| By

One of the most frustrating aspects of prison life concerns inmate efforts to enroll in classes and programs offered within the prison system.  Virtually every prison system offers inmate programs that are designed to train inmates for re-entry into society.  These programs, which are designed to address many of the issues that caused the inmate to offend and be incarcerated, include drug and alcohol counseling, anger management, general societal skills, and vocational training.  It is believed, and hoped, that participation in such programs ultimately reduces recidivism by enhancing an inmate’s ability to contribute to the community in a positive and productive way upon release.  The programs are also important because successful completion in as many of them as possible can increase the likelihood of an earlier release on parole.  Earlier inmate release reduces prison costs, and frees prison resources for use elsewhere.

The issue that causes frustration relative to inmate programs is that there are not enough of them, and most of the existing ones are too small to meet the demand.  Many inmates try to enroll in programs during their term of incarceration, only to be placed on a waiting list because there is insufficient space to accommodate everyone.  It is not unusual for inmates to appear at parole hearings with a prison record showing the attempt to enroll in programs to which they were not admitted because the program was already full.  Many inmates – particularly non-violent offenders with relatively minimal records, or those with mental health or drug or alcohol issues – could benefit from such programs if there were more of them, and if the programs could hold more people.  Once again, the issue is cost.  We needs to ask where we want to spend our prison dollars.  Do we want to spend money on simply incarcerating people only to release them exactly as they were when they entered the criminal justice system thereby increasing their risk of re-offending or, alternatively, do we want to devote resources to training and education that will hopefully equip inmates to succeed upon release?

This is not a “feel-bad-for-the-poor-inmate” argument; rather, this has to do with spending large amounts of real taxpayer dollars in the most efficient and effective manner possible.  Spending money on just locking people up in a cage is patently silly and ultimately accomplishes nothing; spending money on training them to succeed after they are released is smart.  It is noteworthy that we are coming out of an election season.  Government spending and costs are issues frequently discussed in every federal and state election cycle.  Every candidate for every executive position wants to cut costs, and they each seem to have this endless list of proposed cuts that they will make if elected.  I cannot remember any candidate for any executive office ever discuss cutting a prison budget while they were on the campaign trail.  In light of the size of our national prison bill, stemming largely from the fact that that the US incarcerates more people than any other country on the planet, this issue clearly merits more attention.  The prison system is almost certainly one of the largest line items in the federal budget and in every state budget, and we can lower that number by, among other things, providing inmate training and education geared toward reducing recidivism.  Continue reading ›

| By

State v. Bryant, a recent search and seizure case, discusses the factual predicate necessary to justify a protective sweep of a home.

Officers went to defendant’s home in response to a domestic violence report.  A woman had called the police, stated that she had been assaulted there, and was now outside in her car.  The woman did not provide her name or the identity of her attacker, but did provide the police with an address.  Having only this limited information, the first two officers to arrive at the home knocked on the door, entered, and told defendant to sit on a couch.  One officer questioned the defendant while the other conducted a protective sweep of the apartment, searching any area where a person may hide.

During the protective sweep, the officer saw what he thought was marijuana sticking out of a box in a closet.  The officer seized it, the defendant was arrested and removed from the premises, and a search warrant was requested and received.  The officers then discovered 55 grams of marijuana, packaging material and an assault weapon.  The defendant was charged with possession of CDS, Possession of CDS with intent to distribute, possession of an assault firearm, and possession of a weapon by a person with a prior indictable conviction. Continue reading ›

| By

There is increasing concern over the efficiency of our State’s court system.  Everyone seems to want the system to work more efficiently.  The most obvious examples of this desire is the soon-to-be-implemented criminal justice reform package (bail reform and speedy trial), which was the subject of prior blog posts.  But other procedures are being implemented that will hopefully make the Courts run more smoothly, including the new expedited expungement procedure for certain non-indictable offenses.  Municipal court defendants with eligible offenses should take immediate advantage of this procedure.

An expungement allows someone convicted of an offense to, in effect, hide the fact of that conviction from certain individuals and entities.  The primary benefit seems to be in the area of background checks by prospective employers.  The expungement procedure for an indictable (felony) conviction appears in the New Jersey criminal code.  Anyone who is in the running for an expungement should take advantage of this procedure as soon as they are able to satisfy all of the statutory criteria.  (Not every offense is eligible for expungement.  Further, a certain amount of time must have passed since the completion of the sentence before the application can be filed with the court.)

The expungement process requires a fair amount of work, and can take many months to complete successfully.  As of April 18, 2016, the criminal code was amended to allow for the expedited expungement, without the assessment of a fee, of all information concerning or relating to an arrest or charge for a disorderly persons offense, petty disorderly persons offense, or ordinance violation, where the charge has been disposed of with a dismissal, acquittal at trial, or discharged without a finding of guilt by the defendant. Continue reading ›

| By

Ever wonder why criminal cases languish in the system prior to resolution?  Frequently, good reasons frequently exist for a case to drag on over a period of months, or even years.  Further, the passage of time can actually help the defendant by effectively weakening the State’s case through the loss or disappearance of physical evidence or witnesses, or the discovery of exculpatory evidence.  But the same cannot be said of every criminal matter.  Some cases can be resolved quickly, thereby freeing limited resources that can then be focused on more complex matters.

