As New Jersey criminal lawyers we have successfully represented clients all over the state. However, since we are located in Hackensack, we spent a great deal of time in Bergen, Essex, Hudson, and Passaic Counties. We’ve been able to get felony & misdemeanor cases dismissed and as a result, have saved our clients the nightmare of going to prison & getting a criminal record. If you have a criminal case in Hackensack, Jersey City, Newark, or Paterson, please contact us to see how we can help you. First NJ court appearances can be very stressful. Make sure to have a criminal lawyer defend you throughout the entire process.
As Hackensack criminal lawyers, our office is near the Bergen County Courthouse. We have successfully represented clients facing criminal charges in Bergen County. Some of our success stories include the following:
Client was charged with a DWI in Elmwood Park, New Jersey. His blood alcohol content (BAC) was a .08. This BAC put our client at the legal limit for a DWI. We thoroughly reviewed the evidence in his case and learned that the alcotest machine used to test our client had not been calibrated properly. As a result, we got his DWI charges dismissed.
Our client was recently divorced. His ex-wife called him & begged him to pick the kids from school. After he picked up the kids, he dropped them off at his ex-wife’s home. She filed a complaint about violating a restraining order. At trial, the judge dismissed the charges for obvious reasons.
Our client was a Bergen Community College student. The police officer stopped him because our client was allegedly driving too slow. While requesting our client’s driver’s license, the police officer said that he smelled the odor of burnt marijuana emanating from the vehicle. After he arrested our client for marijuana possession, we filed a motion to suppress based on the traffic stop. The judge granted our motion & the charges were dismissed.
Our client was charged with committing simple assault against his wife. Through our investigation, we learned that our client did not commit simple assault. The facts were the other way around. Our client was the victim of the assault. We went to trial & our client was found to be not guilty.
Our client attended a party in Newark. The police raided the home and arrested many people. We worked aggressively with the prosecutor & all charges were dismissed.
During a traffic stop, the police searched our client’s car & found a gun. Our client was a lawful gun owner from another state. We successfully filed an NJ Graves Act Waiver and our client avoided incarceration.
Our client was facing 3rd-degree aggravated assault charges for defending himself during a bar brawl. We obtained video surveillance from the bar which showed that our client was acting in self-defense. The prosecutor agreed to drop the charges & we never went to trial.
Our client was accused of having non-consensual sex with a woman. He was facing 60 years in prison. Over an 18 month period, we were able to show through text & email evidence that our client did not commit any type of sex crime. His charges were dismissed.
Our client was concerned that his Jersey City DWI charge would affect his employment. We took his case to trial & won.
Our client was accused of threatening one of his supervisors. He was facing felony charges & a criminal conviction would mean that he would lose his job. We successfully got him admitted to PTI.
Our client lost his temper and broke another man’s jaw. He was facing 2nd-degree charges (5-10 years in prison). We were able to demonstrate that our client had been provoked over many months & this fact supported our claim of “mitigating circumstances”. We were able to get his charges downgraded to 4th-degree charges & got him admitted to PTI.
Our client suffered from alcohol & drug addiction. While his judgment was impaired due to a drug-induced frenzy, he committed a robbery. He was facing 5 years in prison. It wasn’t easy, but we got him admitted into the NJ Drug Court program so that he could avoid prison. Today, he is a drug-free, healthy, and productive member of society.
Our client was accused of aggravated sexual assault. We sent one of our investigators to interview the alleged victim & her account of the incident varied greatly from her initial complaint. As a result, we were able to downgrade his charges to criminal sexual contact. He was admitted to PTI. We kept him out of jail & kept his record clean.
a. Inflict bodily injury on or physically confine or restrain anyone or commit any other criminal offense;
b. Accuse anyone of an offense or cause charges of an offense to be instituted against any person;
c. Expose or publicize any secret or any asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject any person to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or to impair his credit or business repute;
d. Take or withhold action as an official, or cause an official to take or withhold action;
e. Bring about or continue a strike, boycott or other collective action, if the property is not demanded or received for the benefit of the group in whose interest the actor purports to act;
f. Testify or provide information or withhold testimony or information with respect to another’s legal claim or defense; or
g. Inflict any other harm which would not substantially benefit the actor but which is calculated to materially harm another person.
***It is an affirmative defense to prosecution based on paragraphs b, c, d or f that the property obtained was honestly claimed as restitution or indemnification for harm done in the circumstances or as lawful compensation for property or services.
Reasonable suspicion is a “search” standard that applies in criminal law.
When a police officer conducts a warrantless search, and does not have probable cause to justify the search, the courts look to see if the police had
a “reasonable & articulable suspicion” for the search.
A mere “hunch” is not enough.
In other words, a police officer has to provide an acceptable explanation for the search.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
a. A court imposing a sentence of incarceration for a crime of the first or second degree enumerated in subsection d. of this section shall fix a minimum term of 85% of the sentence imposed, during which the defendant shall not be eligible for parole.
b. The minimum term required by subsection a. of this section shall be fixed as a part of every sentence of incarceration imposed upon every conviction of a crime enumerated in subsection d. of this section, whether the sentence of incarceration is determined pursuant to N.J.S.2C:43-6, N.J.S.2C:43-7, N.J.S.2C:11-3 or any other provision of law, and shall be calculated based upon the sentence of incarceration actually imposed. The provisions of subsection a. of this section shall not be construed or applied to reduce the time that must be served before eligibility for parole by an inmate sentenced to a mandatory minimum period of incarceration. Solely for the purpose of calculating the minimum term of parole ineligibility pursuant to subsection a. of this section, a sentence of life imprisonment shall be deemed to be 75 years.
c. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary and in addition to any other sentence imposed, a court imposing a minimum period of parole ineligibility of 85 percent of the sentence pursuant to this section shall also impose a five-year term of parole supervision if the defendant is being sentenced for a crime of the first degree, or a three-year term of parole supervision if the defendant is being sentenced for a crime of the second degree. The term of parole supervision shall commence upon the completion of the sentence of incarceration imposed by the court pursuant to subsection a. of this section unless the defendant is serving a sentence of incarceration for another crime at the time he completes the sentence of incarceration imposed pursuant to subsection a., in which case the term of parole supervision shall commence immediately upon the defendant’s release from incarceration. During the term of parole supervision the defendant shall remain in release status in the community in the legal custody of the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections and shall be supervised by the State Parole Board as if on parole and shall be subject to the provisions and conditions