Law enforcement and intelligence agencies around the world use facial recognition technology and other AI in investigations to track targets’ movements and as evidence in prosecutions. While books and movies often portray this technology as highly advanced and foolproof, reality can be quite different. Recent cases have demonstrated that facial recognition technology is far from foolproof and may lead to even more misidentifications when identifying people of color.

Companies such as Clearview AI have contracts with law enforcement agencies across the United States. Clearview scrapes billions of photos from social media for its database. Photos from LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram and the public web are uploaded to its database. For an annual fee, law enforcement has access to a face-based search engine. Obviously, a number of factors affect the reliability of the search results. The quality and resolution of the surveillance photo used for the search, the ethnicity of the subject, and the number and age of the comparison photos can all affect the results.

The most troubling, however, is that it appears that in a number of cases law enforcement failed to use other investigative means before seeking arrest warrants for the individuals “identified” by facial recognition software. As Clearview’s CEO made clear to the New York Times recently, when its technology comes up with an “initial result” that should be the starting point in law enforcement’s investigation, not the conclusion. In other words, facial recognition technology should only be used as one investigative tool that may provide a lead in an investigation that must then be coupled with other basic investigative steps.

A recent example of this is the case of Randal Quran Reid who was driving near Atlanta when he was stopped and arrested for alleged thefts in Louisiana. The police in Baton Rouge and Jefferson Parish had apparently used facial recognition from store videos purporting to show Mr. Reid stealing valuable items. Warrants for his arrest were issued and Mr. Reid was held for days pending extradition for crimes he did not commit. The NYT reports that it seems likely that local police simply used the faulty facial recognition identification to obtain the arrest warrants. It is difficult to know for sure because many law enforcement agencies do not reveal that such technology was used, or that it was the sole or primary basis for the warrant.

What should officials in Louisiana have done before issuing an arrest warrant based on facial recognition? First, actually compare the photos to Mr. Reid. According to the article, Mr. Reid is smaller, lighter and less muscular that the actual thief. Next, investigate to see if Mr. Reid was actually in Louisiana around the time of the thefts. How does one determine that? Examine credit card receipts for gas purchases or any other items in the state, travel records and EZ-Pass records, social media, license plate readers and the like. Conversely, look to see if there is evidence that Mr. Reid was in his home state during the thefts. In fact, had law enforcement checked, they would have discovered that Mr. Reid had never been to Louisiana.

Artificial intelligence is advancing at breakneck speed and law enforcement is eager to use all forms of technology to assist in their investigations. The key, however, is AI should only be used to “assist” not conclude. Traditional investigative techniques must be employed to corroborate and verify the alleged results of such database searches, lest more innocent people sit in jail hoping that their attorneys can free them.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Attorneys actively and aggressively protect clients’ rights and challenge the use of such AI based searches in pretrial hearings and trial. To contact Mr. Stahl, call 908.301.9001 for the NJ office and 212.755.3300 for the NYC office, or email Mr. Stahl at rgs@sgdefenselaw.com.

On June 23, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision that dramatically altered a citizen’s ability to carry a firearm outside one’s home. New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. Bruen, No. 20-843, was a challenge to New York State’s Law requiring justifiable need and good cause for an individual to secure a permit for concealed carry of a firearm. The Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment afforded individuals the right to carry a concealed firearm for self-defense and that the necessity of justifiable need would be an infringement on that right.

The Bruen decision has led to a dramatic change in New Jersey law. Prior to Bruen, New Jersey, like New York, issued only a handful of such permits as N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4 required every applicant to “demonstrate a justifiable need to carry a handgun.” That need was strictly interpreted.

Thus, on June 24, 2022, Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin issued Law Enforcement Directive No. 2022-07 urging all police departments to process concealed carry permits by continuing to implement statutory prohibitions, background checks and firearms familiarity as required by N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)(1) – (11) and N.J.A.C. 13:54-2.4(b). With the change in law, Governor Murphy predicted that 200,000 applications for concealed carry permits would likely be filed. The system, however, was designed to handle a very small number of applications. For instance in 2014, in a state with a population almost 9 million residents, only 496 concealed carry permits were issued.

