Resources

On July 25, 2013, my mentor (and former boss), Judge Sabatino decided State v. Wright, a Fourth Amendment search and seizure case with the “third-party intervention” doctrine.

Cases like the one I am about to describe highlight the need for good legal representation.

In State v. Samander S. Dabas , a case decided by the New Jersey Supreme Court on July 30, 2013, the Court held that a prosecutor’s office violated its post-indictment discovery obligations under Rule 3:13-3, when its investigator destroyed his notes of a two-hour pre-interview of defendant. The State’s error resulted in a reversal of the Defendant’s (Mr. Dabas) conviction.

On June 17, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Salinas v. Texas, a case involving the Fifth Amendment and “Miranda” rights that has sent ripples across the internet, albeit, because many people simply do not understand what Miranda is – and what is it not. For example, a Slate Magazine article mentions “the Supreme Court held that you remain silent at your peril.” A Cato Institute article calls the decision a “bad day for the Bill of Rights”. These articles are, in a word, overreactions.

On May 16, 2013, the Supreme Court of New Jersey decided State v. A.R., a case that required the Court to determine whether the use of video-recorded statements of a victim or defendant by a jury – in the jury room during deliberations – necessitated a new trial.