In any event, and starting January 1, 2017, the criminal justice reforms that have been enacted in New Jersey will emphasize moving criminal cases through the system more promptly and efficiently.  In a prior blog post, we commented upon one of the major elements of the new reforms, which is bail reform.  The other major element is speedy trial.

Speedy trial is pretty much what it sounds like.  Cases will be on a more defined schedule which is designed to bring them to trial or other resolution within a set time frame.  This is not a new concept.  The federal system, New York State, and many other jurisdictions have had some form of speedy trial for years.  But this is new for New Jersey, and it merits discussion because of the significant impact it will undoubtedly have on our criminal courts. Continue reading ›

| By

Everyone here is scrambling to implement the criminal justice reforms that become effective on January 1, 2017.  As stated in a previous posting, the new laws and procedures change New Jersey’s criminal justice system in many significant ways.

The new bail procedure departs substantially from current law.  Under the current system, a defendant’s pretrial release depends their ability to post a monetary bail.  Under the new procedure, pretrial release will depend upon the extent of the risk that the defendant will not appear in court when s/he is supposed to do so, and whether the defendant poses a danger to the community.  The reforms address a problem known to exist for a long time.  Under current procedure, defendants who do not present any meaningful risk to the community can remain in jail throughout their case only because they cannot afford to pay even a minimal bail, whereas defendants with more significant resources can afford to post bail even if they are a flight risk, or are perceived as dangerous.

Under the new system, when a defendant is arrested on a complaint-warrant, the judge setting bail will use an objective, validated risk assessment tool developed by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation to assess the risk that the defendant will be arrested for a new offense; be arrested for a new violent crime; and fail to appear in court when required to do so.  The assessment is designed to be race and gender neutral.  Based upon the risk assessment score, the defendant will be classified as low, moderate or high risk, and the judge will then set the terms and conditions of pretrial release accordingly.  The decision to release or incarcerate the defendant must be made within 48 hours.  The courts will, however, be trying to make this decision within 24 hours. Continue reading ›

| By

Major changes to the processing of criminal cases in New Jersey will take effect on January 1, 2017.  On the surface, these changes address two areas of criminal practice: (a) pretrial release and bail; and (b) speedy trial.  However, it is anticipated that these changes will ultimately affect virtually every aspect of a New Jersey criminal case.  This post is the first of a series addressing criminal justice reform in New Jersey.

Pretrial Release and Bail – Criminal cases in New Jersey are commenced with the issuance of a Complaint-Summons or Complaint-Warrant.  As under the current system, defendants receiving Complaint-Summonses will simply get a court date, and then be released.  However, the new procedures significantly affect defendants who receive Complaint-Warrants.  Under the existing procedure, these defendants are given a dollar amount that they must post for bail.  They are released if they can post that bail, and remain in custody if they cannot.  The primary issue that the changes to the current system seek to address concerns defendants who receive low bails (often as low as $500.00), but are forced to remain in jail – sometimes for months, if not longer – because they cannot afford it.  The changes focus upon two problems that result from jailing this group of defendants.  First, these defendants, whose economic circumstances are often fragile at best, frequently lose their jobs and their homes as a result of prolonged incarceration.  Further, jailing people costs money, and the State, the counties and the municipalities, cannot afford it.  Thus, the changes are designed arrange for the prompt release of non-violent defendants who are not flight risks so that they do not face the consequences of needless incarceration stemming from their inability to pay even a modest bail, and to conserve public funds that could be better spent elsewhere.

The new procedures result in a shift from a system of pretrial release and bail that is based upon a defendant’s economic resources to a system that focuses more on an assessment of the likelihood that a defendant will appear for court when instructed to do so, as well as the danger they present to the community if they are released while their case is pending.  These procedures represent a substantial departure from current bail practice in New Jersey.  The precise mechanics of the new bail system will be the subject of a future blog post.

Continue reading ›

| By

Two years ago, the Obama administration commenced an effort to grant clemency to federal non-violent drug offenders who would have received shorter prison sentences had they been sentenced under subsequently revised advisory sentencing guidelines.  Last week, President Obama granted clemency to 111 federal inmates, 35 of whom originally received life sentences.  Earlier in August, Obama granted clemency to 214 similarly situated federal inmates.  August’s clemency grants raises his total number of commutations to 673 – more than the past 10 presidents combined.

The administration is attempting to address a substantial number of clemency petitions in its final months.  This effort is apparently angering several Republicans in the House and Senate; however, and given the fact that he is finishing his second term, Washington insiders believe that Obama couldn’t care less.  Obama is, in fact, the first sitting US President to tour a prison facility, having visited El Reno FCI in Oklahoma last year where he, among other things, actually met with inmates.  He has also had lunch with clemency recipients.  All indications are that he truly believes in this and, given the end of his tenure, can act without fear of major political repercussions.