New applications have already overloaded the application process, police departments and the Courts. Several counties are requiring hearings before the Presiding Criminal Division Judge to determine the eligibility, restrictions, and approval of concealed carry permits. These courts, already severely backlogged with criminal cases that were on hold during the COVID-19 pandemic, are now deluged with carry permit applications. While it remains to be seen how the Courts will adjust to the volume of applicants, as well as, what new or additional restrictions may be introduced by law makers, one thing is certain, applicants will endure a long and arduous process. These delays will be met with pressure from applicants citing N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4, which states: “If the application is not approved by the chief police officer or the superintendent within 60 days of filing, it shall be deemed to have been approved, unless the applicant agrees to an extension of time in writing”.

In the wake of Bruen, Governor Murphy also implemented new training and safety requirements for those applying for a Firearms Purchaser Identification Card (FID). An FID is required for any New Jersey Resident to purchase a firearm. On July 5, 2022, Governor Murphy signed into law new revisions to N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3 to take effect immediately. Revisions included “In order to obtain a permit to purchase a handgun or firearms purchaser identification card, the applicant shall demonstrate that, within four years prior to the date of the application, the applicant satisfactorily completed a course of instruction approved by the superintendent in the lawful and safe handling and storage of firearms. The applicant shall be required to demonstrate completion of a course of instruction only once prior to obtaining either a firearms purchaser identification card or the applicant’s first permit to purchase a handgun.” In addition, a NJ FID Card must now display a color photograph and thumb print of the card holder and the card holder must now renew their FID Card every ten (10) years. NJ FID Cards previously had no expiration date.

The immediate implementation of these revisions caused further confusion and delays. A number of municipalities stopped processing applications, uncertain which training course(s) would be approved by the State Police Superintendent. Another issue involves the cards themselves. FID Cards now must bear both the photograph and thumbprint of the card holder. The current system, however, was designed to distribute approved FID cards in a digital format. Towns are now concerned whether new equipment to print the FID cards with photographs and thumb prints must be purchased. Indecision regarding the new statutory amendments reached its peak when the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office issued a directive to all municipal police departments in the county to stop processing and issuing FID cards until clarification on fulfillment of new protocols was established by both the Superintendent and Governor.

In a speech to members of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, the Governor announced that the Superintendent had approved a new online course to satisfy the training requirement of the new law. This instructional safety course, provided free of charge to first time applicants, was implemented on Monday, September 16, on the New Jersey Firearms Application & Registration portal found on the NJSP’s website. The Governor also confirmed that all County Prosecutors were to process first-time purchaser applications without the requirement of the new amendments.

Undoubtedly, New Jersey has one of the nations’ strictest set of gun laws. Experienced and skillful legal advice can greatly assist applicants navigating the ever-changing landscape of firearm ownership in New Jersey.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Attorneys have represented numerous clients facing a variety of issues involving firearms and firearm ownership at both the state and federal level. We actively and aggressively protect clients’ rights. To Contact Mr. Stahl, call (908) 301-9001 for the NJ office and (212) 755-3300 for the NYC office, or email Mr. Stahl at RStahl@StahlEsq.com

In response to a dramatic surge in car thefts across New Jersey, State Attorney General Matt Platkin announced today that he is reversing a policy that prevented police officers from pursuing stolen cars. In late 2021, Platkin effected a statewide policy that prohibited police from chasing a stolen car unless they suspected it had been used in the most serious of crimes, such as murder, vehicular homicide or kidnapping. Thus, the A.G.’s policy prohibited police from pursuing a car simply because it had been stolen.

After scores of stolen vehicles, and complaints from citizens, local government officials and police, Platkin relented to now permit police to chase a car they think has been stolen.

Last year, Platkin said he wanted to limit police chases because high-speed car chases are dangerous, and can put police officers and innocent drivers alike at risk. It was part of an overhaul led by Governor Murphy to reduce the use of force by police. However, with motor vehicle thefts up 127% from last January state officials recognized that the policy needed to be changed.

In addition, Platkin and Gov. Murphy announced that the state would use $10 million in American Rescue Plan funds to purchase automated license plate recognition technology. The funds will allow local police departments to purchase high-speed, automated camera systems that capture and store computer-readable images of license plates. These license-plate readers will be placed at “strategic locations throughout” towns and the N.J. State Police will also deploy cameras along major highways.

According to the Attorney General’s office, the most commonly stolen luxury vehicles are BMW X6, Land Rover Range Rover Sport, Audi Q5 and BMW X3.

The top vehicles stolen statewide in 2022 include Honda Accord, Jeep Grand Cherokee, Honda CR-V, BMW X5 and BMW 3-Series.

