New Jersey Criminal Defense Journal

Iler Law Firm wins Suppression Motion in Gun Case

Alexander M. Iler — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 10:22:05 -0500

The Iler Law Firm recently represented a client who was charged with a Graves Act Violation for Unlawful Possession of a Handgun, in violation of 2C:39-5b as a result of a routine traffic stop. The police did not have a warrant to search the car, but relied on one of the exemptions to New Jersey’s warrant requirement.

In New Jersey, we have some of the most strict gun laws in the nation. In particular, the Graves Act , N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6, requires mandatory jail time and periods of parole ineligibility for certain gun offenses as well as for certain other offenses which were committed while in possession of a firearm. As a result, it is difficult to plea bargain many of these cases. The Iler Law Firm will file a Motion to Suppress Evidence on behalf of a client if there is a basis to do so. This motion asks the court to prevent the State from using the evidence, in this case the gun, at trial as a result of the police’s failure to follow certain requirements. If the gun is suppressed, the State would not be able to prove the Unlawful Possession of a Handgun charge at trial.

In this case, The Iler Law Firm filed a Motion to Suppress on behalf of the client which argued that the warrantless search of his vehicle was improper and therefore, the evidence seized should be suppressed. The State argued in its brief that the automobile exception to the warrant requirement justified the warrantless search of the defendant’s vehicle and that the warrantless search of the vehicle’s trunk was valid as it was performed with the consent of the defendant.

The court thereafter conducted a hearing on the issue. During the hearing, one of the attorneys from The Iler Law Firm had an opportunity to cross-examine the police officer. During this cross-examination, the office admitted that he had no fear for his safety, there were numerous officer’s from his department that were working at the time of the seizure and that he did not think it was practical to obtain a warrant from a judge at the time of the seizure. The court then heard oral argument from both sides.

Following an evaluation of the written briefs and the hearing that took place, the Court thereafter issued a written opinion which granted the defendant’s Motion to Suppress. Following this decision, The Iler Law Firm was ultimately able to obtain a dismissal of the charges that were brought against the defendant. The client was obviously very pleased with the work of the attorneys at The Iler Firm.

If you or a loved one are facing criminal charges, you need an experienced attorney with a track record of proven results. Contact our office 24/7 for a free consultation today.

Successful DWI Post-Conviction Relief Motion

Alexander M. Iler — Fri, 27 May 2011 13:36:06 -0500

The Iler Law Firm recently represented a client who sought to have his guilty plea for a DUI conviction vacated (set aside) based on a claim that his prior attorney was ineffective. The client contacted our office and wanted to know whether he had any defenses to the DUI charge even though he had already pled guilty and had already started serving his sentence. We explained to him what we believed were potential meritorious defenses to his case. He told us that his former attorney never told him about any of those defenses. He told us that if he knew about those potential defenses, he would have never pled guilty, and instead, would have insisted on taking this case to trial. Following a consultation, the client decided, based on our recommendation, to file a motion for post-conviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We explained that if successful, this would not result in the charge being dismissed, but rather it would simply vacate his prior DUI conviction and restore the matter to the court's calendar and would allow him to proceed to trial. We advised the client that he has several potential defenses, including (1) the state’s failure to produce an operator’s card for the officer who performed the alcotest; (2) the state’s failure to produce the operator’s card for the officer who performed the solution change prior to Defendant’s breath test; (3) a possible technical defense in relation to the less than two minute lock-out between the control test and the first valid breath sample; and (4) the State’s failure to produce “data downloads”. See State v. Maricic, 417 N.J. Super. 280 (App. Div. 2010). The client insisted he wanted to take the case to trial and have the opportunity to assert these defenses at that time.

The Firm, on behalf of the client, wrote a brief to court arguing how the client's former attorney ineffectively represented the client and requested the client's guilty plea be vacated. On the day of the motion, we argued to the judge that fundamental fairness requires that an attorney evaluate all possible defenses to a criminal charge. We argued that the former attorney's failure to evaluate these defenses with the client was ineffective and the client was prejudiced as a result. The prejudice, we argued, was that the client insisted he would have gone to trial if he knew about the potential defenses to his client, which he never knew about until he came to our office.

After oral argument, the judge ruled in our client's favor. The client was very pleased because his driving privileges were restored that day and he now was able to take the matter to trial. If you feel that you have been given ineffective assistance of counsel by your prior attorney in a DUI or DWI matter, contact our office for a free consultation to see how we can help. You may be able to reopen your prior case, at which time you may be able to more properly defend your case. Life has few second chances, a motion for Post-Conviction Relief may be one of them.

