DUI Strategies in New Jersey

NJ law does not allow attorneys to enter into plea negotiations with prosecutors in DUI cases. Attorneys, therefore, actively seek out technicalities to get DUI cases dismissed. The officer involved in one of the cases in the article below had a prior DUI dismissed. Now, in the aftermath, are we being too lenient in DUI cases? Should anyone be able to get off on a technicality?

As the law stands in New Jersey, technicalities such as failure to obtain a warrant to draw blood, use of an alcohol swab instead of iodine in drawing blood, improper maintenance blood testing machinery, and failure to read Miranda Warnings to a possible DUI offender can get a case dismissed. The recent rash of DUI's involving officers has put a direct spotlight on the use of technicalities by defense, attorneys, to dismiss DUIs has come under fire.

There must be a balance in the interests of the public to have DUI offenders prosecuted and the rights of these potential offenders to be treated uniformly according to the laws that have been put in place and fairness.

http://www.nj.com/union/index.ssf/2015/04/get_out_of_dui.html#incart_most-read_mercer_article

Family Law- Plaintiff still has a burden of proof for equitable distribution in default divorce

FAMILY LAW
20-4-2829 Clementi v. Clementi, Ch. Div., Family Pt., Ocean Co. (Jones, J.S.C.) (13 pp.) This case addresses how defendant’s nonappearance at a default divorce proceeding impacts plaintiff’s burden of proof regarding equitable distribution. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, the court holds the following: (1) When a defaulting defendant fails to participate in a divorce proceeding, the plaintiff is not automatically entitled to a default judgment granting all requests regarding equitable distribution. Rather, plaintiff still has an ongoing obligation to persuade the court, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposal for equitable distribution is fair and equitable under the specific facts of the case. (2) Defendant’s failure to object to plaintiff’s proposed equitable distribution in a notice of final judgment is not necessarily the same as an express written consent, and generally cannot be the sole and exclusive basis for a court to determine that the proposal is fair, reasonable and equitable. However, defendant’s failure to object is one of many relevant factors a court may appropriately consider in determining the overall reasonableness of plaintiff’s proposal for equitable distribution. (3) The value of a marital asset, relative to the remainder of the marital estate, is a legitimate and significant factor for a court to consider in determining whether a defaulting party, who has not appeared in a divorce proceeding, may lose all interest in such asset in favor of the appearing party by way of equitable distribution. [Decided Aug. 13, 2013.]

Read more: http://www.njlawjournal.com/id=1202643066950/Approved-Opinions#ixzz2tKdAlLA3