High speed chases are dangerous to the officers involved, as well as innocent drivers and pedestrians that may be injured when the stolen vehicle or the police crash. Police must use common sense, as well as policy guidelines, in their pursuits. More often than not, a stolen vehicle is just that – stolen – not a car being used to commit a serious felony. Many high end cars are stolen from wealthy suburbs because the owners negligently leave the keys in their car in their driveway or unlocked garage. Others are left running at convenience stores while their owners run in for a quick purchase. These types of thefts are crimes of opportunity and can be easily eliminated. Other car thefts involve use of force, specialized electronic equipment or fraudulent schemes that obtain access to vehicles that are much more difficult to combat.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers have extensive experience representing individuals charged with federal and state felonies. To contact the firm’s NJ office, call 908.301.9001 and to contact the firm’s NYC office, call 212.755.3300, or email Mr. Stahl at rstahl@stahlesq.com.

It’s 6 a.m. or 8 p.m., your doorbell rings and two people are standing outside holding up their badges and credentials. They say they are Special Agents with the FBI or IRS and would like to talk with you for just a few minutes about something important. They ask if they could come in to speak with you privately. Caught off-guard, and not wanting them to think that you have anything to hide, you invite them in (and, of course, you don’t want your neighbors to see them talking to you on your front steps). The agents are “friendly” and just have a few questions to get your input, your side of things, or to serve you with a grand jury subpoena. You decide to talk to them, only for a few minutes, in the comfort of your own home or office. At the end, they thank you for your time and hand you either a grand jury subpoena or a “target letter.”

After they leave, you start to wonder – what did I say? How much did I tell them? Am I in trouble, did I implicate myself or others? You start to look for an attorney. You can’t ask your family or friends who they hired last time the FBI or IRS visited them because you don’t know anyone who ever faced such a situation. So, you scour the internet to find an experienced criminal defense attorney, one with a lot of federal experience because it’s a federal investigation.

The next day you’re in the attorney’s office. After talking to the attorney you realize that what you thought was an innocuous 15 -30 minute chat with the FBI was actually an hour and a half where you told them some things, but not others. You discover that it is a federal crime to lie to the agents. You learn that it doesn’t matter that they didn’t read you your rights, like in the movies, because you weren’t “in custody.” When you tell the lawyer that you only spoke to them because you didn’t want the agents to think you were involved or guilty, the lawyer tells you that the agents already think that you’re involved, that’s why they were at your house to interview you in the first place. You then learn that there were two agents so that the interview was witnessed by two of them for credibility later on if you dispute what you said. You learn that a “target letter” is issued by an Assistant U.S. Attorney because she believes that you are involved in criminal activity and wants you to come in with your attorney to negotiate a plea of guilty. You realize that it was a mistake to say anything to the agents without first talking with an experienced white-collar criminal defense attorney.

So, what should you do in such a situation? The safest course would be to politely tell the agents that while you would like to talk with them, you need to contact your attorney and that he will get back to them. Ask them for their business cards so that you can give the information to your attorney. If they don’t have cards, write down their names, agency and contact information. Do not under any circumstances talk with them about the subject matter of their investigation. After they leave, contact an experienced criminal defense attorney to discuss your rights, potential exposure and your options.

If you did talk with the agents, experienced criminal defense counsel can help you get through the situation and protect your rights going forward. The task will be to mitigate any statements made and develop an overall strategy to succeed.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers have successfully represented hundreds of individuals under federal and state investigations. To contact the firm’s NJ office, call 908.301.9001 and to contact the firm’s NYC office, call 212.755.3300, or email Mr. Stahl at rstahl@stahlesq.com.

When someone pleads guilty or is convicted of a federal or state crime, there are serious collateral consequences, in addition to potential jail time, forfeiture, restitution and other fines and penalties. The term ‘‘collateral consequence’’ means a collateral sanction or a disqualification, a penalty, disability, or disadvantage that is imposed by law as a result of an individual’s conviction for a felony, misdemeanor, or other offense, but not as part of the judgment of the court. Collateral consequences are legal and regulatory restrictions that limit or prohibit people convicted of crimes from:

• Accessing employment
• Business and occupational licensing
• Housing
• Voting
• Possession of firearms and hunting licenses
• Education
• Military service

A federal conviction results in the loss of the right to:

• Vote,
• Possess firearms,
• Sit on a jury
• and may result in travel bans from many countries.

Depending on the type of crime, the person’s professional license may be suspended, or the person may be banned or debarred from certain federal programs for a period of years.

