Dog Fighting Statutes (Part 4)

by Fred Sisto | May 19, 2018 | Blog, Criminal Law, Monmouth County, New Jersey, Ocean County

The dogfighting “Leader” statute continues:

(2) The court may prohibit any convicted person from having future possession or custody of any animal for any period of time the court deems reasonable, including a permanent prohibition.

c. Notwithstanding the provisions of 2C:1-8, a conviction of leader of a dog fighting network shall not merge with the conviction for any offense, nor shall such other conviction merge with a conviction under this section, which is the object of the conspiracy. Nothing contained in this section shall prohibit the court from imposing an extended term pursuant to 2C:43-7; nor shall this section be construed in any way to preclude or limit the prosecution or conviction of any person for conspiracy under 2C:5-2, or any prosecution or conviction under 2C:41-1 (racketeering activities) or subsection g. of 2C:5-2 (leader of organized crime) or any prosecution or conviction for any such offense.

d. It shall not be necessary in any prosecution under this section for the State to prove that any intended profit was actually realized. The trier of fact may infer that a particular scheme or course of conduct was undertaken for
profit from all of the attendant circumstances, including but not limited to the number of persons involved in the scheme or course of conduct, the actor’s net worth and his expenditures in relation to his legitimate sources of income, or the amount of cash or currency involved.

e. It shall not be a defense to a prosecution under this section that the dog intended to be used for fighting was brought into or transported in this State solely for ultimate distribution or sale in another jurisdiction.

f. It shall not be a defense that the defendant was subject to the supervision or management of another, nor that another person or persons were also leaders of a dog fighting network.

A separation of powers issue is presented when the Legislature drafts “shall not merge” provisions into a statute. A merger analysis is typically reserved for the trial court, i.e. the Judicial Branch as opposed to the Legislative Branch.

      Excellent rating  
 Based on 288 reviews 
    
  
 
 
      Mr Sisto is an excellent lawyer. The tickets I received were nothing compared to the charges i had originally. I got the best possible outcome for my case, and Mr Sisto was incredibly understanding and patient and responded to any questions I had within about 30 minutes of me asking them. I'll be going to him again for any legal trouble I have in the future
     Brandon K 
 
 
 
 
    mr. fred sisto esq. was very professional, answered all questions i had, & made my husband & i feel more at ease about our criminal case.
     Meridith T 
 
 
 
 
    Fred never represented me but been in touch with him a few times and was a very professional experience from the minute I called the office
     Jj B 
 
 
 
 
    Fred is a very competent attorney.  He is knowledgeable, thorough, effective and possesses outstanding interpersonal skills. He provided excellent representation in my case and obtained a favorable outcome.
     Michael G 
 
 
 
 
    Fred Sisto's attention to detail, his representation and unwavering advocacy for me made all the difference in my case.
     Jill F 
 
 
 
 
    Hired Mr.Sisto to handle a case of mine a couple of months ago and while the service was okay the customer service was awful. When I had inquired about a charge I was unsure of on my bill, Mr. Sisto immediately got defensive and had the unprofessionalism to ask me if I “was high” for asking this question. I wonder if Mr. Sisto asks all of his clients this question or only the ones who have jobs in the cannabis industry? Regardless, I don’t believe this was an appropriate question to ask, regardless of the industry one works in, and therefore Mr. Sisto needs to heavily work on his customer service. Edit: Mr. Sisto had the UNPROFESSIONALISM to reach out to my family and ask them to ask me to take down my review instead of reaching out directly towards me when it was I who was his client, not my family. Clearly speaks to the unprofessionalism surrounding this practice. This has not been the only time Mr.Sisto has gone directly to my family instead of me, his client, for important legal matters and I will not seek out his services again. For those who may not understand Spanish, the email starts with “You should speak to your daughter regarding the review she has just published.” Edit to Response: As an attorney, one should be able to make appropriate questions and comments regardless if a client is “uncooperative” or “disrespectful.” The fact that rather than apologizing for the awful interaction with your firm, and I was not released  “within hours” as you claim shows how low value your firm is and how you openly  instead chose to harass my family through email for my initial review rather than actually revomy case which I ended up doing and you chareged me for . Regardless of results, your character speaks volumes and anyone who reads this would know better than to give their money to an awful person such as yourself. What a shame
     Ximena C 
 
 
 
 
    Mr. Sisto was knowledgeable preofessional and experienced. He knew the right steps to take every step of the way and went above and beyond to make sure that I understood the situation. Mr. Sisto will have your back in any legal matter!
     Corey S 
 
 
 
 
    2 👍🏻👍🏻 up
     Cc 
 
 
 
 
    Very informative. Would not hesitate to use Attorney Sisto.
     Rose C 
 
 
 
 
    Realmente es un gran abogado, me ayudo muchísimo en todo este proceso y sobre todo que habla español que es una de las cosas importantes para mi. Por que lo hizo mas entendible y facil cada una de las cosas que tenía que hacer y su amabilidad y paciencia para poder explicarme qué tenía que hacer. Además que mi caso fue un éxito gracias a él ya cada uno de sus conocimientos y a su apoyo en todo momento. Lo recomiendo 100%.
     Luis A