Guest Post from Thomas Greenberg

Alexander M. Iler — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 09:31:45 -0500

Marijuana Production in Oakland: Who’s in Charge Here?

In 1996, California became the first state in the nation to legalize marijuana use for medical purposes. The medical marijuana industry germinated during the Clinton Administration and grew during President George Bush’s tenure, despite the Bush Administration’s opposition. When Obama took office, he voiced public support for medical marijuana and assured that the Department of Justice would not prosecute patients or dispensaries in states where medical marijuana was legal. Economies are responsive to political and legal change, and the relaxation in the threat of prosecution led the medical marijuana industry to flower.

In July 2010, Oakland City Council passed a measure to grant licenses to four industrial-scale pot growers with the provision of hefty ($200,000+) licensing fees and a sales tax beginning at 1.8% and increasing to as much as 12%. The measure passed with the allure of a potential to raise $38 million for the city, annually. The Council also saw regulated, industrial-scale growing as a way of reducing small-scale production and the robberies and personal safety issues it sometimes attracts.

In the months after the measure passed, the City Council considered the rules for regulating the first large-scale marijuana warehouses in the country. A major issue was to whom to award the four coveted permits, and criteria were created to reward entrepreneurs for best business model, security plan and, of course, being pesticide-free. In November, voters approved a measure that imposed a 5% business tax on all marijuana growers and dispensaries. The City Council planned to award the four permits by December 20, 2010.

Then came a major buzzkill—the Obama Administration issued a blunt message that the Department of Justice would prosecute large-scale growers and distributors, and potentially penalize Oakland for getting a cut of the profits. Another, lesser problem was that the permit process failed to heed state law that was supposed to restrict medical marijuana growing to patient-caregiver collectives. The City Council went back to redraft the permitting process and bring it into compliance with state law by tying each farm to an individual marijuana dispensary.

For a moment it appeared that a new protocol had been worked out and that the City Council might award five permits. Councilwoman Desley Brooks had come up with a plan allowing five dispensaries to operate their own industrial-size marijuana farms of up to 50,000 square feet (the Brooks Plan).

Just as the City Council was getting fired up, the Obama DOJ local, US Attorney Melinda Haag blew the City Council’s high by issuing a warning that Oakland's cultivation ordinance as originally drafted would be illegal could result in federal and state prosecution.[1] In a letter dated February 1, 2011, Haag wrote:

"The department is concerned about the Oakland ordinance's creation of a licensing scheme that permits large-scale industrial marijuana cultivation and manufacturing as it authorizes conduct contrary to federal law. . . . Accordingly, the department is carefully considering civil and criminal legal remedies regarding those who seek to set up industrial marijuana growing warehouses in Oakland pursuant to licenses issued by the City of Oakland."

Haag said federal authorities would enforce a crackdown on illegal manufacturing and distribution of marijuana, "even if such activities are permitted under state law" as they violate federal anti-drug laws. Operators of marijuana farms but also landlords, property owners, financiers and even the city's council members could face prosecution. Haag made sure to point out that the DOJ won't be focusing its limited resources on prosecuting patients, but distinguished that unlawful manufacturing and distribution was another story.

Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O'Malley issued a statement agreeing that Brooks Plan violated state law because it defined dispensaries as primary caregivers, which read too broadly the state law provision allowing primary caregivers to grow medical marijuana. In fact, district attorneys offices throughout the state have basically disregarded this provision of the law has basically since medical marijuana was legalized in 1996, hence the proliferation of garage-grow rooms and backwoods plantations.

Within the week, City Attorney John Russo withdrew his legal advice and told the City Council to hire a separate, non-governmental attorney. Russo’s withdrawal doesn’t mean that the City Council has to flush its plan, rather, it’s more an illustration of how fractured his relationship with City Council is becoming. Just a week before, newly-elected mayor Jean Quan had expressed her desire to have her long-time lawyer friend Dan Siegel act as an unpaid legal adviser for the city, and the two had sparred over the legality of that.[2] Furthermore, U.S. Attorney Haag issued her letter in response to City Attorney Russo’s request for guidance, but Mayor Jean Quan says the Council never asked Russo to seek advice.

