Under New Jersey law, when a person is charged with a crime, whether the person is detained or released prior to trial depends on numerous factors. Recently, a New Jersey court discussed when pre-trial detention is appropriate, in a case in which it overturned a prior ruling that a defendant charged with attempted murder should be released while his trial was pending. If you are charged with committing a criminal offense, it is advisable to consult a capable New Jersey criminal defense attorney to discuss your options for fighting to protect your rights.

The Alleged Crime

It is reported that the police were dispatched to the parking lot of a shopping plaza to investigate a shooting. The crowd was dispersing when the police arrived, but they saw multiple cars with bullet holes. Two people were subsequently hospitalized with gunshot wounds. Eventually, an anonymous source advised the police that on the night of the incident, he saw the defendant retrieve a gun from the trunk of his vehicle and begin shooting. Additionally, surveillance footage was obtained that showed the defendant firing a weapon in the direction of the victims.

Allegedly, the defendant was arrested and charged with two counts of attempted murder with a gun. As he had no prior criminal history, his public safety assessment score (PSA) was low. The PSA asked that the defendant be denied pre-trial release regardless, given the serious nature of his crime. The trial court departed from the PSA’s recommendation, however, and issued an order releasing the defendant.

(more…)

For a 4^th Amendment violation to occur, there must be government conduct. This usually occurs through police actions. Also, some items are so public in nature that they do not carry a reasonable expectation of privacy. Generally, garbage, bank accounts, and odors emanating from your luggage are public in nature and do not implicate 4^th amendment protection. If the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area and item searched, then the police need a warrant issued by a neutral and detached magistrate supported by probable cause and particularity in order to conduct a lawful search. However, there are a few exceptions to the warrant requirement that are considered lawful searches and will not be excluded in a court of law.

The first exception to the warrant requirement is known as “Exigent Circumstances”. These scenarios occur when the police are in hot pursuit of a fleeing felon or when there is evanescent evidence: evidence that burns up in your body such as blood alcohol level or balloons filled with drugs. Another important exception to the warrant requirement is a search incident to arrest. Due to concerns for officer safety and the preservation of evidence, the law allows a search incident to arrest of the individual so long as the arrest is lawful and the search is contemporaneous in time and place with the arrest. Moreover, the search is limited in geographic scope to within the wingspan of the arrested individual. A third important warrantless search exception deals with automobiles. If the officer has probable cause to believe that the car contains evidence of a crime then they are permitted to search the entire car. A fourth exception to the warrant requirement is the famous “Plain View” doctrine. The officers must have lawful access to the place from which the item can be plainly seen, lawful access to the object itself, and the criminality of the object must be readily apparent. A fifth exception to the warrant requirement occurs when an individual consents. This consent must be voluntary, not the product of police coercion. The person must have the authority to consent to the area or item searched. A sixth exception to the warrant requirement deals with Terry stops. Under the famous Terry decision, officers have a right to stop an individual if they have reasonable suspicion necessary to determine if criminal activity is afoot. If when stopping them the officer reasonably believes that the individual is armed and dangerous, officers are permitted to frisk the individual for weapons. If you detect contraband without manipulating the object, then the officer is permitted to seize this contraband as evidence of a crime. These exceptions are the main exceptions to the warrant requirement and permit law enforcement officers to conduct lawful searches absent the existence of a warrant supported by probable cause.

The “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine” is a famous evidentiary legal doctrine that has been publicized on television and in the movies. This doctrine is based upon “The Exclusionary Rule”, an important evidence doctrine that requires that the victim of an illegal search or a coerced confession can have the product of the illegality excluded from criminal prosecution. This exclusionary rule has certain limitations: 1) Impeachment: The evidence can be used for impeachment purposes even if obtained in violation of the Constitution. It can be used only to impeach the trial testimony of the defendant, not that of other witnesses; 2) The exclusionary rule does not apply to grand jury hearings, civil proceedings, or parole revocation hearings; 3) In order for the exclusionary rule to apply there has to be a federal nexus (meaning a violation of the Constitution or Federal Statute). 4) The good faith exception to the exclusionary rule (known as the Leon doctrine): Even if the evidence was obtained in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights, if the police operated in good faith, the good faith doctrine trumps the exclusionary rule. Examples of the good faith doctrine are the police relying on a judicial opinion that is later overturned or a good faith reliance on a defective search warrant.

