I represented J.B. on a 6 count indictment charging him with Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, Possession with Intent to Distribute Heroin, Possession with Intent to Distribute Near a School, Possession with Intent to Distribute 500 Feet from a Park, Conspiracy and Distribution of Marijuana. The case went to trial and I was able to get my client an acquittal on the Distribution of Marijuana before the jury even got the case. On the remaining counts the jury was unable to reach a unanimous decision and the matter ended with a hung jury.
I represented E.D. in a custody motion against M.D. E.D. believed that M.D. was not taking their son to school and was not helping him with his homework. The actions of M.D. caused their son to be left back in first grade. After filing the motion, the Court ordered a Plenary Hearing on the matter. I was able to catch M.D. not being consistent in her testimony. After closing arguments, the Court found M.D. to not be credible and found in favor of my client, E.D., awarded him custody of their son.
C.T was given summonses for leaving the scene of an accident, failure to report an accident, careless driving, reckless driving, and improper passing. The prosecutor threatened to suspend C.T.’s license for 6 months, give him 5 points on his license and impose hundreds of dollars in fines. With my representation, the client only plead guilty to careless driving and failure to report an accident. The total penalty imposed was $266 in fines, and 2 points on his license. His license was not suspended.
This case involved a high school senior who was out driving with friends. The young man was stopped by an officer and his car was searched because the officer said he smelled burnt marijuana. The officer went on to say he also smelled fresh marijuana. Unfortunately, the search of the car yielded marijuana, a scale and a handgun.
The young man was later indicted for: receiving stolen property in the third degree; unlawful possession of a weapon in the third degree; possession with intent to distribute fourth degree; and possession of a weapon while engaged in a CDS offense in the second degree.I had the privilege of writing the suppression brief for this young man and being a part of the suppression hearing. Based on the hearing and the brief, the Court found the stop and subsequent search of the vehicle were conducted illegally and the evidence was suppressed.
I represented a juvenile on a three count complaint, which charged Theft of Mislaid Property fourth degree and two counts of Fraudulent Use of a Credit Card third degree. I got the Theft and one count of the Fraudulent Use of a Credit Card dismissed. In the end, the juvenile plead guilty to one count of Fraudulent Use of Credit Card. She received no jail time, and instead was given a year of probation. The conviction was removed from her record upon the completion of her probation.
A Judge in Mercer County Superior Court granted my Motion to Suppress Evidence. The client was charged with criminal pirating, (i.e. selling bootleg CDs and DVDs). At the time of arrest, hundreds of them were seized from his van. Since he had a prior record, he was facing 5 years in prison for this offense. The State reviewed the brief that I wrote and agreed that the police failed to get a warrant and the search was illegal. The evidence was suppressed and the case was dismissed.
I represented V.H. in an appeal of a Final Restraining Order. I argued that our client was not given her day in court and evidence was not entered that should have been at the trial court level. The Appellate Court overturned our client’s conviction and remanded for a new hearing.
I represented Vasil Kovalcik in this appeal under the Open Public Records Act for copies of the curriculum vitaes of Prosecutor Detectives, which the State argued my client had no right to have. The Appellate Division found that my client was entitled to the information.
This case involved a Final Restraining Order and what qualified as a dating relationship. I represented J.F. and argued that a paid escort does not qualify as a protected relationship under the Domestic Violence Statute. The Appellate Court disagreed with my argument, but I was able to further define “a relationship” through case law.