Contact Us Today

973-898-0161

New Jersey Senate Moves Forward on DogFighting Law

by Leave a Comment

Law to Ban Dog Fighting Approved by Senate Panel

Pug dogThe New Jersey state senate moved a bill forward in May that will criminalize dog-fighting operations and subject anyone participating in such activities to the state’s anti-racketeering statute. The bill also calls for a separate offense of leading a dog-fighting network.

The statute has been on the Senate’s docket for nearly a year, but gathered momentum after large dog-fighting rings were discovered in Paterson and Elizabeth earlier this year. In the Paterson raid, officers rescued three pit bulls after hearing barking, whimpering, cheering and screaming coming from a building on East 16th Street.

According to Senator Tom Kean, Jr., a Republican from Union, dog-fighting rings are typically one small component of a much larger criminal operation. A sponsor of the bill, Kean has proposed that persons arrested be charged with violating New Jersey’s criminal RICO laws, which he says would give prosecutors and those who actively oppose dog-fighting a lot more leverage when gathering evidence.

Calling the dog-fighting activities “the most visible, most violent, most painful example” of criminal activity that crosses state and town lines, Kean said it also involves gambling, drugs and other illegal activity.

If the statute is passes, anyone participating in a dog-fighting ring could be charged with a third-degree crime, with a possible sentence of three to five years in prison and fines of up to $15,000. Because the crime would fall under state RICO laws, though, the penalties could be much more severe. Courts could order the seizure of property related to or obtained with proceeds from dog-fighting, and could order restitution for housing and treatment of any animals harmed.

The proposed law identifies leading a dog-fighting operation as a second degree crime, with sanctions including five to ten years in prison and up to $150,000 in fines.

Contact Us

At the Law Offices of Gregg A. Wisotsky, Esq. Partner, Javerbaum Wurgaft Hicks Kahn Wikstrom & Sinins, PC, We offer a free phone consultation to every prospective client. For a complimentary evaluation of your case, contact our office online or call us at 973-241-7468. We will come to your home or the hospital to meet with you, if necessary. All major credit cards are accepted.

New Jersey Seeks to Amend Marital Privilege Restriction on Evidence

by Leave a Comment

New Jersey Senate Considers Law to Limit Marital Privilege Evidence Exception

Husband on phone with wife

Under current New Jersey law, conversations between spouses may not be used in a criminal prosecution, under what is known as the “marital privilege.” If a former Ocean County prosecutor, now a state senator, can muster the votes, the New Jersey Senate will legislate an exception to that privilege. Many other states have already enacted such an exception.

State Senator James Holzapfel proposed a bill that would create a “crime-fraud” exception to the longstanding legal principle. Holzapfel says he was motivated to draft the bill after the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that evidence obtained in a wiretap against a suspected drug dealer could not be used against him because he was discussing his criminal activity with his wife. In its opinion, the Supreme Court said that the law did not allow the evidence to be admitted at trial but suggested that the New Jersey legislature change the law.

The marital privilege, also known as spousal privilege, typically involves two separate privileges: a communications privilege and a testimonial privilege. Under the testimonial privilege, a person’s spouse cannot be called to testify in court in an adverse proceeding. The communications privilege, the subject of Holzapfel’s bill, prohibits prosecutors from using any communication between spouses against one of them in a criminal proceeding. Experts say the general purpose of the marital, or spousal, privilege, is to encourage spousal harmony and to avoid the situation where one spouse must condemn, or be condemned by, a spouse.

Contact the law offices of Gregg A. Wisotsky, Esq., Partner, Javerbaum Wurgaft Hicks Kahn Wikstrom & Sinins, PC.

We offer a free phone consultation to every prospective client. For a complimentary evaluation of your case, contact our office online or call us at 973-898-0161. We will come to your home or the hospital to meet with you, if necessary. All major credit cards are accepted.

New Jersey Lawmakers Look at Ignition Interlock Law

by Leave a Comment

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.

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.

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

by Leave a Comment

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.

The State of Medical Marijuana in New Jersey

by Leave a Comment

An Overview of the New Jersey Law Regulating Medical Use of Marijuana

In 2010, New Jersey joined several states by enacting legislation allowing the limited use of cannabis for medical purposes, making in legal for persons to “use marijuana to alleviate suffering from a debilitating condition.” There are now 23 states, including New Jersey, with some form of medical marijuana laws.

Under the New Jersey statute (N.J. Stat. Ann. §24:61-3), a person may be prescribed no more than two ounces per month. The recipient must be a New Jersey resident. The state does not have reciprocity with other states.

