Archive for March 2012

New Jersey Criminal Attorney Appeals Two Convictions For Murder Of North Brunswick Woman

In 1991 a North Brunswick woman was found stabbed to death in her home. An investigation led to the defendant’s arrest a few days later. After his arrest, the defendant was twice convicted for the murder. The first conviction was reversed by the Supreme Court, ruling that the defendant’s confession was obtained after the state’s seizure of him without probable cause.

The defendant’sNew Jerseylawyer appealed the second conviction, questioning the validity of the search warrant for the defendant’s home before he was taken into custody. The Appellate Division reversed the defendant’s second conviction.

The Supreme Court ruled that the search warrant for the defendant’s home was a reasonable exercise of authority. Probable cause for an arrest warrant and probable cause for a search warrant involve distinct and not necessarily identical inquiries.

Click here for the website of New Jersey Criminal Attorney John F. Renner, Esquire

Legal Quote of the Week:

“Every murderer is probably somebody’s old friend”

Agatha Christie, The Mysterious Affair at Styles, 1920

New Jersey Criminal Attorney Appeals Trial Judge’s Failure To Employ Cross-Racial Charge

On August 17, 2007 the victim was making deliveries when he was beaten and robbed by two individuals. Due to the brevity of the encounter, the victim was only able to identify the defendants in the case by their attire and their race. The defendants were black while the victim was white, a factor causing aNew Jerseylawyer to request having the jury charged on cross-racial identification. The trial judge denied the request.

The Appellate Division faced the issue as to whether a cross-racial identification charge was necessary in the case. The cross-racial charge is not required for all cases in which the defendant and victim are of different races. In this case, the trial judge denied the request based on the victim’s previous history with individuals of different races. The victim had spent time in prison and encountered the minority community in varied situations, causing the trial judge to rule that the cross-racial identification charge was not necessary for the jury.

The Appellate Division ruled that this case relied on cross-racial identification as a “crucial issue” and thus the cross-racial charge should have been used. Since the victim’s observations were limited and based predominantly on the defendants’ attire, the Appellate Division ruled that the case should be granted a new trial due to failure to employ the cross-racial charge.

Click here if you have are facing criminal charges in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and need an experienced criminal trial attorney.

Legal Quote of the Week:

“One eye-witness is worth more than ten who tell what they have heard”

Plautus, c.254-184 B.C., Truculentus



New Jersey Criminal Attorneys Ponder Ruling In First U.S. Conviction For Theft Of An Internet Domain

In 2006, the defendant hacked into account files on the website of, altered the registration information, and transferred the ownership of the domain name to himself. The defendant then sold the domain name on eBay to an individual who planned on selling the address for a profit. Both the defendant and the individual who purchased the domain name on eBay were sued by the original owners of the site in federal court.

The individual who purchased the domain name off eBay was later let out from the case after settling with the plaintiffs, returning the domain name, and assigning them his claims against the defendant. A New Jersey grand jury indicted the defendant on seven counts including identity theft and falsifying records. The defendant’s civil suit was terminated pending the criminal matter.

The nine-count criminal complaint accused the defendant of racketeering, fraud, and violation of the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The defendant pled guilty to unlawful taking, theft by deception, and computer theft crimes. The defendant faced up to 10 years in prison and a $150,000 fine for these offenses.

Click here if you need an experienced, dedicated NJ Criminal Defense Attorney.

Legal Quote of the Week:

“I have met with many that would deceive; who would be deceived, no one.”

St. Augustine

New Jersey Criminal Lawyers Recognize New Jersey Supreme Court Consideration Of Hearsay Exception For Threatened Witnesses

During State v. Byrd and Dean, 198, N.J. 319 (2009) a witness refused to testify due to threats against himself and his family by the defendants on trial. Due to the out-of-court statements made by the witness, both defendants were convicted and sentenced to life in prison. The convictions were reversed after New Jersey lawyers argued that the defendants were denied their Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. The Appellate Division reversed the convictions and ordered a new trial, a ruling upheld by the New Jersey Supreme Court.
From this case, Justice Barry Albin suggested New Jersey “follow the course taken by many other jurisdictions and codify a forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception to the hearsay rule.” The exception would ensure that criminals would not benefit from making a witness unable to testify, provide a powerful disincentive against witness intimidation, and also further the search of truth.
At the time, there was no vocal opposition to the proposal. While the exception works to ensure the rights of a witness, defense attorneys argue that it deprives a party of the right to cross-examine a witness.

Click here if you need a New Jersey Criminal Attorney.

Legal Quote of the Week:

“The innocent man on trial fears fortune, but not a witness”

Publilus Syrus, Latin writer, Sententiae, c. 43 B.C.