A recent success story in Morristown Municipal Court
It is very satisfying as an attorney when your hard work pays off to the benefit of a client. Our firm recently represented a client in Morristown Municipal Court who was charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI). Defendant was arrested and charged with DWI in February 2008. Over the past year, there have been more than a half-dozen court appearances related to this charge. First, the State failed to provide discovery evidence to my office for the first several months of the case. Specifically, the State failed to provide the Alcotest Operator's card as well as the audio and videotapes relating to our client's arrest. Then, my office made several motions to dismiss the case for failure to provide discovery. Unfortunately, these motions were denied. However, the judge did mark the case "try or dismiss" which means that, if the State failed to provide the discovery evidence before the next court appearance, the case would be dismissed. Then, the State failed to provide discovery evidence at the next court appearance. However, the judge who made the previous "try or dismiss" marking was on vacation and a substitute judge was filling in for him. As a result, the substitute judge failed to dismiss the case and denied our motion to dismiss once again.
The client decided to appeal this ruling to the Superior Court. Any decisions or findings of the Municipal Court can be appealed to the County if necessary. Thus, we appealed this ruling to the County and were heard in Morristown Superior Court in November of 2008. Once again, our motion was denied. However, the Superior Court judge stated on the record that this matter should be disposed of immediately. In New Jersey, there is a directive from the New Jersey Supreme Court that DWI cases should be disposed of within sixty (60) days. As you can see, this case has taken more than a year to resolve.
Now, the case was once again adjourned by the State because the State could not produce the officers at trial for the next listing. Further, the police officer was unable to testify as to the twenty minute observation period required under State v. Chun. Essentially, the police must stop and observe a suspect for twenty minutes prior to conducting the breath test to ensure that they have not consumed any alcohol twenty minutes before the test, that they did not throw up or spit up anything during that time, and that they did not chew gum or any other substance within 20 minutes of the exam. Any of these things can effect the breath test results and then the test results will not be reliable. Thus, after more than a year of criminal defense work, a half dozen court appearances, and an appeal to the County, we have worked out a favorable deal for our client. The breath test results will not be admissible based on the violation of the twenty minute waiting period. However, the State can still use the field sobriety tests to prove intoxication. Therefore, our client will plead guilty to DWI but will only be looking at 3 months license suspension rather than 7 months. Further, this guilty plea is contingent upon our ability to appeal this matter to the county one more time because of the violation of my client's right to a speedy trial. If the Superior Court grants our appeal, this case will be dismissed entirely. This is an extremely favorable outcome for my client, who had Alcotest readings of .21.