The prescription must be issued by a licensed physician and may be used only to treat specific qualifying conditions, including:

  • Cancer and the effects of treatment for cancer, including severe nausea or vomiting
  • Glaucoma
  • HIV/AIDS
  • Inflammatory bowel disease
  • Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), or Lou Gehrig’s disease
  • Multiple sclerosis
  • Seizure disorders, such as epilepsy
  • Any terminal illness where the doctor believes the patient will die within a year

The law allows the creation of up to six state-licensed dispensaries (two in each of the northern, central and southern sections of the state), which are currently operational. A person may not grow his or her own marijuana for medical purposes, however.

New Jersey’s law allows medical marijuana to be administered by a primary caregiver, who must be a resident of New Jersey and may not be the patient’s treating physician. The primary caregiver must be at least 18 years of age and will be ineligible to serve in that capacity if he or she has any prior felony drug convictions. The statute also limits primary caregivers to one qualified medical marijuana patient at a time.

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.

New Jersey Requires Police Cars to Have Video Recording Devices

by Leave a Comment

New Jersey Police Must Now Have Video Recorders

In recent months, several videotapes have surfaced, showing inappropriate behavior by police officers. In New Jersey, State Assemblyman Paul Moriarty used footage from a camera in a police officer’s car to contradict the officer’s testimony, leading prosecutors to drop all charges against Moriarty. In the aftermath of his experience, Moriarty introduced a bill requiring all police vehicles to have either a mobile or permanently installed video camera. The law was signed by Governor Christie last September.

Moriarty was pulled over by police in late July 2012 and asked to take a blood alcohol test. The police officer claimed that he pulled Moriarty over for making an illegal lane change. Moriarty refused to submit to a breath test and was promptly arrested and charged with both DWI and with refusal to take the blood test. A video from a camera mounted in the police officer’s car showed that Moriarty had not made the illegal lane change, as alleged. When prosecutors saw the video, they dropped the charges, knowing that they would not be able to admit any evidence obtained from the traffic stop.

The law enacted requires video cameras for all police department vehicles used “primarily for traffic stops,” whether leased, purchased or obtained in any other manner.

A police officer may have a camera attached to his or her uniform or body, or the camera may be permanently affixed to the patrol car.

The use of video cameras can be particularly important in DWI cases. In addition to refuting or
supporting evidence of probable cause to make the traffic stop, a video camera can capture any field sobriety testing to determine whether it was properly conducted.

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.

What Is the Three Strikes Law?

by

New Jersey’s “Three Strikes” Law

Following the trend of many states (there are now 27 others with similar statutes), New Jersey’s legislature enacted, back in the 1990s, one of the toughest laws mandating life imprisonment for persons convicted of three or more violent crimes. Also known as “habitual offender” laws, these laws customarily require significant sentencing enhancements if a person is convicted of a third “violent” offense. The specific offenses considered to be violent vary from state to state but generally include homicide, sexual assault, and burglary or robbery involving the use of a deadly weapon. Some defendants, however, have fallen under the three strikes laws for attempted theft or minor assaults, with one New Jersey man earning a life sentence for attempting to steal a purse (he knocked the victim down during that attempted theft).

It has long been the practice and within the domain of judges to increase sentencing for repeat offenders. It wasn’t until the early 20th century, though, that the state of New York enacted its “Persistent Felony Offender Law” (since ruled unconstitutional), giving judges additional legal support for extended sentences for repeat offenders.

The state of Washington passed the first true “three strikes” law in 1993, but it wasn’t initiated in the legislature but through a voter initiative. California voters followed suit in 1994. Within 10 years, 26 states and the federal government all had some form of three strikes law.

A study conducted by Boston University prior to the enactment of Massachusetts’ three strikes law in 2012 found that nearly two-thirds of those states that had similar laws on the books had scaled them back, removing some of the provisions that made certain sentencing mandatory, and limiting the length of the sentences. The study also concluded that, with the exception of California and Georgia, most states actually imposed three strikes sanctions on a very limited basis.

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 v. Skinner

by

Rap Lyrics Improperly Admitted Against Defendant in Shooting Case

The New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously affirmed a New Jersey Appellate Division decision overturning a defendant’s conviction based on the improper use of his self-written rap lyrics against him. Vonte Skinner was convicted of attempted murder, aggravated assault and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

The victim, Lamont Peterson, was shot seven times, and on the way to the hospital he told police that defendant Skinner was the person responsible.

Skinner’s first trial resulted in a hung jury. At that trial, the judge allowed into evidence rap lyrics, written by the defendant, as evidence of his motive and intent to commit the crime. The lyrics were found written in notebooks obtained from Skinner’s car by police using a search warrant.