There are more than 45,000 state and local laws and regulations that have profound ramifications for those with criminal records. Roughly 600,000 people leave prisons every year hoping that their punishment has ended, only to encounter a combination of laws, rules, and biases forming barriers that block them from jobs, housing, and fundamental participation in our political, economic, and cultural life. These collateral consequences illustrate the excessively retributive nature of our criminal justice system.

Currently, 30 states disenfranchise at least some people based on past conviction. Some collateral consequences serve a legitimate public safety or regulatory function, such as keeping firearms out of the hands of people convicted of violent offenses, prohibiting people convicted of assault or physical abuse from working with children or the elderly, or barring people convicted of fraud from positions of public trust. Others are directly related to a particular crime, such as registration requirements for sex offenders or driver’s license restrictions for people convicted of serious traffic offenses. But some collateral consequences apply without regard to the relationship between the crime and opportunity being restricted, such as the revocation of a business license after conviction of any felony.

These consequences create social and economic barriers for individuals reentering society by denying or restricting benefits otherwise available to all Americans. Collateral consequences can also adversely affect adoptions, housing, welfare, immigration, employment, professional licensure, property rights, mobility, and other opportunities. The effects of such restrictions often increase recidivism and undermines meaningful reentry.

Despite these sweeping adverse consequences, defendants are generally not entitled, as a matter of due process, to be warned of these consequences, either before accepting a plea or upon conviction. Although the U.S. Supreme Court has required consideration of certain immigration effects of a criminal conviction, the Court left open what other disenfranchisements might rise to the level requiring constitutional protection.

The attorneys at Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense advise all of our clients of the potential collateral consequences of their plea or conviction. We routinely represent licensed professionals that may face parallel administrative actions or hearings seeking to suspend their license based upon the criminal investigation or charges

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers have extensive experience in serious federal and state criminal cases. The founder of the firm, Robert Stahl, is a Certified Criminal Trial Attorney by the Supreme Court of New Jersey, a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers and a former Assistant U.S. Attorney who tried some of the largest fraud and tax cases in the District of New Jersey. He has been aggressively defending serious cases in federal and state courts for more than 25 years.

Newly sworn in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg issued new policies and procedures to his staff that substantially altered existing office policy in prosecuting criminal cases. The new directive defers certain prosecutions for lower-level offenses, reduces certain felony offenses, prohibits seeking life in prison without parole, and prohibits seeking bail except in limited violent offenses.

Bragg ran on a progressive platform that promised to overhaul the system and to reduce the number of people behind bars. His first major directive seeks to implement his ideology toward charging, bail and sentencing in the face of rising crime rates throughout the city and calls from officials and the public to crack down on crime. The new policies are a reflection of the DA’s personal experiences growing up in New York, as well as his goal to link safety with fairness.

In broad strokes, the new policy calls for

1. More diversion and alternatives to incarceration for individuals in crisis and youthful offenders;
2. Reduction in pretrial incarceration, recognizing the ongoing multitude of problems in Rikers, limiting such incarceration to violent crimes and limited exceptions;
3. A focus in sentencing on accountability rather than the length of the sentence as research shows that certain longer sentences do not deter crime or provide greater community safety;
4. Limit youthful offenders (up to age 25) in adult court system; and
5. Actively support those reentering society after their prison terms.

This sweeping directive affects decisions regarding charging, pretrial
detention, dispositions, cases involving juveniles and charges against non-citizens. It represents a major shift in existing policy that called for charging the most serious offenses possible in the majority of cases. As for non-citizens, the directive calls for avoiding dispositions that would affect immigration status and lead to potential removal from the country.

Many of the directive’s goals are laudatory and long overdue. Prosecutors around the country routinely and reflexively charge the most serious possible offenses rather than examining the specific facts, background of the individuals, mitigating circumstances and other relevant information. At the charging phase, defendants are broadly categorized and face lengthy prison sentences.

The new policy requires ADAs to examine each case individually, based on the type of the offense, the age and circumstances of the defendant and other relevant factors. By doing so at the charging phase, rather than at sentencing where many jurisdictions limit judges’ discretion through sentencing guidelines and mandatory-minimum laws, DA Bragg believes that fairness will result in greater safety to the community. Time will tell whether the new policy will yield the intended results.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense is here for all your criminal legal needs. We are experienced in all types of complex criminal matters involving a many types of electronic evidence. To contact the firm’s NJ office, call 908.301.9001 and to contact the firm’s NYC office, call 212.755.3300, or email Mr. Stahl at rstahl@stahlesq.com.

