New Jersey Criminal Defense Law Blog

New Jersey Criminal Defense Law Blog

Home2021-02-04T17:09:24+00:00

The Law Offices of Jonathan F. Marshall, is a statewide criminal defense firm with twelve offices throughout New Jersey. Our team includes ten (10) attorneys that dedicate their practices exclusively to defending the accused, making it a unique commodity in the state. The qualifications of the lawyers are also impressive and include:

• Over 200 Years of Combined Experience Representing Clients Charged With Indictable Crimes, Disorderly Persons Offenses and Serious Motor Vehicle Violations
• Former County Prosecutors Who Have Served At The Highest Levels Such As Director Of Major Crimes, Juvenile, Domestic Violence, Special Operations, Homicide, Drug Task Force, Guns, and Even An Entire Trial Division
• Certified Criminal Trial Attorneys
• Recognition as Top 100 Trial Lawyers by the National Trial Lawyers Association, Top 10 Defense Lawyers in New Jersey by the National Academy, Ten Leaders in both Criminal Defense & DWI in New Jersey and Superlawyers

Free consultations with an attorney at the firm are always free. You can reach us 24/7 at 877-450-8301.

Jersey City Prosecuting for Owner’s Failure to Properly Handle Vicious Dogs

Various New Jersey publications have been following the prosecution of a Jersey City women for a host of charges stemming from incidents involving her dogs.  The dogs are two pitbulls who have allegedly gotten loose, bitten individuals and menaced the neighborhood.  The dog owner most recently appeared in Court in late March and the progress of the case was outlined in the Star Ledger.  She was to return in early April with various documentation to substantiate that the dogs are not vicious. 

The import of the term “vicious” generally concerns the future care and well being of a dog rather than criminal culpability.  When a dog is deemed vicious in NJ, it is usually put down. An owner is subject to fines of up to $1,000 per day for a violation of the vicious dog act or any directive provided thereunder. The monetary exposure obviously has the potential to get crazy, particularly, when you consider that an attack is usually the triggering event for vicious dog proceedings in criminal court. Individuals like the women in this case often need to hire not only a criminal defense attorney but also NJ Dog Bite Attorneys to defend a personal injury claim.

We shall keep you advised of any new developments in this unusual Hudson County case.

By |June 7, 2012|Categories: Hudson County|

Criminal Charges Up in Monmouth County & Ocean County NJ

The statewide crime statistics have been released for Monmouth County and Ocean County. In terms of violent crime, Ocean County had an approximately 8% increase in 2008 whereas Monmouth County had a decrease of a similar percentage. The offenses included in these figures were murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.  In terms of details, Aggravated Assault charges were in both Counties.

Non-violent statistics included burglary, larceny/theft, and motor vehicle theft.  Both Counties experienced a sizable increase in non-violent crime.  Larceny and theft was up in Monmouth County and Ocean County. This might be expected given the economic downturn.

Notwithstanding the statistics, I cannot say that our NJ criminal defense practice has noticed any change. The deviations appear to be very minor and do not appear to be the result of any push one way or another.
 

By |June 7, 2012|Categories: Monmouth County|

NJ Man Charged with Leaving the Scene of a Fatal Accident

A Lakewood New Jersey man has been charged with knowingly leaving the scene of a fatal accident. The charge stems from a Jackson car accident that resulted in the death of a motorist struck by the defendant. Bail has been set at $150,000.

In accordance with N.J.S.A. 2C:11-5.1, an individual is guilty of a second degree crime where he knowingly leaves the scene of a fatal accident. In order to determine whether such a violation has occurred, one must look to N.J.S.A. 39:4-129 which proscribes the circumstances in which someone is guilty of “leaving the scene”.  In other words, the Title 39 motor vehicle statute defines what is necessary to be found guilty of leaving the scene and, when it results in a fatality, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-5.1 essentially sets forth the grading of the offense. This charge is generically referred to as a fatal hit and run.

The offense of knowingly leaving the scene of a fatal accident was a third degree offense up until recently. The law was amended to make this charge a Second Degree. What this means is that anyone charged under N.J.S.A. 2C:11-5.1 is now exposed to 5 to 10 years of prison, whereas  previously jail exposure was limited to 0 to 5 years. The enhancement also created a presumption of incarceration.  What this all means is that jail is highly likely for an individual like the suspect in this case in the event that they are convicted.

By |June 7, 2012|Categories: Aggravated Assault|

Criminal Arrests Up in Union County and Middlesex County

We previously reported on the 2008 criminal statistics for Monmouth and Ocean County, and the figures are now in on Union County and Middlesex County as well. There was a 9% increase in criminal charges in Union County.  Middlesex County rose slightly less at 8% in crime.  The upward trend continued to be in the area of non-violent property offenses like burglary, theft and larceny. Violent crimes experienced a 3% decrease statewide although both rape and murder offenses were up. It is believed that the rise in homicides was largely accountable to a spree of murders in Camden County. 

