AG Modifications To CJ Reform Policies: Part 7

by | Nov 20, 2017 | Blog, Criminal Law, New Jersey

The old section 4.6.2 from the Attorney General Criminal Justice Reform Directive was replaced with the following section, consistent with the Attorney General’s new emphasis on detaining all alleged “domestic violence” offenders pretrial:

4.6.2 Critical Definitions for the ODARA.

For the purpose of scoring the ODARA, the following definitions shall apply:

Assault: the most recent incident in which the person being assessed assaulted his/her current or former Partner. Assault is any act of violence that involved physical contact with the Victim or a credible threat of death made with a weapon displayed in the presence of the Victim.

— Defendant: the person being assessed.

— Victim: the person upon whom the Assault was committed.

— Partner: a person who currently is, or previously was, involved with the Defendant in an intimate relationship. This includes current or former spouses, current or former intimate cohabitants, co-parents, and those currently or formerly in a dating relationship.

These definitions are superfluous. Assault is already defined by our criminal code and the relevant section of the criminal code will be referenced in the initial charging document. The definitions for “Defendant”, “Victim”, and “Partner” are self-explanatory. The more accurate term at this early stage is “alleged victim”, since the defendant is presumed innocent unless they are convicted of the assault at issue.

The following section was then removed from the Attorney General’s Guidelines:

4.6.3 Situations Where Law Enforcement Must Apply for a Complaint-Warrant and Seek Special Conditions to Protect Domestic Violence Victims. In any case involving domestic violence where the police officer or assistant prosecutor or deputy attorney general consulted in accordance with Section 3.2 or supervisory officer designated pursuant to subsection 3.3.2 has reason to believe, considering the totality of the circumstances, including but not limited to the special factors listed in paragraphs 1 through 4 of subsection 4.6.2, that issuance of a no-contact condition or other restraint, a requirement to surrender weapons, or any other special condition of pretrial release expressly authorized by N.J.S.A. 2C:25-26(a) is necessary to reasonably assure the immediate safety of the victim, the officer or prosecutor shall, notwithstanding any other provision of this Directive other than subsection 4.6.1, apply for a complaint warrant and seek imposition of the conditions) needed to reasonably assure the immediate safety of the victim. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to preempt or in any way alter the authority of the agency or the victim to apply for a temporary or final restraining order, and the special conditions of pretrial release in the criminal prosecution sought pursuant to this subsection shall be in addition to, not in lieu of, any such civil temporary or final restraining order.

Excellent rating
Based on 288 reviews
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
My boyfriend used Fred Sisto twice and had nothing but positive results. Fred was professional, courteous, and punctual. His office was also very attentive and understanding when he had to speak with them regarding his case. I would recommend using Fred to anyone in the monmouth or ocean county region if they had any criminal case regarding the possession of marijuana
C
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
....and his Dog Gonzo is a great attorney.
Duane H
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
I am writing to share my experience working with Fred From the very beginning, he provided outstanding service and demonstrated a high level of professionalism. He was attentive to my needs, communicated clearly, and always made sure I understood each step of the process. What impressed me most was his efficiency—he handled my case quickly without compromising on quality. His dedication and expertise gave me confidence and peace of mind throughout the entire process. I highly recommend Fred to anyone seeking reliable and effective legal support. His commitment to his clients and ability to deliver results promptly truly set him apart.
Aida F
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
I am thankful and fortunate to have had Fred represent me as counsel. His expertise, responsiveness and professionalism are second to none. I was more than satisfied with the outcome of my case and the level of service Fred's practice provided.
John M
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Excellent advice. Clam and accretive. Handled my case professionally and efficiently. Thank you for the great service. -D.
Danni K
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
My charges were dismissed and he quickly got an expungement for me. He's worth way more than what I paid for. I will always be grateful. He never missed a single call, text or email from me. He also keeps me informed of all checkpoints
Bre D
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Very professional, always available to answer any questions I had. Plus, I didn't lose my license all thanks to him. Great lawyer overall
David B
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred is knowledgeable and he has great working relationships with the courts. He HONESTLY is seeking the best deal for you he is not all about the money!! Thanks Fred you saved me BIG TIME!!
Casey B
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Very good
Nazario B
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred Sisto handled my case very well. I was happy with outcome. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend him to any of my friends or family.
David V