In the federal system, a person may be charged and arrested by way of a complaint or indictment. A complaint is a written statement of essential facts establishing the offense charged made under oath by the agent before a magistrate-judge. Based upon the complaint, an arrest warrant may be issued upon the establishment of probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed and that the defendant committed it. The warrant must list the defendant’s name, or description by which he can be identified, the offense charged, command that the defendant be brought without unnecessary delay before a magistrate-judge and be signed by the judge.

An indictment is returned after a properly impaneled grand jury, consisting of 23 grand jurors with a minimum quorum of 16, hears evidence from the U.S. Attorney’s Office and at least 12 grand jurors find probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that the defendant committed the crime. The grand jury presentation is done in secret, with evidence presented by the prosecution through agents and witnesses. The defendant, and his counsel, are not permitted to attend and may not even be aware of the grand jury investigation or presentation. Once the grand jury votes on the indictment drafted and presented to them by the Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA), an arrest warrant may issue by a magistrate-judge based upon the probable cause finding of the grand jury.

If a person is charged by way of a complaint, they are entitled to a preliminary hearing before a magistrate-judge within 14 days of the arrest to determine whether there is probable cause that the crime charged was committed by the defendant. At such a hearing, the defense may cross-examine adverse witnesses and may introduce evidence. However, most defendants, if they do not waive the preliminary hearing, are indicted by a grand jury before the scheduled hearing as the government usually does not want to reveal and expose their witnesses and case to the defense at this early stage.

In either event, the magistrate-judge will set the conditions of release, or in particularly serious cases to pre-trial detention, at the initial appearance. In the federal system, if the defendant is released on bail, the judge will set the conditions of release which customarily require the signing of a bond by the defendant and other responsible parties, travel restrictions to the District of the offense or the person’s home state, surrender of passport, and other conditions to reasonably assure the defendant appears at all court proceedings and is not a danger to the community.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers aggressively defend individuals charged with complex federal and state crimes. Founder Robert G. Stahl is recognized as one of the top criminal defense attorneys in the NY/NJ area for his skills, knowledge and success. To contact us to discuss your case, call 908.301.9001 for our NJ office and 212.755.3300 for our NYC office, or email us at rgs@sgdefenselaw.com

An arrest warrant is, in many cases, the formal start of a criminal case against an individual. It is a sworn written recitation of enough “facts” of the case that demonstrate to a judge that there is probable cause to believe that a crime(s) has been committed and the at the defendant committed the alleged crime(s).
In most cases, a police officer or federal agent presents the information in writing based upon his or her own investigation and information provided by other law enforcement officers with knowledge of the case. While the information may not be complete, and need not be at this stage, there must be sufficient information for the judge to find probable cause. Probable cause has been defined as information sufficient to warrant a prudent person’s belief that the person committed a crime.

If law enforcement has sufficient information that rises to the level of probable cause, the judge will issue (authorize) the arrest warrant. The warrant must state the person’s name, the offenses charged, command the person to be arrested and brought before a judge, and be signed by the judge. Once the police locate and arrest the person named on the arrest warrant, the person will be held until bail is set.

In the state system, the new bail procedures require that a person arrested on a warrant be held until he can be interviewed and a Public Safety Assessment can be completed (see our prior posting on New Jersey’s new bail system). In the federal system, the person must be brought before a magistrate-judge without unnecessary delay for a bail hearing. Prior to the bail hearing, Pretrial Services will interview the person and make a recommendation to the judge about the risk factors – risk of flight and danger to the community.

It is critical to have experienced criminal defense counsel involved as soon as possible to advocate both with the prosecutor and Pretrial Services on the client’s behalf to obtain the least restrictive bail as possible. A good, experienced criminal defense lawyer will have gathered the relevant information to present to Pretrial Services about the client’s work and family history, ties to the community, prior travel, location of passport and responsible parties who are willing to sign for the client’s release.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers aggressively defend organizations and individuals charged with complex federal and state crimes. Founder Robert G. Stahl is recognized as one of the top criminal defense attorneys in the NY/NJ area for his skills, knowledge and success. To contact us to discuss your case, call 908.301.9001 for our NJ office and 212.755.3300 for our NYC office, or email us at rstahl@stahlesq.com.

