Limitations of Police as Witnesses at a NJ Criminal Trial

At trial, physical specimens, such as weapons used in commission of a crime, are used as evidence to convince jurors of certain facts. However, the prosecution or defense must use verbal testimony to explain their case to the jury. Even physical evidence has little significance without adequate explanation of why it is being presented. In light of the critical nature of verbal testimony at trial, there are written rules of evidence relating to how evidence may be presented. When a prosecutor or defense attorney questions a witness, they are asking carefully contemplated questions in an effort to have the witness state certain facts to the jury in a way that proves their own client's case. If the questions are out of line in some way, the attorney for the other party will object to the question. Similarly, there are written rules regarding what certain witnesses may testify to. Witnesses may be presented as qualified experts regarding certain issues in a case which allow them to offer "expert testimony" as to those particular issues. Most often, prosecutors use police and victims to make a case against the defendant. This is where an experienced and skilled defense attorney can make a big difference in the outcome of the defendant's case. Police may testify about the facts of an event but may not give opinion testimony unless they are qualified as experts to give such testimony. In a recent case, a defendant was charged with possession of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS) with intent to distribute, possession of CDS with intent to distribute within a school zone, employing a juvenile in a drug-distribution scheme and conspiracy to distribute CDS. The New Jersey court held that testimony offered by police of their beliefs regarding the occurrence of a crime, the involvement of a juvenile in the alleged crime and the character of the neighborhood in which the alleged crime occurred was opinion testimony inadmissible at trial. The court held the opinion testimony of the police to be so prejudicial to the defendant that a new trial was ordered in the matter. This blog is for informational purposes only and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter. If you face criminal charges you should consult an experienced criminal defense attorney immediately in order to protect your rights. For more information on criminal law matters, including municipal court matters, in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com.

Presumed Innocent Until Proven Guilty in NJ

Often those facing criminal charges find themselves facing substantial prosecutorial prejudice, especially if they have faced prior charges. Even those who have been acquitted of prior charges or who have had prior charges dismissed by the prosecution face such prejudice. Prosecutors rely heavily on the representations of police officers and work under the assumption that the facts presented by those officers are truthful. Prosecutors are involved in long-term investigations and oversee task forces in which police officers operate in the field to obtain information for prosecutors to use to obtain convictions against criminal offenders. In such cases, the prosecutor is intimately involved in the development of the evidence he or she will later present to a judge in order to obtain a conviction. The prosecutor is not simply putting on the State's case but is, in essence, putting on his or her own personal case against the defendant. As a result of their personal involvement and reliance on officers, prosecutors are rather zealous at times, sometimes overly so. Prosecutors must act within the bounds of the law. One way prosecutors overstep the rules is to attempt to shift the burden of proof to the accused in the minds of the jury. They will try to infer to the jury that if the defendant chooses to exercise his right not to testify against himself or herself then the jury may infer guilt. In a recent case, State v. Urgent, the defendant was convicted of robbery and unlawful possession of a weapon (a knife). The prosecutor attempted to influence the jury to believe the defendant's failure to produce certain witnesses permitted the jury to infer the defendant's guilt. The New Jersey Appellate Court's holding in State v. Urgent reinforced the notion that a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty and that the burden of proof remains on the prosecutor by reversing the guilty finding and remanding the case to Superior Court for a new trial. This means the prosecutor must prove the accused is guilty and, although the accused should present any available evidence in his or her favor, the accused is never required to prove innocence. This blog is for informational purposes only and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter. If you are facing criminal charges, you should consult an experienced criminal law attorney immediately in order to protect your rights. For more information on criminal law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com.

No Expectation of Privacy In A Cell Phone Number in NJ

A former Morris County teacher, Patrick DeFranco, was indicted on charges of first-degree aggravated sexual assault, second-degree sexual assault and third-degree endangering the welfare of a child after a wiretap provided evidence of a past sexual relationship between the teacher and a former student. The abuse had gone unreported for 7 years and the student no longer had evidence of the relationship. In order to obtain evidence, the victim agreed to call the Defendant while the police listened on a recorded line. The cell phone number the victim had for DeFranco was no longer valid so the Morris County Prosecutor's Office, with the help of Denville police, obtained DeFranco's current cell phone number from Valleyview school. A call took place in which DeFranco chose to discuss past sexual contacts with the victim. At trial, DeFranco moved to suppress the wiretap based on the fact that, although he had given his prior cell phone number to the victim, he had not given the number used for the wiretap to the victim. He further argued that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his cell phone number and the police should not have obtained same without a warrant, for which they may not have met the probable cause requirements. Morris County Superior Court Judge Dangler refused to suppress the evidence obtained from the phone call. The NJ Appellate Court upheld Dangler's decision, finding there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in a cell phone number and, even if there was, DeFranco waived it by giving the victim his number in the past. The Appellate Court also noted DeFranco's choice to recall intimate details of his past during a voluntary conversation with a victim he had sexually abused in the past. This blog is for informational purposes only and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter. If you are charged with a crime, you should consult an experienced criminal law attorney immediately in order to protect your rights. For more information on megan's law, sex-crimes, endangering the welfare of a minor or other criminal law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com.