Fred Sisto | Criminal Attorney | Ocean and Monmouth County

Call Us Today
732-898-3232

  • Home
  • Criminal Defense Services
    ▼
    • Drug Crimes
      ▼
      • Drug Manufacturing
      • Intent to Distribute Narcotics
      • Prescription Drug Crimes
      • Leader of Narcotics Trafficking Network
    • Weapons Charges
      ▼
      • Prohibited Weapons and Devices
      • Manufacture, Transport, etc. of Weapons
      • Illegal Possession of a Gun
      • Possession of Weapons for Unlawful Purposes
    • Expungements
    • Theft Attorney
    • Violent Crimes
      ▼
      • Robbery/Burglary
      • Manslaughter
      • Extortion
      • Assault
      • Sexual Offenses
    • Arson
    • DUI / DWI
      ▼
      • Alcohol DUI
      • Drug DUI
      • Refusing a Breath Test
    • Driving with A Suspended License
    • Property Forfeiture
    • Anti-Drug Profiteering
    • Juvenile Delinquency
  • Español / Spanish Speaking Attorney
  • About
    ▼
    • Testimonials
    • Defending Cases In
      ▼
      • Monmouth County
      • Ocean County
  • Blog
  • Contact
    ▼
    • Receive a Call From Fred
  • DUI Checkpoint Alerts
  • Results
  • Payment Options
  • Home
  • Criminal Defense Services
    • Drug Crimes
      • Drug Manufacturing
      • Intent to Distribute Narcotics
      • Prescription Drug Crimes
      • Leader of Narcotics Trafficking Network
    • Weapons Charges
      • Prohibited Weapons and Devices
      • Manufacture, Transport, etc. of Weapons
      • Illegal Possession of a Gun
      • Possession of Weapons for Unlawful Purposes
    • Expungements
    • Theft Attorney
    • Violent Crimes
      • Robbery/Burglary
      • Manslaughter
      • Extortion
      • Assault
      • Sexual Offenses
    • Arson
    • DUI / DWI
      • Alcohol DUI
      • Drug DUI
      • Refusing a Breath Test
    • Driving with A Suspended License
    • Property Forfeiture
    • Anti-Drug Profiteering
    • Juvenile Delinquency
  • Español / Spanish Speaking Attorney
  • About
    • Testimonials
    • Defending Cases In
      • Monmouth County
      • Ocean County
  • Blog
  • Contact
    • Receive a Call From Fred
  • DUI Checkpoint Alerts
  • Results
  • Payment Options
Home >> Bail Reform: “Interest of Justice”

January 24, 2017 by Fred Sisto

Bail Reform: “Interest of Justice”

Fred Sisto Brick LawyerTo help achieve an appropriate degree of statewide uniformity in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, this Section establishes a pretrial detention decision-making framework consisting of three categories of cases. For each category, there is rebuttable presumption of whether to seek pretrial detention that serves to channel the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. In addition, this framework specifies the level of authority within a prosecutor ‘s office needed to approve the decision to overcome a presumption. The presumptions on when to seek or refrain from seeking pretrial detention established in this Directive should not be confused with the statutory presumption of pretrial release under the Bail Reform Law, N.J .S.A. 2A:162-17, or the statutory presumption of detention established under the Bail Reform Law when a defendant is charged with murder or is subject to an ordinary or extended term of life imprisonment. See N.J.S.A. 2A:l 62-l 9(b). Although those statutory presumptions are accounted for, this Directive creates additional presumptions to be used by prosecutors in deciding whether to file a pretrial detention and/or revocation of release motion . The presumptions established in Section7 and 8 of this Directive, in other words, are designed only to channel the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in deciding whether to seek pretrial detention or revocation of release, and nothing in this Directive should be construed as suggesting that courts are obliged to apply any presumption other than the ones codified in the Bail Reform Law or in Court Rules that implement the statute and constitutional amendment.