Prior to the beginning of the second trial, Skinner again asserted his objection to the admission of the lyrics into evidence, but the lyrics were allowed. This trial resulted in Skinner’s conviction. Defendant appealed the case to the New Jersey Appellate Division. The panel reviewing the case overturned the conviction, holding that the prejudicial effect of the rap lyrics outweighed the probative value of the evidence. This is the balancing test used for any piece of evidence a party tries to have admitted. The rules of evidence allow for the admittance of any relevant evidence provided that the probative value is not substantially outweighed by the prejudicial effect, as determined by the judge.

On appeal the New Jersey Supreme Court agreed with the Appellate Division. “The admission of defendant’s inflammatory rap verses, a genre that certain members of society view as art and others view as distasteful and descriptive of a mean-spirited culture, risked poisoning the jury against defendant” (State v. Skinner, A-57/58-12, August 2, 2014).

The Court even went on further to state, “The State concedes that many of the lyrics found in defendant’s car and read to the jury were composed long before the circumstances underlying the instant offense took place.” Id. at 7. This further supported the Appellate Division’s finding that the prejudicial effect outweighed any sort of probative value the evidence might add to the State’s case.

The Court broadly concluded, “In sum, we reject the proposition that probative evidence about a charged offense can be found in an individual’s artistic endeavors absent a strong nexus between specific details of the artistic composition and the circumstances of the offense for which the evidence is being adduced.” Id. at 35.

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 973-241-7468 for a free consultation. In addition to our criminal law practice, We also represent clients in personal injury law cases.

Consequences of Violating a Restraining Order

by

Violating a restraining order carries significant consequences. Don’t do it, no matter how compelling the reasons are. It is considered a crime, and thus you may be facing jail time and incur steep fines. As well, if you are in the process of a contested divorce, violating a restraining order can work against you in any child custody matter that you are going through. A criminal contempt of court sentence will then impact the lives of your children, as well.

Restraining orders and orders of protection are often filed in cases that involve domestic violence or harassment. Restraining orders impact issues like these:

  • Your ability to stay in your own home if the person who took out the restraining order lives in the same home
  • Your ability to have contact with any of your biological children if the person who took the restraining order out against you is the other biological parent
  • Your ability to carry a handgun
  • Your ability to contact the person in question by phone or email or even on a social media forum

There are many times when a spouse will file a restraining order at the time he or she files for divorce. If the filing of the divorce is a surprise, such a notice can be extremely upsetting and embarrassment. You may want to act to defend yourself by talking to the person who filed the order, but that is the worst thing you could do as it will threaten your future.

Contact Gregg A. Wisotsky, Esq., Partner, Javerbaum Wurgaft Hicks Kahn Wikstrom & Sinins, PC, criminal defense attorney in New Jersey. If you are facing a violation of restraining order charge, you need to make sure your rights are protected, as the stakes are too high. Speaking to an attorney about the potential fines and jail time you are facing and how to mount a strong defense in your behalf can provide reassurance and legal protection at a time of need.

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 973-241-7468 for a free consultation. In addition to our criminal law practice, We also represent clients in personal injury law cases.

Just What Is the Difference Between Probation and Parole?

by

The difference between probation and parole is that parole is a conditional release that comes after you have served some portion of your jail sentence, while probation is in lieu of jail time.

Parole means that you have gone through an application process in front of the parole board and been released from your prison term early, so long as you fulfill certain conditions of your parole. These conditions include meeting regularly with a parole officer; not leaving the state unless you have been given written, legal permission; not getting arrested, doing drugs or committing any technical violations; and consistent payment of restitution, fines and child support if owed. Additionally, your parole may require you to seek work, follow curfew or other requirements, including attending treatment programs.

If you are arrested, the parole officer can seek to have your parole revoked, which would force you to serve out your jail sentence.

Probation means that your sentence has been “set aside,” so to speak, while your serve a term period of probation. During that probation period, you must not get arrested, will have to see a probation officer and will have to follow any other terms of probation, including any community service, restitution, treatment programs and the like. You also are not allowed to move out of state on probation unless you receive written legal permission from your probation officer. If you fail the conditions of your probation, your probation can be revoked, and you can be forced to serve out your jail sentence.

Contact Gregg A. Wisotsky, Esq., Partner, Javerbaum Wurgaft Hicks Kahn Wikstrom & Sinins, PC, personal injury 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 973-241-7468 for a free consultation. In addition to our criminal law practice, We also represent clients in personal injury law cases.

Contact Us

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

  • Super Layer Image
  • Morris Image
Award 1
Award 2
avvobadge2
Award 3
Award 4
Award 5
The National Trial Lawyers

Disclaimer : The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation. We invite you to contact us and welcome your calls, letters and electronic mail. Contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not send any confidential information to me until such time as an attorney-client relationship has been established.

© 2024 Gregg A. Wisotsky, Esq. Partner, Javerbaum Wurgaft Hicks Kahn Wikstrom & Sinins, PC, Attorney at Law. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer|Site Map