As discussed previously on this blog, the clemency initiative was intended to address the sentences of non-violent offenders sentenced under now-amended sentencing guidelines that previously set longer sentences for their particular offenses.  The problem that the administration faces is that several thousand federal inmates, including white collar defendants, defendants convicted of violent offenses and sex offenders, all applied for clemency, thereby flooding the program with petitions. Continue reading ›

| By

Neither the New Jersey Code of Juvenile Justice nor the New Jersey Court Rules expressly address discovery in juvenile matters.  The absence of express guidance in the statute or court rules recently led to decisions from the Appellate Division and New Jersey Supreme Court that broadened a juvenile’s right to discovery, at least in a relatively narrow – but very serious – class of cases.

Two high school students – CW and DW – got into a fistfight.  Someone who was present at the fight had a handgun in his waistband.  NH, one of DW’s friends who was also present at the fight, grabbed the gun and shot CW four times.  One of the shots was to the back of CW’s head.  NH subsequently admitted to possessing and firing the handgun, but claimed that he shot at the ground.  At least a portion of the incident was caught on video, and several witnesses provided statements to the police that implicated NH.

The State charged NH in a juvenile complaint with crimes that, if committed by an adult, would constitute knowing and purposeful murder and unlawful possession of a weapon.  The State also sought to waive jurisdiction of the case from the Family Division, Juvenile Part, to the adult criminal part of the Law Division.  In connection with this motion, the State submitted a statement of reasons, provided the juvenile with limited discovery, and represented that it had no exculpatory evidence. Continue reading ›

| By

On September 20, 1992, the police received reports that someone had fallen from a 12-story cliff near the New Jersey Palisades.  They arrived in the area and found Stephen Scharf, who told them they he and his wife, Jody, were having a picnic before going to a comedy club in New York City.  Scharf also stated that they were drinking in their car, and then went to a lookout area described as their “spot”.  Finally, Scharf told the police that while he was getting a blanket and more drinks from their vehicle, Jody fell from the rocks.  Jody’s body was later found, and her blood alcohol content was 0.12.  At that time, the medical examiner could not determine a cause of death.

Other facts undermined Scharf’s story.  Jody was seeking to divorce him, alleging that he was abusive and unfaithful.  Further, at some point within the past year, Scharf had taken out a $500,000 life insurance policy on Jody.  Because of such facts, the case was reviewed again in 2004.  Finding that Jody’s injuries (primarily to her face) were inconsistent with falling off a cliff, the medical examiner changed the cause of death to homicide.  The medical examiner further determined that Jody was thrown from the cliff, and had hit a tree as she dropped down.

During trial, a number of individuals who knew Jody testified that her husband was abusive, and that she was afraid of both him and heights.  Jody was also seeing a therapist who testified that Jody had previously refused to accompany her husband to the cliffs, and that she never visited the area before.  One witness also testified that Jody had informed her that Scharf had refused to sign certain papers related to the pending divorce, and that he would “see her dead” before signing them.  The couple’s son also testified that Jody did not want to go to dinner alone with her husband. Continue reading ›

| By

DWI cases can be difficult and challenging under the best of circumstances.  Careful discovery review and analysis is crucial to any positive outcome. First, the defense attorney needs to have a thorough understanding of the standard battery of field tests that police employ in assessing drivers suspected of operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.  These tests include the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test, the Walk-and-Turn test, and the One-Leg-Stand test.  Each of these tests must be administered properly, and the steps the arresting officer is supposed to follow, including the instructions given and the subject’s performance, should be clearly outlined in the discovery that the State provides in connection with the case.

Further, cases involving alcohol typically involve a breathalyzer test.  Here again, an officer certified to administer the test must do so following a relatively long and complex list of testing protocols.  The machine and chemicals used in performing the test must also pass muster, and the related documentation must be provided to defense counsel.

This brief description of the steps the State must follow in convicting someone for DWI shows that the goal is to document the basis for the offense as thoroughly as possible so as to raise the likelihood of a conviction to the point where it can be a foregone conclusion.  Defense counsel must therefore work diligently to understand the paperwork that the State provides in support of its case, and make appropriate motions and retain required experts where necessary. Continue reading ›

Justia Lawyer Rating
New Jersey Bar Association Badge
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers Badge
ACDL - NJ Badge
Contact Information
New Brunswick
5 Elm Row #300
New Brunswick, NJ 08901
Telephone: 732-979-2259 Ext: 101Fax: 732-579-8311Toll Free: 800-361-6554
Mailing Address
P.O. Box 154
New Brunswick, NJ 08903
Telephone: 732-979-2259 Ext: 101Fax: 732-579-8311Toll Free: 800-361-6554

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2025, James S. Friedman, LLC
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design