The first category establishes a presumption against filing a motion for pretrial detention, which can be overcome only when the County Prosecutor or First Assistant Prosecutor, or Director or a Deputy Director of the Division of Criminal Justice in matters prosecuted by the Division, finds that certain special conditions exist to justify preventive detention. This first category includes all cases that do not fall under either the second or third categories. It is expected that a large majority of cases will fall under the first category.

The second category deals with especially serious crimes where the State will be expected to seek pretrial detention unless the County Prosecutor or First Assistant Prosecutor, or Director or a Deputy Director of the Division of Criminal Justice in matters prosecuted by the Division, determines that compelling and extraordinary circumstances exist to justify the decision not to seek preventive detention. See Section 7.3. This second category applies to cases where the Legislature has established a presumption that the defendant will be detained; that is, cases where defendants are charged with murder or otherwise are subject to an ordinary or extended term of life imprisonment. See N.J .S.A. 2A: 162- 19(b).

The third category deals with situations where this Directive establishes a more flexible presumption that the State will seek pretrial detention unless a supervisory prosecutor designated by the County Prosecutor or Director of the Division of Criminal Justice finds that maximum conditions of release will adequately control the risks posed by defendant’s release, or where the supervisor otherwise determines that the interests of justice would not be served by pretrial detention. See subsections 7.4.2 and 7.4.3. This third category applies to cases where new Rule 3:4A(b)(5) recognizes a prima facie basis for meeting the clear-and-convincing evidence standard required to order pretrial detention, that is, those cases where the pretrial services program’s recommendation is that the defendant not be released, or if released, only under the maximum level of monitoring. That recommendation by the pretrial services program is based on the results of the objective pretrial risk­ assessment process  approved  by the AOC, which,  in tum, is based  on empirical  research.”

The vague language regarding the “interest of justice” and “certain conditions” throws up red flags that even though the new law is supposed to lead to fair and objective bail decisions, law enforcement will still seek to impose their subjective and oftentimes arbitrary will. The Attorney General claims to be ensuring “consistency and uniformity” throughout this provision by calling for decisions to be made only by the highest ranking prosecutors at each office. Then, at the very end, the directive contains language indicating that these decisions can be delegated to other prosecutors.

Filed Under: Blog, Criminal Law, Law Reform and Amendments

Testimonials

Fred is a stickler for detail and communicates with clients very, very well. He is smart and astute. I would recommend him unconditionally.

Tom O   

I would highly recommend Mr. Sisto. He is very insightful and proficient, yet still down to Earth. Fred is great at communicating and breaking down the facts. But most importantly, he excels at getting results.

Bill K   

Thanks to Fred I have no criminal record whatsoever.

Luke A   

Great!!! , got my case handled in the exact manner that I was told and would recommend to everyone else in need of legal representation.

Raumelis R   
See More Testimonials

Recent Posts

  • Plea Agreements and New Charges (Part 2)
  • Plea Agreements and New Charges (Part 1)
  • Youth and Withholding Imprisonment (Part 2)
  • Youth and Withholding Imprisonment (Part 1)
  • Marijuana and Diversionary Programs (Part 4)
  • Marijuana and Diversionary Programs (Part 3)
  • Marijuana and Diversionary Programs (Part 2)
  • Marijuana and Diversionary Programs (Part 1)

Recent Speaking Engagement

Site Disclaimer

Attorney Referral Fees

Frederick P Sisto has earned Lawyer Legion's recognition for Community Leadership
 
Top Criminal Defense Attorney in Brick

Law Office of Frederick P. Sisto

Point Pleasant Office*:
302 Hawthorne Ave, Suite 1
Point Pleasant Beach, NJ 08742

Brick Township Office*:
223 Drum Point Road, Suite 1
Brick Township, NJ 08723

Sea Girt Office*:
2150 NJ-35,
Suite 225
Sea Girt, NJ 08750

Phone: 732-898-3232
Fax: 201-508-3393
*Office visits by appointment only.

Representing clients throughout all court jurisdictions of New Jersey.

WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE CRIMINAL TRIAL ATTORNEY CERTIFICATION, NO ASPECT OF THIS ADVERTISEMENT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY

en English
en Englishes Spanish