03-20-09 Ortiz v. New Jersey Department of Corrections A-2394-07T1

03-20-09 Edwin Ortiz v. New Jersey Department of Corrections
A-2394-07T1

Edwin Ortiz is an inmate currently incarcerated at Northern
State Prison who has been identified as a member of a Security
Threat Group, the Latin Kings. See N.J.A.C. 10A:5-1.3; N.J.A.C.
10A:5-6.5. Denying membership, Ortiz invoked the Department of
Corrections' inmate-remedy system, N.J.A.C. 10A:1-4.1 to -4.9.
We discuss the Department's regulations governing STGs and the
inmate-remedy system. Because the Department did not respond in
accordance with its regulations, and Ortiz did not file an
administrative appeal, we dismiss the appeal for failure to
exhaust administrative remedies and direct the Department to
consider an administrative appeal.

3-10-09 State of New Jersey v. Vallejo (A-3-08)

3-10-09 State of New Jersey v. Diego Vallejo (A-3-08)

This brief trial was poisoned by the recurring admission of
evidence of other crimes and wrongdoings by defendant, Diego
Vallejo, and by reference to the domestic violence restraining
order against him. The trial judge’s curative instruction was
insufficient and, as a result, Vallejo was denied a fair trial.

RECENT CHANGES IN MUNICIPAL COURT LAW SEMINAR

RECENT CHANGES IN MUNICIPAL COURT LAW SEMINAR

Monday, May 04, 2009
5:30 PM to 9:30 PM
New Jersey Law Center, New Brunswick

Are you prepared to prosecute or defend your client in new Alcotest cases?
This informative guide to Municipal Court practice and procedure will familiarize you with the most recent developments affecting cases that are heard in Municipal Court.
An authoritative panel of experienced attorneys will be joined by a Presiding Municipal Court Judge to explore a wide variety of matters that you are likely to encounter. They will also bring you up to date on recent developments you need to understand in order to effectively represent your clients.

Program Preview...
5:30 Criminal Case Law and Legislative Update - Kenneth A. Vercammen, Esq.
6:15 The Prosecutor’s Perspective: DWI, no-insurance cases, recent directives from the Attorney General and Prosecutor, plea agreements in drug cases, double
jeopardy issues - Denis F. Driscoll, Esq.
7:00 Judicial Perspective: Expert arguments, important court rules, common errors by defense attorneys and prosecutors, how to impress the court and not annoy the court staff - Hon. Joan Robinson Gross, PJMC
7:45 Refreshment break
7:55 Recent developments in traffic law, merged traffic tickets and more
8:40 DWI and Chun - John Menzel, Esq.
9:25 Ask the Experts
Plus..
The Municipal Court Practice Committee's Proposed Rule Amendments will be discussed.

Moderator:

KENNETH A. VERCAMMEN, ESQ.
Past Chair, NJSBA Municipal Court Section
2005-2006 Municipal Court Attorney of the Year
Law Offices of Kenneth A. Vercammen (Edison)

Speakers include:
HON. JOAN ROBINSON GROSS, PJMC
(Union County)

DENIS F. DRISCOLL, ESQ.
Municipal Prosecutor (Denville, Montville & Victory Gardens)
Resch & Driscoll, PC (Hackensack)

JOHN MENZEL, ESQ.
Moore & Menzel (Point Pleasant)

Tuition fees Program S1507-10062 Reg. Fee Reg. Type
SPECIAL RECESSION BUSTER TUITION
Register by 3/31/09 $109.00 EB
General Tuition $149.00 REG
NJICLE SEASON TICKETS (STX) 1 Season Ticket(s) STX
MEMBERS, NJSBA CO-SPONSORING SECTION (COS*) $110.00 COS*
MEMBERS, NJSBA (NJB*) $119.00 NJB*
MEMBERS, NJSBA YLD (YLD*) $110.00 YLD*
Recent admittees (past 2 years) (YL) $129.00 YL
Paralegals (PAR) $95.00 PAR
Law Students (with Student ID) (STU) $0.00 STU
Full Time Judges (JUD) $0.00 JUD

