It took a global pandemic to wake our courts up to the marvels of our current state of technology.  Our courts, both at the federal, state and even municipal levels, are embracing the methods of communication and court appearances that all other businesses have implemented.  The court's failure up until now was to think of itself as an institution of its own right rather than running it like a business.
We are now appearing in court via Zoom.  Our clients either already know how to "Zoom In" for their court appearance, or we are training them on the application.
I don't expect that full jury trials will be conducted this way any time soon or ever. But the simple arraignment, status conferences, detention hearings, and pretrial motions are now being conducted remotely.
It will be interesting to see where we go with this once the pandemic has leveled out and we as a nation start to approach "normal."  Just what "normal" will look like now is anybody's guess. Stay tuned.

I have doing trials (mostly murder trials) for about 39 years now. I started as an assistant prosecutor in Burlington County, New Jersey in 1982, just one year out of law school.  I was thrown into my first trial when a veteran assistant called me into his office and said he had a trial he wanted me to handle.  I was clueless.  Talk about jumping into the pool and not knowing how to swim, I found myself staring at the jury hoping they didn't know that was my first trial.  I lost. My opponent was an extremely talented and experienced trial attorney, and my case rested on the credibility and testimony of a cooperating codefendant (a criminal).  Okay, I realized later why Skip wanted to dump the case on me.  No better way to do your first trial but one that you can't win.  Looking back on that trial I realized that there is no case you can't take to trial no matter what the odds.
Thirty-four years later, in 2018, and I don't know how many trials under my belt, I took on the Bronk Miller trial. The prosecutor had what was identified by local police as my client on surveillance video engaging in a confrontation with the (soon-to-be) victim, and my client pulls out what clearly looks like a gun.  Minutes later, surveillance cameras catch my client walking directly behind the victim, at exactly the same pace as the victim, and pulls out the gun and holds it by his side. (He's wearing a hood, but his Adidas sweatsuit with three distinctive stripes down the arms and legs were a dead (excuse the pun) giveaway.  Seconds after the two men walk out of view of the camera, Shotspotter records 11 gunshots at exactly the spot where the victim's body is found.  Seconds after that, my client is seen rapidly walking back into camera view, getting into a car and driving away from the scene.
After being arrested on an unrelated warrant, he calls his girlfriend from the jail and discovers that she had given his gun to a colleague.  He tells her to get the "jawn" (thing) back as soon as possible because "it has my fingerprints on it. If they find it, I'll get Life!"  A search of his residence resulted in the Adidas sweatsuit found in a secret compartment under the couch.  Wait, it gets better. A search of the girlfriend's cell phone reveals a rap video of my client singing and dancing about guns and shooting, waving what was most-likely the same gun used in the shooting, pointing it at the camera and dry-clicking.  
Unlike what you see or hear on television or in the movies, I NEVER ask my client "Did you do it?"  It's not my job to judge, but to defend. That's what I'm hired to do.  My purpose is to serve the client, and at the same time defend the Constitution and make the State/Government prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Everyone is entitled to that.  I wasn't there. I don't know what happened after those two went off camera.  The jury judges, not me.  So, I had to put the process to the test.  Was there proof beyond a reasonable doubt? If not, the jury had to render a verdict of Not Guilty.  
Bronk was charged with murder and possession of a firearm for an unlawful purpose.  The jury rendered a verdict of Not Guilty of Murder and Not Guilty of the lesser charge of Aggravated Manslaughter, but rendered a verdict of Guilty of only simple Manslaughter (a second-degree crime, 5-10 year exposure).  What was REALLY interesting was that the jury found Bronk NOT GUILTY of firearms possession! This had me (and every one of my colleagues) scratching our heads to figure out how that happened.  In order to be guilty of manslaughter under the facts of this case, Bronk would have had to pick up 11 bullets, throw them NOT at the victim but IN HIS DIRECTION, and accidentally strike him 11 times.
So what happened and how did this result occur (considered a WIN by any criminal defense attorney's standard)?  Well, many years ago, after losing most of my trials as a young and inexperienced attorney, I decided to go for it, pull out all the stops, and lose my mindset that I was just supposed to lose.  I never looked back.  What also changed was that I realized that I had to start thinking like a juror, not like a lawyer.  I had to summon back all that I learned from my Psych minor at St. Joseph's College and the courses I took 45-46 years ago.  How I exactly do it is not longer a secret as I have been giving pretty much the same closing argument format in a PowerPoint presentation for years now.  I give the jury an image of the most important decision they have to make, such as whether or not to terminate life support for a loved one.  I talk about how, when making such a decision, that it's permanent and they can't come back if they change their mind.  Then I talk about how they might want to pull in 11 of their family and friends before making this final, unalterable decision.  This drive home how serious this is and how they really really don't want to have a reasonable doubt before taking that leap. 
Sure, it doesn't work all the time.  My last trial, Curtis Miller (who happened to be Bronk's brother), was just convicted of murder and gun-related charges.  The important thing, at least for those concerned that our Constitution is being whittled down after the Patriot Act (see my Fort Dix Six case - that's for another post).  
Anyway, getting into the jurors' heads and painting them the right image turned out to be the best way to win trials.

