Not Guilty in Essex County 2nd Degree Aggravated Assault Trial

Posted on November 11, 2010 by Alexander M. Iler

On Monday November 8, 2010, we are happy to announce a great success story for one of our clients who stood trial in Essex County on 2nd degree Aggravated Assault charges, as well as Unlawful Possession of a Weapon and Possession of a Weapon for an Unlawful Purpose charges.  

Our client was involved in an altercation and was attacked by a 63 year old man with a pair of hedge clippers.  In defending himself, he sought to ward off the attacker by wielding a PVC pipe, which unfortunately blinded the attacker.  Our client was charged with 2nd degree Aggravated Assault in violation of N.J.S.A 2C:12-1(b), Unlawful Possession of a Weapon in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(d) and Possession of a Weapon for an Unlawful Purpose in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(d).

After a 5 day jury trial my client was found not guilty an all charges including the lesser included offenses of Aggravated Assault with Significant Bodily Injury in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1b(7), Simple Assault (N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1a(1) and Simple Assault Mutual Fighting in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1a(1).

On behalf of my client I was able to mount a successful self defense strategy and the jury reached a unanimous not guilty verdict!  It was nice to see a jury do the right thing and listen carefully to both sides of a story, judge the credibility of witnesses properly and reach a just conclusion.  My best wishes and thoughts go out to my client who is now fully enjoying his freedom for the first time in over a year.

 

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Interesting Exception to the Hearsay Rule

Posted on January 16, 2009 by Alexander M. Iler

     I found an interesting article in the Asbury Park Press which concerns the hearsay doctrine. A 27 year old Hazlet woman is currently on trial for murder at the Monmouth County Superior Court. Judge Anthony Mellaci ruled that prosecutors will be able to confront the Defendant with a prior statement in which she denied being at the scene of the crime. The reason for this is an exception to the hearsay doctrine known as "prior inconsistent statements".

     Let me give you a brief explanation of the hearsay rule. The definition of hearsay is a previously made statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted. If you are offering the previously made statement for the purpose of proving that the statement is true, this is classic hearsay and should not be permitted. For example, the prosecutors could not ask the Defendant, in this case, "On [date], didn't you say that you weren't at the scene of the crime?". The reason for this is they are asking her about a prior statement in order to prove that she wasn't at the scene of the crime when the murder took place. That is the definition of hearsay. However, in this case, the prosecutors are not offering the statement to prove that she wasn't at the scene of the crime. They are offering the statement because she first told detectives that she wasn't at the scene of the crime when the murder took place and now, in her attorney's opening statement, he said that she was in the apartment when the murders took place but that she wasn't involved. As a result, if the Defendant takes the stand and testifies that she was at the scene of the crime at the time of the killing but she wasn't involved in the murder, the prosecutors will be permitted to offer her prior statement that she wasn't at the scene of the crime. This is known as a prior inconsistent statement and is an exception to the hearsay doctrine. For the entire article on this Monmouth County Murder Trial, see the Asbury Park press website.

     Thanks to Denis McLaughlin, professor at Seton Hall University School of Law, for being the best evidence professor in history and teaching me the intricacies of evidence and the hearsay rule. You wouldn't believe how many attorneys do not understand the Rules of Evidence and this proves to be a great advantage for myself and my classmates when doing trial work.

Tags: , ,