The stages of a criminal case as it proceeds through the legal system can be confusing for individuals who find themselves on the wrong end of legal charges for the first time. Though popular media has no shortage of stories set within the criminal justice system, these fictional depictions often leave out important details. When a substantial portion of your personal and professional future hangs in the balance, it’s critical to have a complete and accurate understanding of the steps through which your criminal case will proceed.

Criminal Arrest

A criminal case begins with an investigation into alleged criminal conduct. The formal process begins when an individual accused of a crime is taken into custody by law enforcement. To make an arrest, the law enforcement officer must either be present at the time the crime is committed and see it happen, or have an arrest warrant for the suspect in question. Arrest warrants may be obtained by law enforcement when they can present probable cause that a given individual committed the crime. There are certain procedures, determined by the jurisdiction, that an arresting officer must follow for a legitimate arrest.

Criminal Charges

The accused has the right to be informed of the crime(s) for which they are being charged, either at the time of the arrest or as promptly thereafter as is practical.

Initial Appearance

This is usually the first occasion on which a given criminal case comes before a judge. Generally the initial appearance must occur within 24 hours of the arrest. During this appearance, the identity of the accused is confirmed, the criminal charges against them are explained, and the accused is informed of their rights (to remain silent, and to be represented by an attorney). Public defenders are assigned to defendants who cannot afford a lawyer.

Preliminary Hearing

An accused defendant has the right to be present and represented by an attorney at this hearing, the purpose of which is to present and challenge evidence that shows probable cause to believe that a criminal act was indeed committed, and that the defendant was the perpetrator. Evidence may be presented at this stage to support or dispute these claims. If the Judge determines that the State failed to demonstrate that there was probable cause to believe that the defendant committed a crime, the charges are dismissed and the defendant released. The State can avoid a probable cause hearing by presenting the case to the grand jury and obtaining an indictment. The indictment is proof that the grand jury found sufficient probable cause to believe that the defendant committed the crime(s)charged.

Bail or Detention Hearing

If not already determined at the defendant’s initial appearance before the court, a separate hearing is convened to establish whether bail is appropriate, and if so, in what amount.

Grand Jury

Felony cases in some jurisdictions involve a grand jury indictment rather than a preliminary hearing. In these cases, a grand jury consisting of private citizens sworn to secrecy hears evidence only from the prosecutor, the defense is not permitted to participate. The grand jury in a criminal case has the power to compel testimony from concerned parties, including the victim. After investigating, the grand jury votes on whether to indict or dismiss.

Arraignment

At this stage of a criminal case, the defendant is formally presented with the charges against them contained in the indictment and enters a plea.

Pre-Trial Hearings

Before the trial begins, both the prosecution and the defense may introduce motions to address outstanding issues pertaining to the case, which are ruled upon by the judge.

Plea Negotiations

Instead of proceeding to trial, the defendant may choose plead guilty to the original charge or a lesser charge, in exchange for some form of consideration from the prosecution – often involving either dropping other charges or recommending a specific sentence. The court has the option to accept or reject the plea agreement; if it is rejected, the defendant may withdraw their plea.

Criminal Trial

If the case is not dismissed or resolved with a plea agreement, it goes to trial before a jury. This is perhaps the most well-recognized portion of a criminal case. Jurors are selected, evidence is presented, witnesses are questioned and cross-examined. The burden of proof rests on the prosecution to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If they cannot, the defense attorney may ask for a judgment of acquittal.

Verdict

If the trial is completed without a judgment of acquittal, dismissal, or plea agreement, the jury withdraws to consider the facts and reach a verdict, which is then presented to the court. If the jury finds the defendant not guilty, the defendant is released. Otherwise, the case proceeds to sentencing.

Sentencing

The sentence received by the defendant is often determined at a separate hearing. Both the prosecution and the defense present evidence regarding the appropriate punishment, and the judge makes the final determination.

Appeals

You may appeal the ruling in your criminal case to a higher court if you believe an error or inappropriate action resulted in an unfair decision. Appeals are difficult to win, and your attorney can help you determine whether you have grounds for an appeal.

The experienced attorneys at Robert G. Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers aggressively defend individuals charged with complex federal and state crimes. Founder Robert G. Stahl is recognized as one of the top criminal defense attorneys in the NY/NJ area for his skills, knowledge and success. To contact us to discuss your case, call 908-301-9001 for our Mountainside, New Jersey office and 212-755-3300 for our New York City office, or email us at rgs@sgdefenselaw.com.