While the defense attorneys at our firm represent individuals in Municipal Courts and Superior Courts of Union County and Middlesex County almost daily, I cannot say we have noticed a trend in crime one way or another. We believe that the figures are relatively consistent with prior years.

By |June 7, 2012|Categories: Union County|

NJ Criminal Defense Attorney Takes Plea in Prostitution Case

A prominent NJ criminal lawyer pleaded guilty the other day to promoting prostitution. The related charge stemmed from his involvement in a popular escort service operated out of New York.  The attorney had originally been charged with felony offenses but the plea involved a downgrade to a misdemeanor offense.

It is unclear from the reports as to the exact of the defendant’s involvement in the prostitution enterprise. Nonetheless, the New Jersey Prostitution Law, N.J.S.A. 2C:34-1, would expose an individual who promotes prostitution to a Disorderly Persons Offense, Fourth Degree Crime or Third Degree Crime, depending on the underlying facts and circumstances.  An accused promotes prostitution when he or she operates a prostitution business, induces another to be a prostitute, solicits someone to engage a prostitute, transports a prostitute or provides property to be used for prostitution. It appears that the attorney was more of a silent partner in the prostitution venture in question but that would, nevertheless, constitute conduct which promotes prostitution. His plea was to NY’s version of our Disorderly Persons Offense of Promotion Prostitution.

The outcome in this case is akin to what you would expect to happen in New Jersey.  I am glad that the lawyer was treated fairly rather than receiving harsher treatment than a normal person under the circumstances.  A felony was avoided and this seems just in view of the fact that no one was intentionally injured.

By |June 7, 2012|Categories: Prostitution Solicitation|

NJ Shoplifting Defense Site Is Under Development

The number of individuals arrested for shoplifting in New Jersey every year is staggering. It is also important to keep in mind that shoplifting is not limited to those of modest means but also involves individuals who are members of the middle and upper class of our society. We know this because we are retained by an extraordinary number of individuals every year who have been charged with shoplifting.

Given the demand for defense representation in this area of law, we were surprised to learn that there was no comprehensive source for individuals to refer to for information regarding NJ Shoplifting Offenses.  We therefore decided to develop such a source. Our New Jersey Shoplifting Attorneys have put their almost forty years of collective experience to work in compiling this content. We believe that www.njshopliftinglawyer.com shall quickly become the most informative publication for nj shoplifting issues. We are excited to have this opportunity and encourage individuals to consult our office directly at 1-877-450-8301 if they are in need of assistance.

By |June 7, 2012|Categories: Shoplifting|

Monmouth County Robbery Suspect Takes Interesting Fall Which May Result in Obstruction & Hindering Charges

A Wall Township man was arrested and charged with robbery after stealing a money box from a local restaurant. The suspect stole the box when restaurant personnel were preoccupied with an order. The defendant was apparently unsatisfied with this theft and demanded additional money from the clerk. Police were able to identify the man and executed a search at his home. Upon arriving at the assailant’s home, police were greeted by his mother who denied knowledge of his whereabouts. As they continued questioning of the mother, the defendant fell through the sheetrock ceiling and landed on the floor. Police then arrested the man for the robbery and bail was set at $50,000. Charges of hindering and/or obstruction have yet to be filed against the mother.

Robbery is a Second Degree Crime under N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1 where no weapon is involved. A person can be charged with robbery in accordance with section 2C:15-1 if, in the course of committing a theft, he causes:  1) bodily injury to another or uses forces on anotheror;  2) threatens or purposely puts another in fear of  immediate bodily injury; or 3) commits or threatens to commit a crime of the first or second degree. A charge or indictment for Robbery requires four elements: (1) the accused attempted or committed a theft; (2) the defendant threatened or used force during the course of the theft; (3) the force or threat of force occurred during the theft or flight from the theft; and (4) the accused acted intentionally. It appears that the State will have an easy time establishing these elements if the facts contained in the press are accurate.