The fate of Oakland’s large-scale medical marijuana production is uncertain. The City Council’s Public Safety Committee will discuss Brooks' plan and Russo proposed amendments at their meeting on February 8. The full council will discuss the issue again at their meeting on February 15. The nation is watching--whatever happens in Oakland could have repercussions not only in California but also in other states that have legalized medical marijuana, like Arizona.

SOURCES:

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_17322521

http://www.baycitizen.org/marijuana/story/doj-oakland-industrial-pot-farms-illegal/

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/109222/20110205/oakland-council-warned-by-feds-not-to-break-us-pot-law.htm#

http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-02-03/bay-area/27098495_1_marijuana-farm-ordinance-dispensaries-pot

About the Author

San Mateo DUI Lawyer, Thomas Greenberg, is a native of California and a graduate of the University of California at Berkeley. He was formerly a highly respected deputy public defender and is now an experienced San Mateo criminal defense attorney who has provided effective legal services to literally thousands of clients

[1] http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/109222/20110205/oakland-council-warned-by-feds-not-to-break-us-pot-law.htm#

[2] http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/east_bay&id=7919182

Unfairly Prejudiced

Alexander M. Iler — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 10:00:52 -0500

On November 28, 2000, two men were convicted of the torture and murders of a mother and her son in their Barnegat, New Jersey home. However, about a year ago, their convictions were reversed by the Appellate Division of New Jersey. This occurred despite an overwhelming amount of evidence linking the two men to these murders. Defense attorneys argued that their clients were unfairly prejudiced because during trial, another incident of robbery and shootings at a barbershop had been brought up in which the defendants had taken part. The defense attorneys argued that this had unfairly prejudiced the defendants since there had been too much detail about the barbershop incident including the amount of blood on the floor, the victims that were shot, etc. during the trial of the murder of the mother and son. The gun that was used at the barbershop had in fact linked the two defendants to the murders that had occurred in 2000. For additional information on this case please refer to the Asbury Park Press article entitled “Ocean County prosecutors to court: Reinstate Barnegat murder convictions”

In 1997, the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys wrote an article entitled“Supreme Court Limits Unfair Prejudice in Gun Cases” in this articled it is opined that there is no way that a jury will listen to details regarding a previous incident and not have those details impact their opinion/judgment of the defendants. Prosecutors use this type of tactic to basically portray the defendants as “bad people” which will more likely sway the jury into finding defendants guilty. This raises a fascinating question, should one acting as a jury member allow themselves to be swayed by hearing the details of a previous crime of a defendant? Does one’s capacity to break the law in another circumstance make them more likely to commit the crime for which they are standing trial? It is situations like this that mandate the necessity of a good criminal defense attorney, a defense attorney who can limit the damage from exposure to the jury of past crimes. It is essential when facing a jury trial that your attorney know the rules of evidence and do his/her best to keep these types of incidents out or at least minimize their impact. Contact our office if you are facing a jury trial and want a team of trial lawyers who know how to deal with past crimes at trial.

The Supreme Court has not specified when the ruling of the case regarding the murdered mother and son would be.

DWI Talk Given at NJ State Bar Association Meeting

Alexander M. Iler — Thu, 18 Nov 2010 20:54:53 -0500

I gave a talk last night at the New Jersey State Bar Association, Municipal Court Section meeting in New Brunswick at the NJ Law Center. The subject of my talk was the ongoing temperature probe issue related to the Alcotest machines in use in every municipality in New Jersey. As some of you already know my firm has a case, currently at the appellate division, captioned State v. Holland. In State v. Holland, we sought to suppress our client's Alcotest readings by objecting to the State's unilateral and unsanctioned substitution of the Drager Safety Ertco Hart temperature probe, which has been sanctioned by the New Jersey Supreme Court, with a Control Company temperature probe. See our previous post

here

on this issue.

What really amazed me about the presentation was that I got the impression that lawyers who do DWi defense work are still not using this as a routine part of their defense. In addition, I had occasion to speak to a municipal court Judge who sits in Passaic County who said that in the three towns he sits in no one has brought up the issue yet! This amazes me, as this is such a simple defense which when handled properly, can often get the readings out and reduce a client's sentence from a 7 month suspension to a 3 month suspension.

