|
6 Oct
|
Posted by Mollo Law Firm
|
On October 12, 2011, the United States Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the case of Florence v. Board of Freeholders. The issue is whether local jailers may conduct strip searches on inmates who have been sent to the jail on minor charges.
In the Florence case, the defendant was arrested inBurlingtonCounty on a warrant out of Essex County that charged him with failing to pay a small fine. He was sent to the Burlington County jail and subjected to a strip search and visual body cavity search. After six days, he was transferred to the Essex County jail and once again subjected to a strip search and visual body cavity search. After one day in custody in Essex County, he was released and the charges were dropped. The petitioner subsequently sued both Essex and Burlington Counties for civil rights violations.
There is currently a split among the ten federal circuit courts of appeal that have considered the issue of the reasonableness of a blanket strip search policy under the 4th Amendment as applied to newly admitted prisoners who only have committed minor offenses. The Supreme Court’s decision will resolve this controversial, constitutional issue.
The Mollo Law Firm will closely monitor these important developments. We remain committed to staying on the cutting edge of the evolution of all federal and state laws that affect our clients. We are experienced New Jersey criminal defense attorneys. If you have any questions about the Florence case or any other matter, please contact our offices for a free consultation. You can reach us at (732) 747-1844 or e-mail Al Mollo directly at amollo@mollolawfirm.com. You may also visit our website at www.mollolawfirm.com. Thank you.
Click to Watch Al Mollo on T V
| Category: Uncategorized | Tag: attorney, defense, lawyer, New Jersey, strip search, Supreme Court |
|
24 Aug
|
Posted by Mollo Law Firm
|
From app.com, August 24, 2011
New Jersey’s highest court ordered changes today to the way eyewitness identifications are used in court, saying the current system is not reliable enough, fails to deter police misconduct and overstates jurors’ ability to evaluate the evidence.
Currently, a defendant has the burden of proving there was undue suggestion during the identification process. That won’t change. But the court has ordered that when a defendant can show some evidence of suggestiveness by police, a pretrial hearing must be held to explore it.
The court also requires a system be developed to better explain to juries the potential flaws with eyewitness identifications.
The case is being closely watched because New Jersey has long been at the forefront in identification standards. In 2001, the state became the first to establish guidelines for lineups designed to prevent mistaken suspect identifications. Other states followed suit.
The new rules, once they are devised, will apply to future cases and two cases that prompted the ruling.
In one case, an eyewitness lineup that included Larry Henderson of Camden led to his conviction in 2004 on manslaughter charges. Henderson’s attorneys argued he was misidentified after police did not follow proper identification guidelines.
Henderson’s case prompted the New Jersey Supreme Court to order a review of the procedures used by police when they ask witnesses to identify suspects.
A test used by courts in 48 states and the federal system to assess the reliability of witness identification is flawed and inadequate, the yearlong review found.
Barry Scheck, co-founder of the Innocence Project, a New York legal center specializing in overturning wrongful convictions, and one of several attorneys for O.J. Simpson during his 1995 murder trial, presented testimony during the hearings that called for stricter standards.
The Supreme Court’s ultimate ruling is expected to influence courts in places besides New Jersey because the review was so comprehensive, Scheck has said.
Nationally, more than two-thirds of the 254 prisoners who have been exonerated by DNA since 1989 were sent to prison based on witness misidentification, according to the Innocence Project. It’s the most common element in a wrongful conviction, the center said.
Three of the five exoneration cases in New Jersey involved misidentification, according to the Innocence Project.
The Mollo Law Firm, criminal defense lawyers, has experience handling criminal offenses at throughout New Jersey, including charges of theft, drug possession, DWI, assault, shoplifting and all other criminal and traffic matters. If you have any questions please contact our office at (732) 747-1844 or e-mail Al Mollo directly at amollo@mollolawfirm.com. You may also visit our website at www.mollolawfirm.com. Thank you.
| Category: Criminal Law | Tag: criminal attorney, eyewitness, lawyer, New Jersey, Supreme Court, trial |