According to the Associated Press, citing a New Jersey judge, nearly 15,000 drug cases might have been undermined after a forensic lab technician was accused of shoddy work. The AA reported that Superior Court Judge Edward Jerejian held a preliminary hearing on June 29, 2016 in Bergen County to outline the process for vetting conviction challenges. Jerejian said the courts are expecting hundreds, if not thousands, of cases. Jerejian's order stipulates that cases involving suspended lab technician Kamal Shah will continue to be heard in their original counties. Cases where the defendant has already been convicted will be forwarded to Jerejian for review.
​If you ever had a case that involved a laboratory examination by Shah, you should contact us immediately.

In a recent federal case from the Northern District of Ohio, United States v. Collins, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a downward sentencing variance from 262-327 months to the mandatory minimum of 60 months. The defendant was convicted at trial of receiving and distributing, and possessing, child pornography.
In an unusual move, District Court Judge Gwin revealed at sentencing that he had polled the jury after the verdict as to the appropriate sentence.  Responses ranged from 0 to 60 months, with a mean of 14.5 months and a median of 8 months. All but one juror recommended a sentence less than half the mandatory minimum.The Circuit Court upheld the sentencing procedure because the jury did not decide or impose the sentence. The jury "provided insight into the community’s view of the gravity of an offense." The judge considered it as just one factor bearing on just punishment. Further, Judge Gwin adequately considered all of the other sentencing factors, including deterrence, and considered the defendant’s personal characteristics.
This is interesting because this is clearly not the practice of our New Jersey Superior Court judges, nor is it done by our Federal District Court judges here in the Third Circuit.  I wonder what reception we would get if we asked the judge to poll the jury after they returned a verdict and said, “Hey, folks, what do YOU think would be a fair sentence?”  I think we would all be surprised, as evidenced by the Collins case, that the jury will indicate a sentence that is far lower than what the sentencing guidelines call for.

The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled today that a driver who fails to use a seat belt or fails to require a passenger to use one may be convicted of a criminal offense if there is an accident resulting in serious injury or death. Please remember to always wear your seatbelt, and make sure your passengers do so, too.

The New Jersey Appellate Division just ruled in State in the Interest of M.R. (juvenile case out of Camden County) that, sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.  In the lower trial court, Judge Pugliese had ruled that the cigar was a "blunt and it's used for marijuana purposes."  The Appellate Division disagreed and overturned the conviction.  The higher court ackowledged that the cigar is like a tobacco pipe and can "sometimes" satisfy the definition of drug paraphernalia. However, in M.R., the prosecutor (Camden County Prosecutor's Office) had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that M.R. "knowingly possessed the cigar as drug paraphernalia 'with intent to use' it.