of proceedings, was therefore held defective and was precluded from use in prosecution of the juvenile.

The decision in P.M.P. basically imposes a bright line rule precluding interrogation of minor's following arrest. One would have to question how anything otherwise could ever have been constitutionally permissible. Notwithstanding the holding, we can fully expect its dictates to be stretched beyond their limit absent proper attention by the defense.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The New Jersey Appellate Division was called upon this week to clarify what constitutes an illegal u turn. In this regard, the appellate panel held that section 39:4-125 of the motor vehicle code does not mandate that a motorist attempt to make a 180 degree turn in order for a violation to come into play. The Court found, instead, that this law applies whenever an attempt is made to turn a vehicle in the opposite direction in the face of a no U Turn sign.

The defendant in this case, State v. Smith, did not make a U turn in the traditional sense. The suspect made a left hand turn, pulled into a driveway, waited for a period, backed out, and then proceeded in the opposite direction. The Court concluded that the fragmentation of the turn did not suffice in negating a violation of the no U Turn provision.

While the decision has import in terms of motor vehicle defense, I see the more significant implications in the area of search and seizure. There is no question that police look for every opportunity to effectuate a motor vehicle stop when confronted with an enticing target (e.g. youthful operator). The interpretation of N.J.S.A. 39:4-125 by the NJ Court in Smith shall provide additional ammunition for police stops.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link