Criminal Law Blog

The New Jersey Supreme Court continued in relevant part: We concur with the Appellate Division that it might not be possible for the Division to make the required showing in a different set of circumstances, such as a setting involving an older child who has not...

On July 31, 2024, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided the Monmouth County case of N.J. Division of Child Protection and Permanency v. A.P. The principal issue under N.J.S.A. 2C:52-1 concerned whether D.C.P. and P could use the defendant’s expunged records in their...

The Appellate Division concluded with the following in relevant part: The State of New Jersey Domestic Violence Procedures Manual issued under the authority of the Supreme Court and the Attorney General acknowledges courts are permitted to "proceed with the FRO...

The PDVA provides: If a criminal complaint arising out of the same incident which is the subject matter of a complaint brought under the PDVA has been filed, testimony given by the plaintiff or defendant in the domestic violence matter shall not be used in the...

On August 5, 2024, a three-judge appellate panel decided the Camden County case of T.B. v. I.W. The principal issue under N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29 concerned the adverse inference that the trial court drew against the defendant for not testifying at the Final Restraining...

The Supreme Court majority continued in relevant part: Subsection (c)(2) also ensures that liability is still imposed for impairing the avail ability or integrity of other things used in an official proceeding beyond the “record[s], document[s], or other object[s]”...

Chief Justice Roberts continued in relevant part: The Court considers both “the specific context” in which (c)(2) appears “and the broader context of the statute as a whole.” Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U. S. 337, 341. (1) Section 1512(c)(1) describes types of...

On June 28, 2024, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Fischer v. United States. The principal issue before the Court concerned whether the sufficiency of the evidence that the defendant impaired the availability of evidence surrounding the events of...

The Supreme Court majority concluded with the following in relevant part: The Government’s interpretation of the statute would create traps for unwary state and local officials. Sun-Diamond, 526 U. S., at 411. The Government says that the statute would not cover...

Justice Kavanaugh continued in relevant part: Statutory structure reinforces that §666 is a bribery statute, not a two-for-one bribery-and-gratuities statute as the Government posits. The Government identifies no other provision in the U. S. Code that prohibits bribes...