As Jeff Gold, Esq., my co-presenter at the lecture said, this is really a three tiered defense to a DWI with readings. First, the defense attorney makes the basic argument that the State has failed to provide one of the foundational documents, and therefore the readings should be suppressed. Failing that, the attorney moves on to stage two of the defense which is to mount a technical defense case and really point out to the judge the technical differences between the two devices and why the Ertco Hart is a superior device. And, failing that, the defense attorney needs to be prepared to take the case up the ladder on appeal after a full blown trial. Too many municipal court practitioners are all too willing to just put a plea through when they can be fighting this issue to the end for their client. Hire a lawyer who is willing to go to the mat for you, it may cost a little extra, but is well worth the results you will achieve. The lawyers at the Iler Law Firm are willing to go that extra mile for you.

Not Guilty in Essex County 2nd Degree Aggravated Assault Trial

Alexander M. Iler — Thu, 11 Nov 2010 09:49:25 -0500

On Monday November 8, 2010, we are happy to announce a great success story for one of our clients who stood trial in Essex County on 2nd degree Aggravated Assault charges, as well as Unlawful Possession of a Weapon and Possession of a Weapon for an Unlawful Purpose charges.

Our client was involved in an altercation and was attacked by a 63 year old man with a pair of hedge clippers. In defending himself, he sought to ward off the attacker by wielding a PVC pipe, which unfortunately blinded the attacker. Our client was charged with 2nd degree Aggravated Assault in violation of N.J.S.A 2C:12-1(b), Unlawful Possession of a Weapon in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(d) and Possession of a Weapon for an Unlawful Purpose in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(d).

After a 5 day jury trial my client was found not guilty an all charges including the lesser included offenses of Aggravated Assault with Significant Bodily Injury in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1b(7), Simple Assault (N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1a(1) and Simple Assault Mutual Fighting in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1a(1).

On behalf of my client I was able to mount a successful self defense strategy and the jury reached a unanimous not guilty verdict! It was nice to see a jury do the right thing and listen carefully to both sides of a story, judge the credibility of witnesses properly and reach a just conclusion. My best wishes and thoughts go out to my client who is now fully enjoying his freedom for the first time in over a year.

Iler Law Firm featured in the Asbury Park Press on Megan's Law Issue

Alexander M. Iler — Mon, 18 Oct 2010 11:51:11 -0500

The Iler Law Firm was recently featured in an Asbury Park Press article concerning Megan's Law and a statutory provision which allows certain offenders to file a Motion to be removed from Megan's Law registration requirements after fifteen (15) years. For the full text of the article, see "Some sex offenders freed from Megan's Law monitoring".

Here are a few important things to keep in mind concerning Megan's Law and these motions. First, Megan's Law governs all those who have been convicted or plead guilty to a "sex offense" in New Jersey or another State. There are a wide range of sex offenses that put a defendant into this category. Now, the legislature, when enacting Megan's Law, saw fit to create an "out clause" which allows certain offenders to apply for removal from Megan's Law registration requirements if they meet certain criteria. The statute which governs this Motion is N.J.S.A. 2C:7-2(f) which provides:

f. Except as provided in subsection g. of this section, a person required to register under this act may make application to the Superior Court of this State to terminate the obligation upon proof that the person has not committed an offense within 15 years following conviction or release from a correctional facility for any term of imprisonment imposed, whichever is later, and is not likely to pose a threat to the safety of others.

Subsection (g) provides:

g. A person required to register under this section who has been convicted of, adjudicated delinquent, or acquitted by reason of insanity for more than one sex offense as defined in subsection b. of this section or who has been convicted of, adjudicated delinquent, or acquitted by reason of insanity for aggravated sexual assault pursuant to subsection a. of N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2 or sexual assault pursuant to paragraph (1) of subsection c. of N.J.S.A 2C:14-2 is not eligible under subsection f. of this section to make application to the Superior Court of this State to terminate the registration obligation.

Moreover, if the defendant was convicted of a serious sex crime such as rape or most offenses involving children, the individual is not eligible to be removed from Megan's Law EVER. Furthermore, if the individual meets these initial requirements, a comprehensive psychological evaluation is conducted and a report is generated for the Court concerning the defendant and risk that the defendant poses to society. Testimony of the psychologist may also be required by the Judge. Finally, if the registrant meets all of these requirements then the Assignment Judge in the County in which the registrant resides determines if the candidate is suitable for removal. The State also typically submits a brief and is heard on oral argument if they oppose the removal of the individual from the registration requirements.

