DRUG LAWYER IN BERGEN, PASSAIC AND MORRIS COUNTIES: SENTENCING AND THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL

DRUNK DRIVING LAW IN BERGEN AND PASSAIC COUNTIES: THE INFLUENCE OF AN UNCOUNSELLED PRIOR CONVICTION ON SENTENCING

CRIMINAL LAW IN BERGEN AND PASSAIC COUNTIES: RIGHT TO COUNSEL

In May, the Court revisited that ruling in a case where an indigent defendant had an attorney assigned to him at an arraignment by the decision of the court and not at the request of the defendant. Subsequent investigative efforts produced an inculpatory statement, as well as, a letter of apology to the victim's widow. The defendant sought to suppress the information grounded upon the Jackson decision. The state court ultimately denied the request concluding that the Jackson opinion was not applicable because the defendant had not affirmatively invoked his right to counsel.

The defendant appealed the case to the United States Supreme Court which upheld the state court's decision. More importantly, however, the court overruled the Jackson case. That part of the decision seemed to be an overkill because the case could have been decided on the narrow issue as to whether the defendant invoked his right to counsel.

CRIMINAL LAW IN BERGEN AND PASSAIC COUNTIES: EVIDENCE TAKEN IN VIOLATION OF DEFENDANTS' RIGHTS CAN BE USED FOR IMPEACHMENT PURPOSES

Prior to the trial in that case, the government planted an informant in the defendant's cell and elicited harmful admissions relating to the murder and robbery of the victim. The defendant ultimately testified at trial and denied complicity in the crime. When the government sought to use the informant as a witness to contradict the defendant's testimony, the defendant objected on the basis of his Sixth Amendment Right to counsel. The trial court allowed the informant's testimony to impeach the defendant's testimony. The Kansas Supreme Court determined that the trial court's ruling was in error. The United States Supreme Court reversed that decision and endorsing the trial court's original ruling. The Court concluded that the exclusion of impeachment evidence under the circumstances of the case was outweighed by the need to prevent perjury and to insure that integrity of the trial process. In short, the court found that the philosophical underpinnings of the exclusionary rule was overwhelmed by the need to ensure truth in the criminal trial process.

CRIMINAL LAW IN NEW JERSEY: THE MRI AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

Criminal Law in New Jersey: The Right to a Speedy Trial

DRUG LAWS IN NEW JERSEY: THE FRAILTIES OF THE DUQUENOIS- LEVINE FIELD TEST (Part II)

The Right to Counsel in New Jersey: The Court's Responsibility to Provide Specific Advice

The Prompt Presentment Rule in Federal Prosecutions

A person arrested by the Federal Government has a right to be taken before a magistrate " without unnecessary delay". In those instances where a defendant has given a confession where there was a impermissible delay in presenting him/ her to a magistrate, the courts will suppress the confession.

Recently, the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed that principle in a case where the time hiatus between arrest and presentment to a magistrate was approximately twenty-nine hours. During that time, the defendant confessed to the crime subject of the government’s investigation. The court observed that the " prompt presentment" requirement was not just an administrative rule that could be bent at the government’s discretion, but rather, a very important one because when the defendant is presented to a judge or magistrate a number of steps will be taken to foreclose governmental overreach, including advising the defendant of his right to counsel. Resultingly, the court decided to suppress the confession.