If the exclusionary rule applies then the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine may also apply. If the exclusionary rule is applied at trial, not only all evidence that is illegally obtained is excluded, but also all evidence derived from the illegal evidence will also be excluded as “fruit of the poisonous tree”. There are a few exceptions to this doctrine as well: 1) If the constitutional violation is a failure to give Miranda warnings then physical fruits obtained because of this failure are not excluded (known as an unwarned but voluntary statement); 2) If the authorities can “purge the taint” from the violation of a constitutional right and restore free will then the “fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine” does not apply. This can be done in three ways: a) The Independent Source doctrine: the evidence was obtained illegally but there was another independent source to obtain the evidence constitutionally; b) The Inevitable Discovery doctrine: The police would have found the illegally obtained evidence anyway even absent the constitutional violation; c) The Attenuation doctrine: There were intervening acts between the illegality and the illegally obtained evidence that restored free will. If none of these exceptions to the “fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine” apply, then the illegally obtained evidence will be excluded under the exclusionary rule and any evidence derived therefrom will also be excluded under the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine.

The right to remain silent and the right to counsel are implied rights grounded in the self-incrimination clause of the 5^th amendment. The landmark case of Miranda v. Arizona was decided by the United States Supreme Court in 1966 which held that statements obtained from defendants during incommunicado interrogation in police-dominated atmosphere, without full warning of constitutional rights, were inadmissible as having been obtained in violation of Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. There are three requirements that trigger Miranda protections: 1) Custody; 2) Interrogation; 3) Testimonial. For a custody situation to occur, the standard is whether a reasonable person would not feel free to leave because of an atmosphere infused by police domination and coercion. Custodial situations can arise in a person’s home while non-custodial situations can occur at the police station; the location is not dispositive of whether or not the situation was custodial. The standard for whether or not interrogation occurred is if the officers knew or should have known that his/her conduct made it likely that the person would incriminate themselves (this standard comes from Innis). Finally, the Miranda protections do not apply to things other than testimony: lineups do not necessitate Miranda protections because they are just displaying physical characteristics.

A defendant’s Miranda rights can be waived through an express or implied waiver. This waiver must be knowing and intelligent—the defendant understood their rights and the consequences of abandoning them. The waiver must also be voluntary, free from police coercion. Also, a person can waive their rights and then change their mind and invoke their rights again. Under the Edwards doctrine, if a defendant asserts their right to counsel under the 5^th amendment then there can be no further interrogation on any subject unless the defendant himself initiates. Finally, the 5^th amendment is not offense specific: An assertion of your right to counsel applies to any criminal activity, not only the offense you are currently charged with.

The insanity defense is a favorite on television and in the movies in attempting to relieve criminal defendants of punishment for their acts. The test in the majority of States is known as the M’Naghten test: the standard is whether at the time of the conduct in question the defendant lacked the ability to know the wrongfulness of his actions or understand the nature and consequences of his acts; the product of their incapacity must be the product of mental disease or defect. This is a purely cognitive test. Another test used by some jurisdictions is the “irresistible impulse” rule: the standard is due to mental disease or defect the defendant lacked the capacity for self control or free choice. This is a volitional test. Finally, the Model Penal Code test, an authority in the field of criminal law, uses broader language and is both cognitive and volitional. This test requires that the defendant lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law. If the defense attorney is successful in proving one of these three tests (depending on which test the jurisdiction uses) then the defendant may be successful in asserting an insanity defense.