As a result, it is important to remember that the worst offenders will never be eligible to be removed from Megan's law. Further, individuals who have committed more than one sex offense will never be eligible to be removed. In conclusion, those who are eligible have not committed any offenses whatsoever in fifteen (15) years and have been law abiding members of society. Therefore, the legislature provided them with a removal clause which has significant safeguards.

Ocean City NJ Marijuana Charges Dismissed

Alexander M. Iler — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 14:07:35 -0500

I recently represented two co-defendants charged with marijuana possession under 50 grams and possession of drug paraphernalia in Ocean City Municipal Court. These two young men had no prior criminal record and waived any conflict of interest in the firm representing both co-defendants.

Upon receipt of the discovery package it became very clear that there was an issue with the search. The police report narrative stated that the officer was on traffic patrol when he saw the driver go into the Sunoco station and leave very quickly without buying anything and then when the driver came out of the store he was looking around like he was looking for someone when he observed the officer across the street. At this point, the driver returned to his vehicle and began driving toward the exit of the city. The officer then stated that he noticed the driver was not wearing his seatbelt which was the probable cause to pull the vehicle over. Once the stop was initiated, the officer smelled marijuana inside the vehicle and the driver consented to a search of the vehicle which led to the seiizure of marijuana and possession charges.

However, the probable cause for the stop was questionable at best. If there was no reason for the officer to pull the vehicle over then any subsequent search or violation must be suppressed based on the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. Moreover, although the probable cause for the stop was the alleged seatbelt violation, the officer failed to issue the driver a summons for this violation. As a result, after a conference with the municipal prosecutor and a potential motion to suppress the illegally seized evidence on the table, the prosecutor agreed to dismiss the charges based on the questionable nature of the search and the lack of probable cause for the initial stop.

This was a great success for the clients who were able to avoid a criminal charge on their record along with the six (6) month driver's license suspension that accompanies these charges.

Recent Success Story in Burlington County Superior Court

Alexander M. Iler — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 13:25:07 -0500

I represented a client this week charged with aggravated assault in Burlington County Superior Court. The defendant allegedly recklessly discharged his firearm in his home which led to his roommate being shot in the forearm. My client is an active member of the United States Air Force and lawfully possessed the weapon. However, he was charged with aggravated assault under N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(3) for recklessly causing an injury to another. This is a fourth degree charge and the plea offer was eighteen (18) months in prison without parole.

After an initial investigation, it became very clear that my client did not shoot the alleged victim in the arm but rather the alleged victim shot himself in the forearm. This was an alcohol related incident and the alleged victim told the police that the defendant shot him in the arm accidentally when he was cleaning the gun because the alleged victim assumed my client would not be prosecuted and the alleged victim was concerned that he would get into trouble based on the fact that he did not have a permit for this firearm and it was not his gun. Based on this investigation and the alleged victim changing his story, I was able to negotiate a significant downgrade of the charge to a petty disorderly persons offense of creating a hazardous condition. My client paid a fine and the case is now resolved. This was a tremendous result for the client who was facing eighteen (18) months in prison and who was able to avoid a felony charge on his record.

Snooki's case is resolved in Seaside Heights

Alexander M. Iler — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 07:57:06 -0500

Snooki's disorderly conduct case was resolved in Seaside Heights, New Jersey yesterday. The case went as expected. Snooki plead guilty to violating a municipal ordinance for ""interfering with the enjoyment of the quiet use of the beach by others." She was given a $500.00 fine and two (2) days community service. This plea agreement allows her to avoid any jail time and to avoid a permanent criminal charge on her record. Typically, disorderly conduct charges in Belmar, Point Pleasant, Seaside Heights, or Manasquan are all resolved in this manner if an experienced criminal defense attorney is retained to represent the defendant. The fines vary depending on the municipality: for example, a violation of this same ordinance in Belmar has a fine of $1,250.00. Very expensive for having a little too much fun at the beach.

For additional information on Snooki's case, please see the Asbury Park Press article entitled, "Snooki fined $500 for annoying beachgoers".

Snookie's disorderly conduct case: Is she going to jail?

Alexander M. Iler — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 07:14:36 -0500

I have had so many friends and colleagues asking me lately about disorderly conduct and Snooki's famous disorderly conduct charges in Seaside Heights, New Jersey. In fact, I was recently cited in an AOL News article on Snooki's case entitled, "Snooki arrested for being Snookie: What Defines Disorderly Conduct?". Here is a brief explanation of the charges Snookie is facing as well as the likely resolution of the case.