The more complicated question in this case may involve potential charges against the suspect’s mother for violating N.J.S.A. 2C:29-3 by virtue of hindering apprehension or prosecution of her son. N.J.S.A. 2C:29-3 describes seven types of conduct which constitute hindering: (1) harboring or concealing a person who is being sought by law enforcement; (2) aiding a suspect by providing a weapon, money, transportation, disguise or other means to avoid discovery or apprehension; (3) concealing, tampering or destroying evidence of a crime or information which would otherwise aid law enforcement; (4) warning the suspect of anticipated apprehension; (5) making threats, force, intimidation or deception to prevent or obstruct apprehension; (6) engaging in conduct to protect the profit or gain derived from the commission of a crime; or (7) giving false information to prevent, hinder or impede investigation or apprehension. Each of the above acts must be undertaken with the purpose to hinder in order for the related conduct to provide a basis for violation under N.J.S.A. 2C:29-3. The statute also requires that the suspect have knowledge that the person being protected was the target or actually charged with a crime, motor vehicle offense or insurance fraud. The degree or grading of a hindering offense is predicated on the extent or seriousness of the underlying offense sought to be hindered and the relationship between the suspect and the person who is the target of the underlying offense. Where an individual is hindering to avoid a crime of the Second Degree or higher, the hindering is a third degree crime. An exception to this rule applies, however, where the target and the hinderer are spouses or enjoy a parental relationship. In this instance, the hindering is a Fourth Degree crime. Hindering is otherwise a disorderly persons offense.

It appears that if the mother here had knowledge that her son was in the home and that he was the target of a robbery or actually committed the robbery then she could be found guilty of a Fourth Degree crime. The mother could be guilty under a theory of harboring or concealing a person sought by law enforcement, warning the suspect of anticipated apprehension, or giving false information to prevent/impede the investigation/apprehension. The mother’s statements to the police that her son was not home would have had to be for the purpose to hinder the investigation/apprehension (which they presumably would have been).

By |June 7, 2012|Categories: Robbery|

NJ Underage Drinking Law May Include Amnesty Provision

Various youth organizations have been pushing for an amnesty provision under the New Jersey Underage Drinking Law, N.J.S.A. 2C:33-15. Currently, a minor is guilty of a Disorderly Persons Offense if he or she possesses or consumes alcohol while being under the legal drinking age of 21 years old.  While such a violation is not a crime, a conviction nevertheless gives rise to a record. 

The Legislature of NJ is considering an exception under the statute for those who are “outed” as a result of calling for police assistance. The proposal would grant immunity to those under 21 if they call police because another underage drinker needs medical assistance. Proponents claim that the exception is needed to eliminate the chilling effect which currently exists for those underage to summon the police.

Underage drinking arrests are on the rise in NJ. Police are aggressive in enforcing N.J.S.A. 2C:33-15 and I think that some even see this as an opportunity to attack other issues. The honest truth is, however, that our attorneys are overwhelmingly successful in getting these offenses downgraded and/or dismissed under the current law.

By |June 7, 2012|Categories: Juvenile|

Prescription Drug Charges Inevitable for Jacko Physician?

As the managing partner of a criminal defense law firm that handles quite a bit of prescription drug offenses, I have my suspicions concerning the death of Michael Jackson. Indeed, as his story unfolds, it appears that he may be no different than the electrician who overdosed on prescription opiates after suffering a catastrophic work injury or the firefighter who OD’d on oxycontin. The tragic stories go on and on, and the man in the mirror may have fallen like so many. The question which parents, employers, and others often express to me is – how can individuals obtain so much medication?  

There is no clear answer to this question.  We often find “doctor shopping” in order to obtain medication. There are also those instances where individuals with legitimate conditions seek excessive medication and then sell the excess. Another common scenario is a situation where a physician is simply writing scripts excessively or is otherwise acting unreasonably. This appears to be the explanation given by commentators in the Michael Jackson investigation and my experience as a NJ Prescription Drug Charge Defense Lawyer tells me that Mr. Jackson’s physician may be looking at some criminal problems down the road. I would also not be surprised if physicians find themselves responding to the same types of civil claims that confront the New Jersey Medical Malpractice Lawyers in our state.

Is this going to be another Anna Nicole saga?  I have my prediction but I will keep it to myself.  Irrespective, I would definitely consult an attorney if I was Michael’s physician.

By |June 7, 2012|Categories: Prescription Drug|

NJ High Schools Moving Toward Random Drug Testing

Reports and surveys in New Jersey have continually revealed a high incident of alcohol and drug use by high school students. In fact, a survey conducted by the Freehold Regional School District indicated that as much as 50% of high school juniors used these substances. Similar data has been generated by other districts including Hunterdon Central Regional. It also appears that a significant source of concern involves illegal use of prescription drugs.

In response to this information, numerous high schools in the state have put in place or are in the process of putting in place, random drug test protocols for students. Districts have also endorsed policies to screen students for alcohol use, especially at events like proms.

Parents and students can anticipate a rise in the volume of juvenile charges filed throughout the state.  In this regard, police will undoubtedly become involved in some situations where students have positive test results for narcotics and other illegal drugs. This shall also give rise to a litany of legal issues and/or possible defenses. 

By |June 7, 2012|Categories: Juvenile|
Go to Top