Double Jeopardy: Part 3

by | Jun 23, 2017 | Blog, Criminal Law, Know Your Rights, New Jersey

Here, the municipal court had jurisdiction to resolve defendant’s disorderly-persons charge pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2B:12-17, and failure to join does not automatically bar subsequent prosecution. For judicial efficiency and fairness to defendants, the Court urges careful coordination between the municipal courts and county prosecutors.  As a matter of fundamental fairness, the defendant should have at least been given the opportunity to withdraw his municipal court plea.

The Court has consistently interpreted the State Constitution’s double-jeopardy protection as coextensive with the guarantee of the federal Constitution. A prime concern when reviewing a double-jeopardy claim is whether the second prosecution is for the same offense involved in the first.

The United States Supreme Court first announced its test for determining whether a second prosecution is for the same offense in Blockburger, supra, 284 U.S. at 304: If each statute at issue requires proof of an element that the other does not, they do not constitute the same offense and a second prosecution may proceed. This has come to be known as the same-elements test.

The Court read the language in Illinois v. Vitale, 447 U.S. 410, 421 (1980), as creating an alternative to Blockburger’s same-elements test—the same-evidence test. The United States Supreme Court reached the same conclusion in Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508, 510 (1990), but revised its position in United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 704, 708-09 (1993), in which it deemed the same-evidence test unworkable and reinstated the Blockburger same-elements test as the sole measure of whether two offenses constitute the same offense.

Since Dixon, the majority of states have similarly ruled that the Blockburger same-elements test sets forth the proper test for determining whether two charges are the same offense. Until this case, the Court has not had occasion to reevaluate double-jeopardy jurisprudence in light of Dixon’s return to the same-elements test. As a result, appellate panels have split over whether the same-evidence test still applies in New Jersey.

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
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 have not needed the service of fred sisto but am grateful for the notices i receive
Bill P
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Honestamente el mejor, lucha hasta el final para darte los mejores resultados y es muy honesto. En mi caso iba a perder mi licencia de conducir y hasta dos años de probatoria y el Sr. Sisto lo resolvió con una multa. Estoy muy agradecido y satisfecho con los resultados y del trabajo de el.
Emmanuel A
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
I am very appreciative of all of the time and effort Fred his given to my case. It was a pleasure having him help me. Fred always was there to answer any messages about questions or concerns. If there were any fears i had as as well, Fred is responsive and helped mitigate any anxiety I had regards to your legal matter. In terms of knowledge of the law, he can explain and elaborate everything perfectly in a manner anyone can understand so you aren't caught off guard by anything in your legal situation. Fred as your lawyer allows for transparency which is needed for you as a client because it allows you to properly fathom the situation at hand and allows Fred to help you understand realistic outcomes for your situation. As a client, that is what you want to see from your lawyer so they clearly have your best interests at hand. That is a great attribute Fred has. Lastly, Fred helped me get everything dropped. I would recommend Fred because hes personable, his expertise, his array of legal knowledge, his legal experience and background, and he contains attributes you need in a lawyer to get you the best outcome.
Matthew F
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
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
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Muy buen abogado lo rrecomiendo!!
Victor N
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
I would highly recommend Frederick Sisto to anyone seeking legal representation that is fair, honest and will keep your best interest forefront. should the situation arise, i would not hesitate to seek representation from Frederick Sisto again.
Rmean
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
Quick response to phone calls and emails. Answered all my questions knowledgeably. And represented us very well in the courtroom. Thank you again.
Julie F
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Have nothing but great things to say about Fred, highly recommended
Bill S