Laura K. Gasiorowski, partner at the Law Offices of Robert G. Stahl, LLC, is returning to the faculty at Tulane University Law School’s Criminal Litigation Boot Camp, a week-long training program held at the Law School in New Orleans, Louisiana. The program begins on January 6, 2024, and is one of several experiential learning programs at Tulane that have drawn acclaim. The program provides practical lawyering skills to law students, who will choose to participate as a defense attorney or prosecutor in a week long program of workshops, lectures and instruction. At the conclusion of a week spent writing and arguing a series of motions, the students brief and argue a suppression motion in front of judges who volunteer to hear arguments and offer post argument critique at the Courthouse at Tulane and Broad.

Ms. Gasiorowski, one of the original co-chairs of the program and author of the materials, joins leading lawyers from around the country who participate as instructors in Tulane’s cutting edge program. Now in its tenth year, the Winter Intersession program won Tulane Law School recognition as one of the nation’s 20 Most Innovative Law Schools by National Jurist Magazine, and has earned enthusiastic reviews from student participants who value and appreciate the insights and instruction of experienced l

It may come as a surprise to most, including many criminal defense attorneys, that the federal system detains a greater percentage of people arrested than state systems. Since the Bail Reform Act (BRA), enacted in 1984, pretrial detention has significantly increased from 19% in 1985 to 75% in 2019, which is particularly astounding, considering violent crime accounts for only 2% of federal arrests.

The BRA provides that a court release a defendant on the “least restrictive” conditions to “reasonably assure” the appearance of the defendant and the safety of the community. Detention hearings shall only be held in cases which involve very specific factors that authorize pretrial detention. Such factors include drug offenses, certain gun and recidivist offenses, crimes of violence or terrorism, as well as offenses involving a maximum term of life in prison or death.

In 1987, when the constitutionality of the BRA was challenged, the United States Supreme Court stressed that “[i]n our society liberty is the norm, and detention prior to trial . . . is the carefully limited exception.” However, statistics demonstrate that federal prosecutors around the country routinely and impermissibly seek pretrial detention at a far greater rate than allowed by the BRA. In spite of the fact that in 2019, 99% of federally-charged defendants appeared in court as required, and 98% of defendants did not commit new crimes while on pretrial release.

In an effort to counter a government’s claim of serious risk of flight, defense counsel may overcome the argument by demonstrating that the client has lived in the community for a long time, is married with children, is steadily employed, has no record of failing to appear, and/or no prior record. In cases involving serious risk of danger to the community, defense counsel may overcome the argument through similar factors, as well as additional conditions of release such as home confinement with electronic monitoring or third-party custodians.

Recently, the Judicial Conference of the Unites States asked Congress to narrow the presumption of detention in drug cases to only people with very serious criminal records. This is important given the push from the Department of Justice to federally charge a greater number of people arrested for state drug and gun offenses. Many lower-level drug offenders are scooped up under the guise that they are associated with organized drug distributors or gangs. Since federal cases routinely take far longer to resolve by plea or trial, individuals in federal pretrial detention face limited family contact and ready access to counsel, as well as loss of employment and ultimately harsher sentences.

It is critical to hire experienced federal criminal defense counsel when charged with a federal crime. Our attorneys are highly experienced in representing individuals charged with federal crimes where the government seeks pretrial detention. Mindful of the importance of self-distancing, we at times work remotely but are available to meet new clients either in person, through video conferencing, or by phone. Challenging times demand innovation and accommodation to our client’s needs. Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense is here for all of your criminal legal needs during this time. 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 rgs@sgdefenselaw.com

Many federal, state, and municipal courts have limited the number and types of cases they will be handling in the near term. Some have adjourned jury trials for several weeks and in some cases even months to see what happens after a period of isolation. Courts have summarily waived Speedy Trial Act rights and ordered continuances for a period of time. State courts in particular are promoting the use of video and teleconferencing in lieu of appearing in court. Municipal courts have adjourned court appearances for motor vehicle summonses and code violations. Detention has been waived in certain cases depending on the type of crime, the age of the offender, and other relevant factors.

This is due to fears of spreading the virus to the jail population – causing a sudden boom in cases – and the risk that the greater the jail population, the greater the risk to inmates and staff.

Federal and state criminal investigations and arrests, however, are continuing. While some investigations may lie dormant for a period of time, U.S. Attorneys’ Offices around the country continue to investigate and prosecute cases, especially those with statute of limitations deadlines looming. State investigations and prosecutions continue as well.

