Petitioners’ problem is that their current alternative theory would have had to persuade the jury that both Alston and Bennett falsely confessed to being active participants in a group attack that never occurred; that Yarborough falsely implicated himself in that group attack and yet gave a highly similar account of how it occurred; that Thomas, […]
Brady Violations and Materiality (Part 2)
The Turner Court held that the withheld evidence was not material under Brady. The Government does not contest petitioners’ claim that the withheld evidence was “favorable to the defense.” Petitioners and the Government, however, do contest the materiality of the undisclosed Brady information. Such “evidence is ‘material’ when there is a reasonable probability that, had […]
Brady Violations and Materiality (Part 1)
On June 22, 2017, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Charles Turner and Russell Overton v. United States. Petitioners and several others were indicted for the kidnaping, robbery, and murder of Catherine Fuller. At trial, the Government advanced the theory that Fuller was attacked by a large group of individuals. Its evidentiary […]
Difference Between Gun Offense Amnesty & Immunity: Part 4
In State in Interest of C.L.H.’s Weapons, (App. Div. 2015), the panel stated that “any voluntary surrender under the amnesty law” had to comply with N.J.S.A. 2C:39-12, which requires a person to provide written notice to law enforcement before authorities file any charges or begin any investigation. Otherwise, the panel reasoned, the surrender and amnesty […]
Difference Between Gun Offense Amnesty & Immunity: Part 3
The New Jersey Supreme Court held that the amnesty law did not afford defendants blanket immunity for the entire amnesty period. Reading the law in that way would lead to absurd results that the Legislature did not intend. Instead, the law created a period of no more than six months during which people could dispose […]
Difference Between Gun Offense Amnesty & Immunity: Part 2
Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment relying, in part, on the Florida permit to claim an exemption from prosecution. Defense counsel represented that defendant lived and worked in Pennsylvania and passed through New Jersey to make a delivery for his job. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss. A jury convicted defendant on both […]
Difference Between Gun Offense Amnesty & Immunity: Part 1
On June 5, 2017, in the case of State v. Dasean Harper, Chief Justice Rabner wrote for a unanimous New Jersey Supreme Court. The Legislature passed an amnesty bill in 2013 that, “for a period of not more than 180 days from the effective date of the act,” enabled people to dispose of guns they […]
Hindering Apprehension
In the case of State v. Isaac Young, decided on January 9, 2017, the Appellate Division was called upon to interpret N.J.S. 2C:29-3, the statute addressing the offenses of Hindering Apprehension or Prosecution. The principle issue was whether the defendant was properly convicted of hindering his own investigation or prosecution under N.J.S. 2C:29-3b(4) by making […]
Lesser Included Offenses: Part 3
The Moorer Court continued: In N.A., we followed the lead of State v. D.V. which ruled that a “prosecutor may select between a crime of the second degree under N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a) and a fourth degree offense under N.J.S.A. 9:6-3″ and that “the selection of the charge rests in the sound discretion of the prosecutor.” This […]
Lesser Included Offenses: Part 2
The Moorer Court continued: Thus, a party seeking a lesser-included offense charge must show “(1) that the requested charge satisfies the definition of an included offense set forth in N.J.S.A. 2C:1-8d, and (2) that there is a rational basis in the evidence to support a charge on that included offense.” N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(c) is not a […]
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next Page »
English
Spanish