Snooki has been charged with disorderly conduct, a criminal offense in New Jersey, which is governed by N.J.S.A. 2C:33-2. The statute provides:

§ 2C:33-2. Disorderly conduct

a. Improper behavior. A person is guilty of a petty disorderly persons offense, if with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof he

(1) Engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior; or

(2) Creates a hazardous or physically dangerous condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.

b. Offensive language. A person is guilty of a petty disorderly persons offense if, in a public place, and with purpose to offend the sensibilities of a hearer or in reckless disregard of the probability of so doing, he addresses unreasonably loud and offensively coarse or abusive language, given the circumstances of the person present and the setting of the utterance, to any person present.

Disorderly conduct is a "disorderly persons offense" in New Jersey which is similar to a misdemeanor. A disorderly persons offense typically results in a maximum of six (6) months in prison if convicted. However, because Snooki's disorderly conduct charge is a "petty disorderly persons offense", the maximum penalty is only thirty (30) days in jail. Further, because it appears she has no prior record, even if she was convicted of this offense she would not usually be sentenced to incarceration.

Most of these cases result in a plea bargain with the prosecutor to a downgraded charge known as a municipal ordinance. Right now if she was convicted of this disorderly conduct charge, she would have a criminal charge on her permanent record and she would not be able to expunge the charge off of her record for five (5) years. However, most times the prosecutor offers a downgrade to a violation of a municipal ordinance which is not a criminal charge and will not result in a criminal record. This municipal ordinance is typically for a noise violation or a general disorderly conduct violation. A violation of a municipal ordinance is on the level of a littering ticket or a urinating in public ticket. The defendant pays a fine and the case is resolved. Most prosecutors offer these type of downgrades to avoid the time and expense of a trial and to keep the court calendar moving. If every case went to trial and they did not offer plea bargains the Municipal Court system in New Jersey would come to a stop and would not be able to operate effectively. As a result, my prediction is Snooki is offered and accepts a plea bargain to a municipal ordinance and pays a fine. We'll see if I am right.

Former Judge and current Hoboken prosecutor joins the Iler Law Firm

Alexander M. Iler — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 10:35:42 -0500

The Iler Law Firm is pleased to announce that Ron A. Venturi, Esq. has joined the firm. Mr. Venturi is a former Municipal Court Judge in Irvington and Newark and is currently the head Municipal Prosecutor in Hoboken, New Jersey. He also currently serves as the Municipal Public Defender in Irvington.

Mr. Venturi graduated from Seton Hall University School of Law in 1986 and is a former member of the Supreme Court of New Jersey, Municipal Court Committee. He is also an active member in the Essex County, Monmouth County, and Ocean County Bar Associations. Mr. Venturi's practice centers on criminal defense and prosecution and he would be happy to answer any questions at (732)842-7787.

The Iler Law Firm now has two former Municipal Court judges on staff with Alexander B. Iler and Ron A. Venturi. Their wealth of knowledge in the criminal arena is a major asset for the firm.

Ice cream truck driver charged in death of man in Wall Township

Alexander M. Iler — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 10:39:52 -0500

A 46-year old Farmingdale man has been charged with leaving the scene of a fatal accident and causing the death of a person while driving with a suspended driver's license. According to the the Asbury Park Press article and the Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office, the defendant was driving an ice cream truck in Wall Township last year when he ran over a man who had fallen down in the road. The defendant denies these charges and will enter a not guilty plea at his arraignment. The allegations are that the defendant left the scene of the accident and failed to report the accident but he was identified as the driver of the vehicle by witnesses. The defendant is free on $250,000.00 bail and faces up to ten (10) years in prison if convicted of these charges.

Two arrested with crack cocaine in Ocean Township

Alexander M. Iler — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 08:36:00 -0500

Two men were arrested in Ocean Township Saturday following a motor vehicle stop. Police stopped the vehicle based on a cracked front windshield and found the driver of the vehicle to be in possession of several small bags of crack cocaine and a crack pipe. The passenger was also charged as he was allegedly trying to conceal a small bag which contained crack cocaine and heroin. Both defendants were arrested and charged with drug possession based on this motor vehicle stop. For additional information, see the Asbury Park Press article entitled, "Two arrested on drug charges after Ocean Township traffic stop".