DOOR REGISTRATIONS: $169
Advance registration closes at noon of the day preceding the program. After that time you may still register, space permitting, for the Door Registration Fee. PLEASE CALL FIRST to confirm the seminar schedule and space availability.
* NJSBA Member Price – To qualify for this reduced price, you must provide your NJSBA Member# at the time you place your order. If you place your order without providing your NJSBA Member#, you will be charged the regular price.
Presented in cooperation with the NJSBA Municipal Court Section and the NJSBA Young Lawyers’ Section
Additional details: http://www.njicle.com/seminar.aspx?sid=735

New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education 
The non-profit continuing education service of: 
The New Jersey State Bar Association Rutgers - The State University of New Jersey 
Seton Hall University 
One Constitution Square, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901-1520 
Phone: (732)214-8500 Fax: (732)249-0383 • CustomerService@njicle.com

03-04-09 State v. Chepilko A-5473-06T4/A-0084-07T4

03-04-09 State v. Sergei Chepilko
A-5473-06T4/A-0084-07T4

The taking of photographs of persons walking on the
Atlantic City Boardwalk and then attempting to sell the
photographs to the subjects does not constitute expressive
conduct entitled to First Amendment protection that insulates a
person engaged in this activity from prosecution for a violation
of municipal ordinances prohibiting the sale of merchandise on
the Boardwalk.

Assistant Editor - Guy Sirois, Esq

03-03-09 State v. Atkins A-4734-05T4

03-03-09 State of New Jersey v. Sidney Atkins
A-4734-05T4

Following the established rule in State v. Mingo, 77 N.J.
576, 586-87 (1978), we find reversible error in allowing the
prosecution to invade the privilege with regard to the defense-
retained consultant. Accordingly "the report and testimony of a
defense-retained expert consultant who will not testify as a
defense witness and whose report will not be utilized as
evidence are not available to the State." Ibid. The
justification that defendant waived the privilege by operation
of N.J.R.E. 607 in introducing the victim's recantation fails
because other evidence was available to the prosecution to rebut
the charge of recent fabrication, improper influence, or motive
which would not have been unduly prejudicial to defendant.

2-24-09 State v. Grenci, Jr. (A-104-07)

2-24-09 State v. Angelo Grenci, Jr. (A-104-07)

Defendant’s trial in absentia on the superseding indictment did
not comply with Rule 3:16(b). Because defendant was never
arraigned on the superseding indictment and never
waived – in writing or orally on the record – his right to be
present at trial on that indictment, the trial should not have
proceeded in his absence. Therefore, no conviction arising from
any of the additional charges contained in the
superseding indictment can stand. In addition, the
trial court’s instructions to the jury directed a verdict on an
element of the burglary offense and thereby improperly relieved
the State of its constitutional burden of proving guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt.

2-25-09 State v. Pena-Flores, et al. (A-129-06) State v. Fuller (A-15-07)

2-25-09 State v. Juan Pena-Flores, et al. (A-129-06)
State v. Charles Fuller (A-15-07)

The Supreme Court affirms its longstanding precedent that
permits an automobile search without a warrant only in cases in
which the police have both probable cause to believe that the
vehicle contains evidence and exigent circumstances that would
justify dispensing with the warrant requirement. Whether
exigent circumstances exist is to be decided on a case-by-case
basis with the focus on police safety and the preservation of
evidence. The Court also determines that a warrant obtained by
telephonic or electronic means is the equivalent of an in-perwarrant and does not require proof of exigent circumstances.

State of New Jersey V. A.O.

State of New Jersey V. A.O.
(A-107-07)
Decided March 5, 2009

Polygraph evidence that is based on a stipulation entered into
without counsel is inadmissible. A defendant may impeach the
credibility of a victim-witness about false allegations made
after the underlying allegations were made against the
defendant.