DRUG ATTORNEY IN BERGEN, PASSAIC AND MORRIS COUNTIES: THE SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO REPRESENT ONESELF

In February 2010, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals granted a writ of habeas corpus in a case that produced a conviction over twenty-two years ago.  The defendant in the case was Anthony Alongi.  His  co-defendant Paul Kamienski had his conviction reversed by the Third Circuit last year because of insufficient evidence.  The case had its roots in a drug transaction that went bad and resulted in the murder of two people.

The issue in the Alongi case related to whether he was entitled to represent himself during the course of his trial.  In the beginning stages of prosecution Alongi engaged a well known criminal attorney to represent him.  That attorney was conflicted out of the case and another lawyer with good criminal experience was hired.  After a while,  Alongi got the impression that the second attorney was not “interested” in this case because the lawyer was not getting paid.  Resultantly,  Alongi requested the trial court to allow him to function as his own attorney.  The application was denied.  As things developed, the second attorney did a stellar job for Alongi when he obtained an acquittal on the murder charges. 

During the habeas corpus litigation the government contended that Alongi’s application to act as a pro se litigant was untimely and that he did not clearly articulate his request to represent himself.  The Court rejected both claims and confirmed that the Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel also contained a right to proceed without counsel.

DRUG LAW IN BERGEN AND PASSAIC COUNTIES: THE SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO CROSS WITNESSES AND THE HEARSAY RULE

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 Bergen and Passaic Counties: The Right to a Speedy Trial (Part 1)

The right to a speedy trial is guaranteed by the Sixth  Amendment to the United States Constitution.  It is so fundamental in its concepts that it is applicable to the States.  The protections afforded by this component of the Sixth Amendment are triggered upon either arrest or indictment.

The following factors must be balanced in analyzing a defendants speedy trial claim: (1) the length of delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) the defendant’s assertion of his right; and, (4) the  prejudice to the defendant.  It is critical to know that none of these factors is regarded as “either necessary or sufficient condition”  to the finding that a defendant’s right to a speedy trial has been violated.