Charges for possession of cocaine are governed by NJSA 2C:25-10 which provides in pertinent part:

§ 2C:35-10. Possession, use or being under the influence, or failure to make lawful disposition

a. It is unlawful for any person, knowingly or purposely, to obtain, or to possess, actually or constructively, a controlled dangerous substance or controlled substance analog, unless the substance was obtained directly, or pursuant to a valid prescription or order form from a practitioner, while acting in the course of his professional practice, or except as otherwise authorized by P.L.1970, c.226. Any person who violates this section with respect to:

(1) A controlled dangerous substance, or its analog, classified in Schedule I, II, III or IV other than those specifically covered in this section, is guilty of a crime of the third degree except that, notwithstanding the provisions of subsection b. of N.J.S.A. 2C:43-3, a fine of up to $ 35,000.00 may be imposed;

As the above statute enumerates, charges for simple possession of cocaine are typically third degree offenses. Thus, this is an indictable criminal charge and will be handled at the county level. Further, there are enhanced penalties if you were charged in a school zone or near a public housing facility or park. Moreover, if you are found to be in possession of a substantial amount or "weight" of cocaine, you could be facing a second degree offense as well as possession of cocaine with intent to distribute.

Eatontown man arrested in connection with 4 robberies

Alexander M. Iler — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 09:34:27 -0500

Police arrested an Eatontown man Tuesday in connection with the robbery of four (4) gas stations in three towns over a five day period. According to the Asbury Park Press article, "Michael Mazza, 36, of Livingston Court, was charged Tuesday with four counts of robbery, possession of a controlled dangerous substance, possession of drug paraphernalia, purposely causing bodily injury, two counts of possession of a weapon and criminal attempt to commit robbery." The defendant was charged with robbing gas stations in West Long Branch, Eatontown, and Ocean Township in very similar scenarios in which he allegedly threatened attendants and took off with approximately $200 to $300 each incident. The defendant is being held at the Monmouth County Jail in Freehold, New Jersey on $130,000 bail.

The statute governing robbery charges in New Jersey is N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1 which provides in pertinent part:

§ 2C:15-1. Robbery

a. Robbery defined. A person is guilty of robbery if, in the course of committing a theft, he:

(1) Inflicts bodily injury or uses force upon another; or

(2) Threatens another with or purposely puts him in fear of immediate bodily injury; or

(3) Commits or threatens immediately to commit any crime of the first or second degree.

An act shall be deemed to be included in the phrase "in the course of committing a theft" if it occurs in an attempt to commit theft or in immediate flight after the attempt or commission.

b. Grading. Robbery is a crime of the second degree, except that it is a crime of the first degree if in the course of committing the theft the actor attempts to kill anyone, or purposely inflicts or attempts to inflict serious bodily injury, or is armed with, or uses or threatens the immediate use of a deadly weapon.

Murder conviction overturned based on improper admission of evidence

Alexander M. Iler — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 09:05:23 -0500

Monmouth County Superior Court Judge Ira E. Kreizman set a $3 million bail for a Holmdel man whose murder conviction was recently overturned by the Appellate Division. The defendant was convicted of murdering his wife, whose body was found inside her vehicle in a remote area of the PNC Bank Arts Center in 2005. The Appellate Division overturned this conviction earlier this week based on the improper admission of hearsay statements of the victim. For additional information, see the Asbury Park Press article entitled "$3M bail for Holmdel man with overturned murder conviction."

It is very common to see mistakes made and improperly admitted evidence when it comes to hearsay. The definition of hearsay is "an out of court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted". For example, if I testify in court that actor A told me he was going to the gym at 5 to prove that he went to the gym at 5, this is a hearsay statement. I am offering the statement which was previously made to me to prove the truth of the statement. In this case, the judge allowed the State to offer previously made statements of the victim that she intended to end her marriage to prove that she intended to end her marriage (thus giving her husband motive to kill her). This is classic hearsay and should not have been admitted. Moreover, hearsay can be admitted in certain situations if one of the hearsay exceptions apply. For example, admissions of a party is an exception to the hearsay rule. Thus, if I am a defendant in a criminal case for assault and I told the police previously that I punched the victim in the eye, this is hearsay but would be admissible based on the "admission of a party" exception to the hearsay rule. Here, the State argued that the "state of mind" exception to the hearsay rule applied to show the state of mind of the victim in that she intended to leave her husband and end the marriage. However, this exception did not apply and should not have been used because the state of mind of the victim was not a point at issue and was irrelevant to the case. The hearsay statement was being offered not to show the state of mind of the victim but instead to show that the statement was true and that her husband had a motive to murder her. Thus, the Appellate Division overruled the conviction and the case may go to trial again if it does not result in a plea agreement.

