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 >> Criminal Admissibility of Civil Forfeiture Answers (Part 2)

April 4, 2020 by Fred Sisto

Criminal Admissibility of Civil Forfeiture Answers (Part 2)

The New Jersey Supreme Court continued in relevant part: In light of the above analysis, it is not necessary to consider the scope of Simmons v. United States (1968). In that case, a defendant moved to suppress a suitcase found in his mother’s home, which contained evidence linking him to a bank robbery. Id. at 380-81. To establish standing, he testified that the suitcase was similar to one he owned, and that he owned the clothing found inside it. Id. at 381. That testimony was used against him at trial. Ibid.

The United States Supreme Court found it “intolerable” that a defendant should either have “to give up what he believed . . . to be a valid Fourth Amendment claim or . . . to waive his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.” Id. at 394. The Court therefore held “that when a defendant testifies in support of a motion to suppress evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds, his testimony may not thereafter be admitted against him at trial on the issue of guilt unless he makes no objection.” Ibid.

Three years later, in McGautha v. California (1971), the Court limited Simmons and raised questions about the breadth of its reasoning. Because our ruling relies on Garrity, we need not decide whether Simmons would apply to the circumstances presented in this case. We also need not reach defendant’s other arguments under the Fifth or Sixth Amendments or the doctrine of fundamental fairness.

We reject the State’s argument that defendant’s civil forfeiture answer was admissible under N.J.R.E. 803 (b)(1) as a statement by a party-opponent. A statement obtained in violation of a constitutionally protected right is inadmissible in the State’s case in chief even if it satisfies a rule of evidence.

The Appellate Division aptly noted that criminal defendants who are served with a civil forfeiture complaint should receive enhanced notice about certain issues. We agree. Defendants should be advised of the following: (1) they may wish to consult with a lawyer about how best to proceed; (2) the State may not use any statements made in an answer to a forfeiture complaint in its case in chief in a related criminal case; and (3) defendants may file a motion to stay the civil forfeiture action under N.J.S.A. 2C:64-3(f). Whenever practicable, the State should also serve a courtesy copy of the forfeiture complaint on defense counsel when a companion criminal case is pending, so that counsel can offer basic legal advice or make a referral.

To comply with the Appellate Division’s ruling, the State began providing other defendants in civil forfeiture actions with enhanced written notice. The notice tracks the Appellate Division’s guidance and reasoning, which has been modified.

We refer the matter to the Clerk of the Superior Court to consider any changes to the standard form summons now in use. We also refer these issues to the Civil and Criminal Practice Committees for their consideration.

The Court’s modifying language “whenever practicable” and use of the term “should” instead of “shall” does little to protect defendants’ rights. It sends a clear message to prosecutors that there is no suppression remedy for a failure to serve their attorneys with notice. It is hard to imagine why it would not be “practicable” to serve an attorney of record with notice. It is easy to imagine how many defendants would not appreciate the importance of asserting their property rights and/or would not know how to do so.

Filed Under: Blog, Criminal Law, Monmouth County, New Jersey, Ocean County

Testimonials

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   

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   

Thanks to Fred I have no criminal record whatsoever.

Luke A   

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   
See More Testimonials

Recent Posts

  • Law Enforcement and Administrative Functions (Part 2)
  • Law Enforcement and Administrative Functions (Part 1)
  • The Juvenile Waive Statute and Retroactivity (Part 3)
  • The Juvenile Waive Statute and Retroactivity (Part 2)
  • The Juvenile Waive Statute and Retroactivity (Part 1)
  • Plain View and Lawful Vantage Points (Part 3)
  • Plain View and Lawful Vantage Points (Part 2)
  • Plain View and Lawful Vantage Points (Part 1)

Recent Speaking Engagement

Site Disclaimer

Attorney Referral Fees

Frederick P Sisto has earned Lawyer Legion's recognition for Community Leadership

Law Office of Frederick P. Sisto

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

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