Our attorneys and staff are actively and aggressively defending our existing clients’ cases. We are also available to meet with new clients. Being mindful of the importance of self-distancing, we at times work remotely but are available to meet new clients either in person or through video conferencing, and have the capability to offer initial consultations by phone. Challenging times demand innovation and accommodation to our clients’ needs. Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense is here for all of your criminal legal needs during this time.

Whether you are in federal or state court, well-crafted pretrial motions are essential to a successful defense. Pretrial motions are requests by way of formal motion, which may ask for the court to compel the prosecutor to turn over evidence, to dismiss the indictment or certain counts, to exclude or limit certain evidence, or to prevent the prosecutor from making certain arguments to the jury, among other things. These types of motions may also raise discovery violations; challenge the admission of evidence from searches, electronic surveillance, identifications, and custodial interrogation; and/or challenge the sufficiency of grand jury proceedings. Discovery motions in particular are critical because often times the prosecution does not turn over a complete set of discovery or evidence favorable to the defense. Defense counsel should set forth its detailed discovery demands in writing to the prosecution both early in the proceedings and later, as discovery is received. As the discovery is reviewed, counsel may uncover items missing or referred to in documents that lead him to believe that there are other reports that should be turned over as well. Written discovery demands establish specific requests that put the prosecutor on notice and can later establish discovery violations for failure to disclose those requested items. Defense counsel can also submit Freedom of Information Requests to certain agencies that may be compelled to turn over reports that may not otherwise be obtainable. For instance, Child Protective Services can be compelled under certain circumstances to turn over reports of interviews or psychological evaluations in their files that the prosecutor may not possess or request. Such information can be highly probative of credibility or inconsistent statements about the alleged conduct.

Pretrial motions to exclude or limit certain evidence are known as motions to suppress. A motion to suppress can ask for the exclusion of a range of evidence, including physical evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant, consent searches, or warrantless searches; custodial statements from the defendant, with or without Miranda warnings given; recorded communications, whether by an informant or cooperator, or by court-authorized wiretap; and searches of electronic devices such as cellphones and computers. If the court grants a hearing on any of these issues, the prosecutor must present witnesses under oath to establish that the items were lawfully seized or recorded. This is the defense’s opportunity to learn what potential witnesses may testify to at trial, and to cross-examine those witnesses prior to trial in an attempt to establish a violation substantial enough for the court to exclude that evidence.

Pretrial motions to dismiss the entire indictment or specific counts are based upon the sufficiency of evidence presented – and/or legal instructions given – to the grand jury. While difficult to win, successful motions to dismiss can force the prosecution to either dismiss the case or counts, or re-present the case to another grand jury with additional evidence or legal instructions.

A successful defense starts with a thorough review of the facts and discovery that enables the attorney to research and draft effective, case-specific motions tailored to uncover weaknesses in the prosecutor’s case and establish defenses to the charges. Boilerplate motions using form, canned briefs are ineffective and fail to alert the court to specific important issues that could affect the course of the proceedings.

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 the firm, call 908.301.9001 for the NJ office and 212.755.3300 for the NYC office, or email Mr. Stahl at rgs@sgdefenselaw.com.

State v. Tier concerns an issue of criminal procedure that had not previously been addressed by any court of appeals in New Jersey: the interpretation of Rule 3:13-3(b)(2)(C), which addresses a criminal defendant’s obligations to provide the State with discovery before trial. Though at first glance the opinion seems to concern a mundane issue of criminal procedure, it touches on the interplay of several important constitutional principles. On one hand, a defendant has a right to remain silent and “has an absolute, unqualified right to compel the State to investigate its own case, find its own witnesses, prove its own facts, and convince the jury through its own resources.” On the other hand, New Jersey courts have adopted a stated policy that favors the pre-trial sharing of information to avoid surprise and gamesmanship at trial. These principles often come into conflict as the State puts pressure on the trial court to preview the defense before it is entered at trial, arguing that the trial will be delayed by surprise evidence.

The trial judge in Tier, over a defense objection, ordered the defendant’s attorney to create written summaries of defense witness statements that had been communicated orally to defense counsel and to provide the summaries to the State before the start of trial. The defendant appealed, arguing that the judge’s order exceeded the mandate of Rule 3:13-3(b)(2)(C). Rule 3:13-3(b)(2)(C) provides that the defendant must provide the State with “the names, addresses, and birthdates of those persons known to defendant who may be called as witnesses at trial and their written statements, if any, including memoranda reporting or summarizing their oral statements.” On appeal, the Supreme Court found that the trial judge misinterpreted the plain language of Rule 3:13-3(b)(2)(C), which must be interpreted narrowly to protect a defendant’s constitutional rights. The Court said that a defendant is obligated to provide the State only with pre-existing written statements by its witnesses who are expected to testify, but that defendants are not obligated to reduce oral statements to writing for the benefit of the State.

