Written by admin on July 19, 2010 – 5:31 am -
Mr. Robert Pinizzotto, Esq., a former Municipal Court Prosecutor and the former head of the New Jersey Municipal Court Prosecutor’s Association, filed a lawsuit challenging the fairness of the Municipal Court System.
The lawsuit, brought by two New Jersey DWI Defendants, seeks a declaration that the Municipal Court system violates the Defendants’ constitutional rights to a fair and unbiased trial. The lawsuit charges that Judges are “subservient to the executive branch” that appoints them. This, according to the suit, makes the Judges beholden to the financial issues of the government. In other words, the focus of the Judges is generating revenue rather than dispensing justice. The suit also charges than local prosecutors are not “not bound by the same ethical obligations” as county prosecutors, rendering the system unfair for defendants.
This lawsuit is a courageous challenge to the entire New Jersey Municipal Court system. The lawsuit brings to light an issue that many practitioners complain about – but only privately. Mr. Pinizzotto, who as a Prosecutor, was in my experience always concerned primarily about dispensing justice (not just obtaining a conviction). That focus (seeking “justice” through righteousness) makes the best system of justice in the world work – you “cannot serve two masters.”
As a college student, I worked as a reporter for a local newspaper covering the local Municipal Court. On my first assignment, when the court session ended, and I was writing notes, the Judge turned to the Court Administrator and asked, “How did we do tonight?” I quickly raised my head and looked up bewildered – as if this was manager of a store asking his cashier how much merchandise was sold. This bold challenge attempts to blaze a trail where no one else has dared go. I applaud the lawsuit and the gutsy challenge.
Posted in
NJ DWI Defendants Sue Town and Prosecutors |
1 Comment »
Written by admin on June 23, 2010 – 4:33 pm -
In State v. Parra (App. Div. 2010), the New Jersey Appellate Division upheld the dismissal of the Defendant’s Appeal. The Defendant sought to vacate a 1997 guilty plea to DWI in a New Jersey Municipal Court. The Motion was denied in the Municipal Court, and the Defendant appealed. The Superior Court dismissed his appeal (because the appeal was not properly filed). The Defendant appealed to the New Jersey Appellate Division.
The Appellate Division upheld the dismissal of the appeal. The Court noted that the Defendant failed to properly file the appeal (filing the appeal with the “Court Clerk, Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County, Mercer County Civil Courthouse …” (not the Criminal Division Manager’s Office). Further, the Defendant did not file the appeal with the Municipal Court (as required by New Jersey Rules of Court), nor did he serve a copy on the County Prosecutor’s Office (rather he served the Municipal Court Prosecutor). These filing deficiencies were deemed fatal to the appeal pursuant to New Jersey Court Rule 3:23-2, which spell out the filing requirements for a Municipal Court Appeal.
The Court said that the “violations are not mere administrative violations that can be overlooked … they are fatal to defendant’s ability to pursue an appeal in the Law Division.” The Court found that “in every single respect, defendant violated the requirements of the Rule[s].” Thus, the Appellate Division ruled, “the Law Division correctly dismissed the appeal.”
Filing appeals is intricate. If proper procedure is not followed, the appeal is subject to dismissal. This case presents an example of a NJ DWI Appeal that was fumbled, and unfortunately, the Defendant’s Appeal was dismissed. Defendants contemplating filing an appeal in a New Jersey DWI case are cautioned to seek an experienced NJ DWI Lawyer who is familiar with the appellate process. A misstep can result in the dismissal of the appeal and the loss of the right to have a full and proper review.
Posted in
NJ DUI Appeal Dismissed For Failing To Follow Court Filing Rules |
No Comments »
