New Jersey DWI Lawyer Blog

While generally people charged with DWI offer a defense at trial, in some instances, it makes sense for a defendant to enter a guilty plea. Even if a defendant chooses not to contest the charges against him or her though, the court must take certain measures to ensure that the defendant understands the ramifications of his or her choice; otherwise the plea could potentially be vacated at a later date. The grounds for vacating a guilty plea were recently discussed in a New Jersey case in which the defendant argued the factual basis for his not guilty plea was insufficient. If you are charged with driving while intoxicated in New Jersey, you should speak to a dedicated New Jersey DWI defense attorney to determine the best strategy to seek a favorable outcome under the facts of your case.

Factual and Procedural History

It is reported that the defendant crashed the car he was operating in 2011. He was transported to a hospital where it was revealed that his blood alcohol content was over twice the legal limit. As such, he was charged with a per se DWI offense, to which he entered a guilty plea. Then, in August 2018, the defendant was charged with a second DWI offense. Following the second charge, he moved to vacate his earlier conviction to avoid facing increased penalties as a repeat offender.

Allegedly, during oral argument on the matter, the defendant argued that he was not properly advised of the legal consequences of the plea and that the factual basis for the guilty verdict was inadequate. The lower court rejected the defendant’s reasoning, and the defendant appealed. Continue reading

Many people incorrectly believe that a DWI charge is merely akin to a traffic offense and that they do not need to hire an attorney or retain knowledgeable counsel. The consequences of retaining an inexperienced lawyer were illustrated in a recent New Jersey DWI case, in which the defendant was found guilty of DWI and other charges, and his subsequent appeal arguing that his conviction was caused by the ineffectiveness of his attorney was dismissed on procedural grounds. If you are charged with a DWI offense in New Jersey, you should meet with a skilled New Jersey DWI defense attorney to analyze your possible defenses.

Facts and Procedural History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was stopped by a police officer in October 2017 while he was driving in Hackensack, New Jersey. Following the stop, he was charged with driving with an open container of alcohol, reckless driving, and driving while intoxicated. A trial was scheduled for January 2018. Prior to trial, the defendant’s attorney informed the court that he intended to file a motion to suppress, arguing that the police did not have probable cause to stop the defendant prior to conducting the investigation that led to the defendant’s arrest.

Allegedly, however, the defendant’s attorney did not provide the judge with a copy of the motion. The judge allowed the defendant’s attorney to orally present the motion but ultimately denied it. The trial was continued to April 2018, and following the trial, the defendant was convicted of DWI and sentenced as a second-time offender. He then appealed, arguing his trial counsel was ineffective. The State moved to dismiss his claims arguing they should be raised in a petition for post-conviction relief. The court agreed and dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal, after which he appealed to the appellate court. Continue reading

Discovery is a critical part of any DWI case, as it allows the defendant to determine what evidence the state seeks to introduce at trial and helps prepare defenses to refute the implications of that evidence. Thus, if the state commits a discovery violation, it may greatly impact a defendant’s rights. In a recent New Jersey DWI case, the court discussed what a defendant must demonstrate in order to prove that a discovery violation has occurred. If you are accused of a DWI crime in New Jersey, it is in your best interest to speak to a capable New Jersey DWI defense attorney to evaluate what arguments you may be able to assert.

Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant was stopped after making an unsafe lane change without a turn signal. When the police officer spoke with the defendant, he smelled alcohol. As such, the officer asked the defendant to submit to field sobriety testing. The defendant complied but failed the tests. A breathalyzer test subsequently revealed his blood-alcohol level to be 0.11%. He was then charged with DWI and other traffic violations.