Murder case against Jersey Shore nurse dismissed

Alexander M. Iler — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 10:12:32 -0500

The Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office dismissed a murder charge against a nurse who previously worked at the Jersey Shore Medical Center. The woman was previously charged with murdering a 72-year-old patient by giving him an an unprescribed paralytic medication that would "make him comfortable" since his situation was terminal. Now, Superior Court Judge Francis J. Vernoia, at the request of the Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office, dismissed the murder indictment as the state would not have been able to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

If the defendant had been convicted at trial, she was facing thirty (30) years to life in prison. However, she refused to take a plea offer in February to assault which would have resulted in a probationary sentence. This shows tremendous resolve on the part of the defendant as she was willing to risk significant jail time to prove her innocence. For additional information on this case, see the Asbury Park Press article entitled, "Jersey Shore nurse Lorie Hentges: Murder charge dismissed".

Iler Law Firm retained to represent Somerset County man charged with check fraud

Alexander M. Iler — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 13:58:19 -0500

The Iler Law Firm has been retained to represent a client charged with an alleged fraudulent check cashing scheme in Somerville, Bridgewater, Hillsborough, Raritan, and Green Brook. For additional information, see the article on NJ.com entitled "Middlesex man charged for cashing fake checks at TD Bank branches in Somerville, Bridgewater, Hillsborough, Raritan, Green Brook".

In New Jersey, N.J.S.A. 2C:21-5 governs bad check offenses and provides in pertinent part:

§ 2C:21-5. Bad checks

A person who issues or passes a check or similar sight order for the payment of money, knowing that it will not be honored by the drawee, commits an offense as provided for in subsection c. of this section. For the purposes of this section as well as in any prosecution for theft committed by means of a bad check, an issuer is presumed to know that the check or money order (other than a post-dated check or order) would not be paid, if:

a. The issuer had no account with the drawee at the time the check or order was issued; or

b. Payment was refused by the drawee for lack of funds, or due to a closed account, after a deposit by the payee into a bank for collection or after presentation to the drawee within 46 days after issue, and the issuer failed to make good within 10 days after receiving notice of that refusal or after notice has been sent to the issuer's last known address. Notice of refusal may be given to the issuer orally or in writing in any reasonable manner by any person.

c. An offense under this section is:

(1) a crime of the second degree if the check or money order is $ 75,000.00 or more;

(2) a crime of the third degree if the check or money order is $ 1,000.00 or more but is less than $ 75,000.00;

(3) a crime of the fourth degree if the check or money order is $ 200.00 or more but is less than $ 1,000.00;

(4) a disorderly persons offense if the check or money order is less than $ 200.00.

Two Ocean County men charged with robbery and sexual assault

Alexander M. Iler — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 08:55:55 -0500

A very bizarre story in the Asbury Park Press this morning. Two men have been charged with robbery and sexual assault after allegedly robbing a man at knifepoint and sexually assaulting him. The robbery and assault allegedly occurred earlier this month at a motel on Route 9. According to the article, two men held the motel guest down (another man) at knifepoint, threatened to kill him, stole $1,200.00 in cash, a cell phone and a wallet from the man, and sexually assaulted him. The defendants are charged with conspiracy, robbery, aggravated sexual assault, criminal restraint, terroristic threats, and illegal weapons possession. They are both being held at the Ocean County Jail in Toms River, New Jersey with bail amounts of $500,000 and $230,000 respectively.

It is very rare to see a robbery and a sexual assault committed by two men on another man. These charges are obviously extremely serious as you can see from the high bail amounts and both defendants are facing many years in jail if convicted of these crimes.

Major Heroin bust in Toms River

Alexander M. Iler — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 10:06:35 -0500

Police arrested several individuals and confiscated 719 bags of heroin in Toms River this week after a three month investigation. On Thursday, the Toms River Police Special Enforcement Team raided an Alexandria Drive home to find heroin, drug paraphernalia, and prescription drugs inside. This led to the arrest of five individuals and a sixth person remains at large. The defendants were charged with possession of heroin, possession of heroin with intent to distribute, and possession of heroin with intent to distribute within 1,000 feet of a school zone. The defendants were arrested and are being held on various bail amounts at the Ocean County Jail in Toms River. For additional information, see the Asbury Park Press article entitled "Five arrested in Toms River heroin bust".