May 2015

New Jersey Legislators Debate Ignition Interlock Statute

Following the lead of lawmakers in other states, New Jersey legislators have introduced a law to expand the use of ignition interlock devices for individuals convicted of DWI. Current law requires installation of the device for repeat offenders with a blood alcohol content (BAC) or 0.15 or higher. The proposed legislation would mandate an ignition interlock for first-time offenders with a BAC of 0.08 (the legal threshold) to 0.14 but would allow them to drive with an ignition lock for 3 to 12 months in lieu of a having their license suspended. In addition, if the defendant triggers the interlock device, the length of time may be extended or driving privileges may be suspended.

Under the proposed law, the presiding judge would be granted a certain amount of discretion. Based on the facts of the case, the judge could also suspend the defendant’s driving privileges, in addition to requiring the use of an ignition interlock.

An ignition interlock requires that a person blow into a device before the vehicle will start. If the device detects alcohol, the vehicle will be disabled.

Lawmakers say the legislation is necessary because simple license suspensions are not very effective. They cite studies conducted in numerous states that show that at least half of people convicted of drinking and driving ignore their license suspensions. They estimate that one in every three DWI arrests involves a repeat offender. Research indicates that repeat offenders are four times more likely to be involved in a fatal traffic accident as are first-time offenders.

The bill was approved by the New Jersey Assembly in 2014, and the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee has passed it. It must be voted on by the full Senate and signed by the governor to become law.

At the law offices of attorney Gregg A. Wisotsky, Esq., Partner, Javerbaum Wurgaft Hicks Kahn Wikstrom & Sinins, PC, we offer prospective clients charged with crimes a free phone consultation. We can answer your questions, explain your rights and help you understand your options relating to a criminal charge.

Contact our office online or call us at 973-898-0161 for a free consultation. In addition to our criminal law practice, we also represent clients in personal injury law cases.

State Supreme Court to Rule on Right to Jury Trial in DWI Cases

On February 17, 2015, the New Jersey Supreme Court agreed to hear oral arguments in an appeal from a New Jersey resident facing a fourth prosecution for drinking and driving. The legal issue the court has been asked to consider? Whether a person charged with DWI in New Jersey has a right to trial by a jury of his or her peers. In the case before the Supreme Court, State of New Jersey v. James R. Denelsbeck, the defendant requested a jury trial in municipal court, but his request was denied. The lower court ruling was affirmed in both the Superior Court and the Appellate Division. Though many perceive the right to trial by jury to be automatic and universal, the U.S. Constitution does not grant such an absolute right. Pursuant to the terms of the 6th Amendment, a defendant only has a right to a jury trial if the potential sanction may be more than six months. Under New Jersey law, Denelsbeck, if convicted, would face a maximum sentence of six months. Accordingly, the trial judge denied the request.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the 6th Amendment, many states have allowed defendants in drunk driving cases have their cases heard and decided by a jury. In New Jersey, however, it has long been the practice to have DWI cases heard in municipal court, where all matters are handled by a judge. Numerous efforts have been made over the last 25 years to move DWI prosecutions to Superior Court, where a defendant may have a jury trial. State officials have resisted the attempt, citing concerns about the costs of the many jury trials that would ensue.

The New Jersey Supreme Court established the current precedent in 1990, in State v. Hamm, concluding that, in New Jersey, a DWI is a motor vehicle infraction instead of a crime. The ruling in Hamm was consistent with a U.S. Supreme Court ruling a year earlier that found that DWI defendants facing a potential incarceration of six months or less do not have a right to trial by jury

Contact the law offices of Gregg A. Wisotsky, Esq., Partner, Javerbaum Wurgaft Hicks Kahn Wikstrom & Sinins, PC, criminal defense attorney in New Jersey.

At the law offices of attorney Gregg A. Wisotsky, Esq., Partner, Javerbaum Wurgaft Hicks Kahn Wikstrom & Sinins, PC, we offer prospective clients charged with crimes a free phone consultation. We can answer your questions, explain your rights, and help you understand your options relating to a criminal charge.

Contact our office online or call us at 973-898-0161 for a free consultation. In addition to our criminal law practice, we also represent clients in personal injury law cases.

Contact Us Today

Contact Us Today

Archives for May 2015

New Jersey Lawmakers Look at Ignition Interlock Law

New Jersey Legislators Debate Ignition Interlock Statute

Contact the law offices of Gregg A. Wisotsky, Esq., Partner, Javerbaum Wurgaft Hicks Kahn Wikstrom & Sinins, PC, criminal defense attorney in New Jersey.

New Jersey Supreme Court to Consider Right to Jury Trial in DWI Cases

State Supreme Court to Rule on Right to Jury Trial in DWI Cases

Contact the law offices of Gregg A. Wisotsky, Esq., Partner, Javerbaum Wurgaft Hicks Kahn Wikstrom & Sinins, PC, criminal defense attorney in New Jersey.