Sentencing Considerations and Acquittals (Part 3)

by | Nov 16, 2021 | Blog, Criminal Law, Monmouth County, New Jersey, Ocean County

Justice Pierre-Louis continued in relevant part: The Court reverses in Melvin and affirms in Paden-Battle. Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution bestows upon all citizens certain natural and unalienable rights. From those rights flows the doctrine of fundamental fairness, which protects against arbitrary and unjust government action. Fundamental fairness prohibits courts from subjecting a defendant to enhanced sentencing for conduct as to which a jury found that defendant not guilty.

Both the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Paragraph 10 of the New Jersey Constitution guarantee all criminal defendants the right to a jury trial, and — under both Constitutions — due process requires that the prosecution prove each element of a charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt. That burden is underscored through special weight conferred by a jury’s acquittal. Not only are defendants protected from being tried a second time for an offense for which they have been acquitted, but, significantly, an acquitted defendant retains the presumption of innocence.

In Apprendi v. New Jersey, which the parties here addressed, the United States Supreme Court held that, “other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). Here, because neither defendant was sentenced above the statutory maximum for their counts of conviction, Apprendi is inapplicable.

Nor does Watts control. In Watts, the United States Supreme Court held that “a jury’s verdict of acquittal does not prevent the sentencing court from considering conduct underlying the acquitted charge, so long as that conduct has been proved by a preponderance of the evidence.” 519 U.S. at 157. In United States v. Booker, the Court appeared to limit Watts and minimize its precedential value. See 543 U.S. 220, 240 n.4 (2005).

Attorney Richard G. Singer was one of he three defense attorneys that successfully argued the above-cited Apprendi case before the United States Supreme Court. Professor Singer taught criminal procedure at the Rutgers School of Law while I and Justice Pierre-Louis were there as students.

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
Fred Sisto handled my case very well. I was happy with outcome. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend him to any of my friends or family.
David V
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred is a detail minded attorney that works tirelessly to get the job done right. If you need help Fred knows how to take care of your issues. Fred has years of experience and will work hard for justice for his clients. Fred is easy to talk to and has great communication skills!
Gibson H
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
For the people. For the little guy My legal bully
Glennlykesmusic
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred always publishes where local DWI Checkpoints are going to be! He is also a very prominent Attorney in the Ocean County areas of Point Pleasent and Now a new Brick office!
Michael K
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
The DUI checkpoint alerts have been exceptional. Much needed work to bring attention to the unconstitutional searches.
Daniel K
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Very knowledgeable with expungement!!! Thanks again!!!
Nicole B
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Like clockwork thank you for all the info
Lee M
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
Frederick is a pleasure to work with,great family guy. Fred pays attention to every detail and is totally accessible.
Tom A
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Not to long ago I ran into a very serious legal issue for the first time in my life, I'm closing in on 60. Needless to say I was unsure of the process. I was fortunate that a friend recommended Fred. Fred handled my case in a professional and courteous manner yet was very down to earth and straight forward. It took nearly 9 month to resolve and during that time Fred was always available to answer questions, explain the process and most of all alleviate my stress. I feel we got the best possible outcome and I would highly recommend Fred to anyone facing a legal/criminal matter
Manny P