--Electronic Filing will be coming for Special Civil Part cases, more information will be provided as it becomes available.
--Judge Johnson suggested that the bar association purchases teddy bears, which will be provided to minors who are interviewed by Judges and who are involved in adoptions and other appropriate cases.
[7/19/05 9:29 pm] This afternoon, the Acting-Governor signed into law the provisions of S1510 (A1765). The new law amends the provisions of N.J.S.A. 39:1-1 and provides, for the first time, regulation of mini-motor scooters.
[7/20/05 - 12:25 pm] This morning, the New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the special DWI sentencing rules it first announced in 1990 in State v. Laurick, 120 N.J. 1 (1990). In today's case, State v. Hrycak, the Justices held that a prior uncounselled plea in a drunk driving case may not be used to enhance the jail component a subsequent dwi sentence under certain circumstances.
This decision is critcally important because the decision from the United States Supreme Court that supported the original ruling in Laurick in 1990 was subsequently reversed by the United States Supreme Court in a later case.
Please note that in Hrycak, the Justices also held that a DWI third offender who has had a prior offense subject to a successful Laurick application will be subject to the maximum jail term permitted for a second offense (90-days) AND the performace of 30 days of comunity service as is also required for second offenders. This latter rule of law is completely new and was not part of the original holding in Laurick in 1990.
[7/22/05 - 12:25 pm] This morning's Appellate Division decision in State v. Pitcher involves a motor vehicle stop that the police made based upon DMV records that later turned out to be incorrect. In effecting the stop, the police relied upon computer generated records that indicated the defendant was on the revoked list. As a result of the motor vehicle stop, the defendant was also found to be intoxicated. The DMV records upon which the police relied were incorrect and the defendant was not on the revoked list at the time of the stop.
The defendant's motion to suppress was based on the fact that New Jersey does not recognize a "good faith" exception to the warrant requirement. The Appellate Division distinguished this argument and held that the legal issues related to "good faith" do not apply in this case. The key issue was whether the police acted reasonably in relying on the DMV records.
The Appellate panel held that the police actions in this case were reasonable.
Please note in the case the discussion about the quantun of suspcision necessary to effect a motor vehicle stop. Some authority indicates that probable cause is required while other cases hold that only a reasonable suspicion is needed.
7/28/05 - 10:14 pm] This afternoon's New Jersey Supreme Court decision in State v. Williams relates to the confidentiality of statements made to a mediator during the course of a municipal court sponsored mediation session pursuant to Rule 1:40. In this case, the defendant sought to call the municipal court mediator who had attempted to resolve a municipal court case involing the defendant as a defense witness at a subsequent criminal trial in Superior Court.
The Supreme Court, in a 5 to 2 decision, ruled that the effectiveness of the mediation process in municipal court is based in large measure upon the confidentiality that the Rules of Court provide for the people involved in the process. In order to relax the Rule providing for this confidentiality (also known as the mediator's privilege) the moving part must demonstrate that a.) the need for the substantially outweighs the interest in protecting the confidentiality and b.) the evidence is not otherwise available. This interpretation by the Court is in conformity with the recently enacted Uniform Mediation Act, NJSA 2A:23C-1 thru 13.
In the opinion, note the Court's assertion that the right of confrontation is not absolute and the analysis of Rule 1:1-2 dealing with the relaxation of Court Rules.
7/29/05 10:50 am] Within the past few minutes, the Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics released Opinion 697 dealing with conflicts of interest in municipal court. The specific question presented to the Committee related to an attorney whose partner is the municipal zoning board attorney. The attorney requested an opinion as to whether he could appear before the municipal court in the same municipality where his partner is employed as the zoning board attorney.
The Opinion holds that attorney employment by various municipal boards that are funded by the municipality will bar the appearance in municipal court by his or her partners, associates and others connected with the firm.
Opinion 697 provides a complete history of this rule, its rationale and numerous other examples where such an appearance in municipal court would be considered a conflict of interest. The Opinion also gives of examples of other extraneous, quasi-municipal entities where such an appearance by a partner or associate would not be a conflict.
