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 >> Evidence at Detention Hearings: Part 5

August 30, 2017 by Fred Sisto

Evidence at Detention Hearings: Part 5

The New Jersey Supreme Court draws guidance from precedent that interpreted a law similar to the CJRA. The traditional balancing test for due process claims does not require the State to present live testimony at every hearing. Pretrial detention significantly interferes with a defendant’s liberty interest, but extensive safeguards protect that critical interest. And to require the State to present a live witness at more than 10,000 detention hearings each year would impose significant additional fiscal and administrative burdens on the court system, law enforcement officers, the prosecution, and public defenders. The trial court has discretion to require direct testimony if it is dissatisfied with the State’s proffer. In those instances, the State must proceed reasonably promptly to avoid unduly prolonging a defendant’s detention while the hearing is pending.

The reasoning regarding “more than 10,000 detention hearings” is not persuasive. The great number of hearings is due to prosecutors statewide requesting these hearings very liberally, even when it is substantially certain that detention will not be granted. The New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision in Ingram effectively rewards prosecutors for being unreasonable in their requests. Moreover, it rewards the prosecutors’ wasting of judicial resources by reasoning that requiring live testimony at the detention hearings necessitated by the prosecutors would unduly expend additional judicial resources. The alternative that the New Jersey Supreme Court should have considered was sanctions for prosecutors who request frivolous detention hearings.

It would have been within the trial court’s discretion to require a witness here. The State did not establish probable cause for possession for an unlawful purpose, and the affidavit should contain sufficient information in the form of factual details, not legal conclusions, to explain how probable cause exists for each charge. Notwithstanding the New Jersey Supreme Court’s analysis regarding the State’s failure to establish probable cause at the detention hearing, the judgements of the trial court and Appellate Division were affirmed.

Filed Under: Blog, Criminal Law, Legal Procedures Tagged With: Evidence

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   

Thanks to Fred I have no criminal record whatsoever.

Luke A   

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   
See More Testimonials

Recent Posts

  • 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)
  • CSAAS Testimony and Retroactivity (Part 5)
  • CSAAS Testimony and Retroactivity (Part 4)
  • CSAAS Testimony and Retroactivity (Part 3)

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