Reportedly, the defendant, who was self-represented, was involved in several disputes with the prosecution. Specifically, he argued that the state failed to provide him with the evidence he sought. A trial was held, and the defendant was convicted on all counts. He appealed, and his appeal was granted, after which a second trial occurred. He was convicted a second time and again appealed. Continue reading

In New Jersey, both the State and the defendant have the right to examine witnesses at trial. Thus, in cases in which either party tries to admit an out of court statement in lieu of testimony, the statement may be barred under the confrontation clause. The parameters of the confrontation clause and any applicable exceptions were recently discussed in a New Jersey DWI case in which the defendant argued that the trial court erred in permitting a statement that implicated her guilt. If you are charged with a DWI crime in New Jersey, it is important to understand your rights, and you should convene with a knowledgeable New Jersey DWI defense attorney to assess your charges as soon as possible.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was charged with second-degree homicide by vehicle for striking and killing a person when she was driving while intoxicated. The defendant was convicted, after which she appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in refusing to admit evidence that her husband had been driving when the crime was allegedly committed. The appellate court found in favor of the defendant and remanded the case for a new trial. Following the second trial, the defendant was again convicted, after which she appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly admitted statements showing that the defendant’s husband stated at the scene of the crime that the defendant was driving when the accident occurred.

Grounds for Recusal in a New Jersey Criminal Case

The confrontation clauses of the United States and New Jersey constitutions bar out of court testimonial hearsay that has not been tested via cross-examination, in lieu of in-court testimony. On appeal, the court explained that any narrative statement a person makes to a police officer about a crime is testimonial if the statement is made once any imminent danger to the person or anyone else has ended. Continue reading

In New Jersey, prosecutors are appointed by local governing bodies. Thus, if a person is charged with a DWI offense, an attorney appointed by the municipality will typically be tasked with presenting the State’s evidence against the defendant. Even if another attorney represents the State in criminal proceedings, however, it does not mean that a DWI defendant is entitled to a new trial, as demonstrated in a recent New Jersey case. If you are a resident of New Jersey currently charged with a DWI offense, it is in your best interest to meet with a proficient New Jersey DWI defense attorney to discuss your rights and what defenses you may be able to assert.

Factual and Procedural History

It is reported that the defendant was stopped in the early morning in May 2014 for driving erratically. After the officer who initiated the stop spoke with the defendant, he noticed the defendant was exhibiting signs of intoxication. Thus, the defendant was ultimately issued four summonses and charged with driving while intoxicated, speeding, failing to exhibit his registration and reckless driving. Subsequently, the defendant and the prosecution appeared in court together eight times over a period of a year nine months for hearings, arguments, and a partial trial.

Allegedly, on the second day of the trial, the defendant moved to dismiss his summonses, arguing that the individual that had been appointed as the municipal court prosecutor by the governing body had only appeared at one of the court proceedings. The defendant then entered into a conditional guilty plea to the DWI charge, and the remaining charges were dismissed. The court then denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss, which caused the defendant to file an appeal. Continue reading

In some instances in which a DWI accident is especially catastrophic and there was more than one person in the car at the time of the incident, it may not be clear who was driving. Thus, the State will likely have to determine who was driving and then who should be charged criminally based on circumstantial evidence such as statements from the parties involved. Recently, a New Jersey court assessed whether statements made by a defendant charged with DWI shortly after an accident were admissible in a case in which the defendant alleged he lacked the capacity to knowingly waive his right against self-incrimination. If you live in New Jersey and are charged with DWI based on statements you made during a police investigation, you should consult a trusted New Jersey DWI defense attorney to assess whether you may be able to have evidence of your statements precluded.

Facts Surrounding the Accident and Subsequent Statements

It is reported that the police were called to the scene of a devastating car accident in which it appeared the car had left the roadway and struck a tree. When the police arrived, the defendant was on the ground by the passenger side of the vehicle and was being tended to by EMS workers. The defendant’s nephew was hanging out of the passenger side window and was deceased when the police arrived at the scene.

Allegedly, when the police were investigating the accident they visited the defendant in the hospital, read him Miranda warnings, and then began questioning him. Through the course of the questioning, the defendant stated he and his nephew had been drinking prior to the accident, and that he could not recall the accident but knew that he was not ejected from the vehicle. He also stated he crawled to the passenger side to help his nephew. A blood test revealed that the defendant’s blood alcohol content at the time of the accident was between 0.17 and 0.23. He was charged with DWI and second-degree vehicular homicide. He filed a motion to suppress the statements he made in the hospital, which the court denied. After his conviction, the defendant appealed, arguing he did not have the capacity to knowingly waive his Miranda rights. Continue reading