The Supreme Court of New Jersey’s decision in State v. Isaiah J. Knight offers a nuanced examination of the limits of reciprocal discovery in criminal cases, particularly focusing on the circumstances surrounding an affidavit recanting a witness’s previous identification of the defendant as the perpetrator of a crime. The facts of this case play a crucial role in understanding the Court’s rationale and its implications for criminal defense. On June 1, 2021, Tyzier White was fatally shot outside the Neptune Lounge in Newark. Two witnesses, known by the nicknames “Zay” and “DJ Neptune,” identifi ..read more

In a landmark decision that underscores the evolving landscape of criminal law, the New Jersey Supreme Court in State v. Brandon M. Washington set forth new guidelines aimed at enhancing the reliability of eyewitness identification, a pivotal issue in criminal defense, especially in jurisdictions like Jersey City. The ruling reflects a nuanced understanding of the psychological underpinnings of eyewitness memory and its vulnerability to suggestion, emphasizing the need for stringent controls over the identification process. At the heart of the decision is the acknowledgment of the significant ..read more

In a landmark decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court provided critical insights into the state’s witness tampering statute through the case of State v. William Hill. This case scrutinized the boundaries of lawful communication and witness intimidation, posing significant implications for criminal defense strategies. The core of the dispute revolved around William Hill, who faced charges of first-degree carjacking. While awaiting trial, Hill sent a letter to the victim, asserting his innocence and urging the victim to “tell the truth” if unsure about his identity as the perpetrator. This act le ..read more

The Supreme Court of New Jersey’s decision in the case of State v. Curtis L. Gartrell presents a significant analysis of property rights and the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. In this case, the court examined the concept of abandonment in the context of a police chase, where the defendant fled and left behind a suitcase containing illegal substances. By abandoning the suitcase, Gartrell relinquished any privacy interest he had in the item, thereby negating his ability to challenge the police’s warrantless search of the suitcase. The decision undersco ..read more

Summary Cell tower evidence is frequently used in criminal cases. The New Jersey Supreme Court recently issued a pivotal decision in the case of State v. Roberson Burney, a case dealing with complex issues of evidence admissibility and the potential for cumulative error during a trial. The Court ruled that both expert testimony regarding the defendant’s cell phone location based on a “rule of thumb” approximation and a first-time in-court identification of the defendant were inadmissible. The combination of these errors, the Court held, deprived the defendant of a fair trial. The post Under ..read more

Attorney Stephen Natoli successfully argued before a three-judge panel that his client’s rights had been violated during a 2019 trial handled by prior counsel.  Following the trial, Defendant was sentenced to twenty-three (23) years in prison.  He had been serving his prison sentence when he retained Mr. Natoli for his appeal. At issue on appeal was whether or not, a testifying detective could narrate a video of the incident and render a lay opinion regarding an ultimate issue in the case: the cause of the car wreck. Also at issue was whether or not valid waiver of Defendant’s appear ..read more

Under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the laws of New Jersey, suspects are entitled to have an attorney present while they are held in custody for questioning. But how explicit must your request for counsel be? In State v. Laura Gonzalez, the Supreme Court of New Jersey answered this question. The post Invocation of Your Right to Counsel: How Concise Must Your Request for Counsel Be? appeared first on Hudson County Criminal Lawyer Blog ..read more

Three Strikes Laws were adopted in certain jurisdictions to protect the public from habitual offenders who repeatedly commit certain violent crimes.  These law typically mandate a sentence of life imprisonment without parole for a third-time offender. In New Jersey, the crimes that constitute “strikes” include those such as murder, manslaughter, aggravated assault, kidnapping, sexual assault and robbery. But should crimes committed as juveniles be considered predicate offenses under the rule? The post New Jersey’s Three Strikes Law and Juvenile Offenses appeared first on Hudson County Cri ..read more

Sentencing Courts must carefully consider all aggravating and mitigating factors. Following a criminal defendant’s conviction or guilty plea, a judge decides the appropriate punishment at sentencing. A sentence may include incarceration, probation, fines, restitution, community service and participation in rehabilitation programs.  However, there may be instances where a judge is able to enhance or reduce a sentence based upon factors specific to the defendant and the crime committed. Factors that indicate higher culpability, and may result in a harsher sentence, are known as “aggravati ..read more

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 co ..read more