Schwartz & Posnock

Motion for New Trial Filed in Rutgers Spycam Case

admin — Tue, 08 May 2012 19:10:41 +0000

Dharun Ravi has filed motions seeking acquittal or a new trial following the March 16 jury verdict finding him guilty of various charges, including third-degree invasion of privacy and New Jersey’s 2001 “bias intimidation” law, which carries a presumption of incarceration for five to 10 years. Ravis claims that the jury verdict was not supported by the evidence necessary for a conviction under this law, which, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:16-1, requires prosecutors to show that a defendant committed the underlying offense “with a purpose to intimidate an individual or a group of individuals,” “knowing that the conduct…would cause the individual or group of individuals to be intimidated” or “under circumstances” that caused intimidation or made the victim reasonably believe the purpose was to intimidate. Proof that the underlying act was motivated by sexual orientation allows the fact-finder to make an inference that it was done with an intimidating purpose. Ravi’s argued that there was no evidence of bias toward the victim, Tyler Clementi, or toward homosexuals in general, and that in fact there was repeated testimony that Ravi lacked bias. They specifically contend that there was no evidence of intimidation on the part of Ravi, and that the “reasonable belief” part of the bias intimidation statute impermissibly and unconstitutionally criminalizes conduct regardless of a defendant’s state of mind. If Judge Glenn Berman does not grant an acquittal, Ravi may seek a new trial on various grounds, including the prosecutors’ withholding of materials that could have shed light on Clementi’s state of mind, the judge’s failure to provide a limiting jury instruction clarifying that Clementi’s suicide should not have been considered evidence of bias intimidation, and jurors’ statements to the media demonstrating the jury’s misunderstanding of the law.

Ravi’s is the first-known conviction under the 2001 bias intimidation statute, and his appeal will likely be the first appellate test of this law. New Jersey criminal defense attorneys will want to pay close attention to the controversial and potentially groundbreaking legal issues involved in this case as the matter continues to unfold.

For any questions about this case, or about the 2001 bias intimidation law more generally, please call New Jersey criminal lawyers Schwartz & Posnock at (732) 544-1460.

New Jersey Supreme Court Upholds Suppression of Drugs Resulting From Warrantless Search of House Following Noise Complaint

admin — Tue, 08 May 2012 19:08:22 +0000

The New Jersey Supreme Court, in State v. Kaltner, A-8-811, unanimously upheld the suppression of drugs that had been seized by police during a room-by-room warrantless search of a house in response to a noise complaint. The police had responded to a rental shore home in Long Branch, in which a party was occurring. After the police knocked, an unidentified man opened the door but walked away before he could be questioned. The police walked around the first floor of the home and asked who lived there, but they did not get any responses. They proceeded to walk around the other two floors of the house, and seized pills and a white powdery substance that they saw in plain view after looking inside a third-floor bedroom. Although the appellate judges determined that the officers’ initial entry into the home was permissible due to the consent of the person who opened the door, they rejected the state’s argument that the police were exercising their community-caretaking function when they continued to search throughout the house. The court found that “the subsequent fanning out and conducting, in essence, a full-blown search of the house was neither reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified the entry in the first place nor carried out in a manner consistent with the factors supporting the entry’s initial legitimacy.” New Jersey criminal defense attorneys will find this case helpful in protecting their clients’ rights to be free from warrantless searches within their homes, particularly when such searches occur as a result of mere noise violations. In such circumstances or ones which are comparable, New Jersey criminal lawyers should utilize this case in support of suppression motions on behalf of their clients. If you have been charged with an offense and believe that you may be entitled to have the evidence against you suppressed, please call New Jersey criminal defense lawyers Schwartz & Posnock at (732) 544-1460.

Judges Hearing Petitions for Postconviction Relief Are Required to State Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

admin — Tue, 08 May 2012 19:05:42 +0000

The New Jersey Superior Copurt-Appellate Division, in State v. Hill, A-2448-09, recently overturned the denial of post-conviction relief to a defendant by an Essex County judge after the judge failed to provide any conclusions or reasons in support of his decision. New Jersey Rule 3:22-11 requires a judge hearing a post-conviction relief petition to state his or her findings of fact and conclusions of law, and Rule 1:7-4 requires a judge who issues a ruling to make findings of fact and conclusions of law in an opinion. New Jersey criminal defense lawyers representing clients on post-conviction relief petitions should be mindful of these requirements mandated by both the New Jersey Rules and New Jersey case law, and should ensure that their clients receive the meaningful appellate review to which they are entitled. If you seek to file a petition for post-conviction relief, please call New Jersey criminal defense attorneys Schwartz & Posnock at (732) 544-1460.