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.

Having a criminal record is probably the biggest obstacle to obtaining employment.  A record of just an arrest (even if the charges were ultimately dismissed) will cause a prospective employer to look to the next candidate who has no arrest record.
The only way to avoid this from happening to you is to obtain an expungement BEFORE you make your next job application.  When you fill out eh "Request of Criminal Background Check," the results will be "No Record Found" if you successfully obtain an expungement of those records.  You can even answer under oath that you have "No Criminal Record of Arrests or Convictions."

Expungements are easy. At least it's easy for us. The most important aspect of handling an expungement is getting accurate information about your prior records that you are seeking to expunge.There is not much of a gray area in expungements as there is in many other areas of law.  Either you are or you aren't: the expungement statutes in New Jersey make it easy for the lawyer to determine whether or not you are eligible to have all or some of your criminal records expunged.
You don't have to still live in New Jersey to get your records expunged. As a matter of fact, unless you are expunging records in Passaic County, you don't even have to appear in court.  And I'll go one step further: you do all of this without even having to travel to our office to get this done. We can do this through a combination of telephone conferences, texts, emails, and (heavy gulp) U.S. Postal Service.