A similar issue had previously been decided by the Supreme Court in 1979 in State v. Williams: whether defense witness summaries already in existence were required to be disclosed if the defendant had no intention of using them at trial. In that case, the Supreme Court also ruled in favor of the defendant, placing no duty on the defendant to produce those documents. The Court felt that to place such a burden on a defendant “would chill the defense’s investigation and infringe on the defendant’s right to effective assistance of counsel.”

These two Supreme Court opinions, taken together, clearly delineate the circumstances under which a defendant must turn over witness statements to the State prior to trial. They also provide valuable guidance to defense attorneys who, in preparing for trial, should be making reasoned, strategic decisions as to whether to reduce witness statements to writing.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers aggressively defend individuals charged with white collar crimes, domestic violence, drug crimes and criminal charges. Mr. Olesnycky’s cases have been widely covered in the news, including the New York Times, CBS This Morning, NBC4 New York, the Associated Press, the Boston Globe, NJ.com, the Star Ledger, and ESPN. 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 ao@sgdefenselaw.com.

One of the most critical principles outlined in the United States Constitution is the idea that every person has certain rights that must be upheld and protected, even when that person is accused of or suspected of committing a crime. These protections benefit everyone, guilty and innocent alike, and one of the first things an experienced criminal defense attorney will do in preparing your case is determine whether any of your rights were violated in the course of the investigation conducted by law enforcement that led to your being charged with a crime. If any grounds exist on which to claim that your constitutional rights were violated, your attorney can rectify this by filing a pretrial suppression motion to exclude from consideration any evidence that law enforcement obtained by means of that violation.

There are a number of important constitutional rights to keep in mind during any interaction with law enforcement, but with respect to the collection of evidence, two of the most crucial are the Fourth Amendment’s protection against inappropriate searches and seizures, and the Fifth Amendment’s protection against being compelled or coerced into providing incriminating evidence against oneself. In many cases, the evidence being shielded by these rights may be highly persuasive of the accused’s guilt: a confession, or contraband items such as drugs or weapons. If law enforcement investigators acquire this evidence through the violation of the constitutional rights of the accused, his or her defense attorney can file a suppression motion to have that incriminating evidence excluded from the client’s trial.

In order to have legal grounds to assert one’s constitutional rights in this way, it is necessary not to have waived your rights during the police investigation. Unfortunately, many people are not aware of exactly what their rights do and don’t protect, and frequently a person under investigation will surrender their rights simply by not knowing what police requests they are legally allowed to refuse. In most cases, police require a search warrant obtained from a judge before they are permitted to search a person’s home, vehicle (although there are many exceptions to the warrant requirement for motor vehicles), or other property (though what forms of property are protected by this expectation of privacy can get very complicated under the law). There are two exceptions to the requirement of a warrant. If there is probable cause to believe that evidence is about to be destroyed or that a crime is being or will imminently be committed, police may be able to enter the premises and conduct a search without a warrant – though they will have to prove in court that they had sufficient cause to justify their actions.

The other circumstance that gives police a veritable blank check to search a person’s home or property is consent. If you agree to allow police to search your home, vehicle, bag, or other property, you waive your right to Fourth Amendment protections regarding that search. Anything the police happen to find in the course of a consent search may be used as evidence in any criminal case against you. This is why, in the absence of a warrant, if any law enforcement officer requests to search your home, vehicle, person, or belongings, you should politely refuse. In the vast majority of instances, there is nothing to be gained by consenting to a search, no matter what a police officer may say to the contrary. Law enforcement officers are trained to persuade suspects and other persons of interest to cooperate with them as much as possible, which may include making misleading statements or promises they lack the authority to keep.

Similarly, it is wise to avoid making unnecessary statements to the police. Most people are aware of the Miranda rights that police read to suspects upon arrest, including “anything you say can be used against you in court,” but fewer people are aware that statements made before that point can be used against them just as easily. It’s a natural impulse to want to explain yourself when confronted by authorities, especially if you haven’t done what you’re being accused of, but that’s an impulse you should resist. Careless phrasing, statements that may lead to further investigation, or confessions to a lesser charge can make it extremely difficult for your attorney to mount a strong defense for you later.

If you avoid these missteps but police proceed with a search without your consent, or coerce you into making incriminating statements, your lawyer can file a motion with the court before your trial begins to have this improperly-obtained evidence excluded from the proceedings against you. The possibility of having impermissibly obtained evidence suppressed is what protects everyone’s rights from overstepping by police. But to preserve your right to a potentially successful suppression motion, you must avoid voluntarily giving unnecessary permission or comment.

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 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.