Clifford E. Lazzaro, P.C.

Why Are Some Young Sex Offenders Held Indefinitely in NJ Facility?

Clifford E. Lazzaro, P.C. Team — Fri, 24 May 2024 12:02:26 GMT

ANTOINE GOLDET, GEORGE STEPTOE | JANUARY 28, 2016 |

Jhon Sanchez served his time for sex offenses committed when he was 13. But he’s still not free. Inside the world of civil commitment.

On the afternoon of Jhon Sanchez’s 18th birthday, three parole officers showed up at his home in West New York, NJ. Sanchez was in his slippers and shorts, and when his mother asked if she could grab her son something else to wear, an officer assured her that Sanchez would be gone only for a little while.

That was five years ago.

Sanchez is behind bars, but he is not in a regular prison. He is considered a resident, one who is detained involuntarily and indefinitely at the Special Treatment Unit for sexually violent predators, commonly known as Avenel. He is among 428 people who have been “civilly committed” at the facility, all of them living in limbo.

Although they have already served prison sentences for their crimes, these inmates have been classified by state psychologists as unfit to return to society.

The civil commitment of “sexually violent predators” is intended to protect the public: In theory, offenders are offered extensive therapy to help them learn to control sexual impulses. But an analysis by The Marshall Project shows most people who enter civil commitment programs nationwide are detained for years and, in most cases, have a slim chance of being released. About 15 percent of the 579 people who have been committed at Avenel since the program’s inception in 1999 have been discharged to the community after treatment.

The state estimates there are 15 patients at Avenel who were never convicted as an adult but were sent to Avenel, indefinitely, once they completed their sentences. Public defenders and attorneys for the residents put the number at 30.

Critics cite such statistics to argue that civil commitment has become a gray, arbitrary area of the law. “We’re effectively handing out life sentences to juveniles under the auspices of civil commitment,” said David Prescott, former president of the Association for the Treatment of Sex Abusers.

In recent months, federal judges in two states have ruled the application of civil commitment laws unconstitutional. In June, a judge said Minnesota’s “punitive system” lacks the “safeguards of the criminal justice system.” Then in September, a Missouri judge banned the lifetime detention of individuals who have served their sentences and “who no longer pose a danger to the public, no matter how heinous their past conduct.” In October, two British high court judges blocked the extradition of Roger Alan Giese, wanted in California for charges of sexually abusing a young man; the possibility that Giese would be civilly committed posed a “flagrant denial” of his rights under the European Convention of Human Rights.

Nearly 5,400 people are currently civilly committed in sexually violent predator programs in 20 states and by the federal Bureau of Prisons. Thirteen states allow this practice for people who committed their crimes as juveniles, like Sanchez. Despite having no adult convictions, they are being held years into adulthood, which, according to some psychologists, does more harm than good to the development of their minds.

After five years, Sanchez is on the second treatment phase of five. Psychologists hired by the state assess him every six months to determine whether he is fit to leave. According to a recent treatment review report, Sanchez remains “highly likely to sexually reoffend if not confined to a secure facility.”

The Sex Offender Act and the Avenel Evaluation

Clifford E. Lazzaro, P.C. Team — Fri, 24 May 2024 12:01:52 GMT

State v. Logan

Annotate this Case

244 N.J. Super. 137 (1990)

581 A.2d 909

THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF, v. JOHN LOGAN, DEFENDANT.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division (Criminal), Union County.

Decided July 5, 1990.

*138 Regina Caulfield for plaintiff (Edmund J. Tucker, Acting Union County Prosecutor, attorney).

Lorenzo Reid for defendant (Elijah L. Miller, Jr., Public Defender, attorney).

BARISONEK, J.S.C.

This matter comes before the court for sentencing of John Logan in accordance with N.J.S.A. 2C:47-1, commonly known as the Sex Offender Act. This case represents a question of first impression in New Jersey, i.e., whether a defendant’s willful refusal to complete a court-ordered physical and psychological examination at the Adult Diagnostic and Treatment Center (“ADTC”) for purposes of sentencing under the Sex Offender Act operates as a waiver of defendant’s right when the ADTC cannot make a finding that defendant is repetitive and compulsive due to defendant’s failure to submit to the examination.

On February 22, 1990, John Logan was convicted by a jury of two counts of sexual assault (second degree), one count of *139 aggravated sexual assault (first degree), one count of aggravated criminal sexual contact (third degree) and endangering the welfare of a child (third degree), which charges involved sexual assaults against one individual over a protracted period of time.

Since defendant was convicted of crimes of aggravated sexual assault, he was ordered to submit to a psychiatric examination at the Adult Diagnostic Psychiatric Center, Avenel, New Jersey, on April 25, 1990 pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:47-1. Subsequently, a letter was received from ADTC stating that defendant’s evaluation could not be completed because Logan declined to be interviewed or take the written testing. The letter noted the purpose and procedures for the evaluation that were explained to defendant by the supervisor of the outpatient department. Defendant, however, remained steadfast in that he did not wish to be interviewed or take psychological testing.

On June 1, 1990, this court held a summary contempt proceeding for a contempt in the face of the court pursuant to R. 1:10-1, when defendant stated in open court that he would never comply with the terms of the order. Defendant was found to be in contempt and sentenced to six months in the county jail. Subsequent to this contempt adjudication, a second report was received from the ADTC which stated that defendant’s behavior was repetitive based on statements made by the victim that she was sexually assaulted on multiple occasions over approximately a three-year period. The report went on to state that a formal psychological evaluation would be necessary to determine whether or not the preponderance of evidence necessary for a finding of sexual compulsion could be established.

This court is now faced with the difficult task of fashioning an appropriate sentence in accordance with the code without the needed findings by the ADTC. The procedure for sentencing to ADTC is outlined in Sentencing Manual for Judges (1988).

5.4 Sex Offenders The Adult Diagnostic and Treatment Center *140 A. Procedures Whenever a person is convicted of aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault, or aggravated criminal sexual contact, or an attempt to commit any such crime, the judge shall order that such person be referred to the Adult Diagnostic and Treatment Center (ADTC or “the center”) for a period necessary to complete a physical and psychological examination, said period not to exceed 10 days. N.J.S.A. 2C:47-1. The referral order is required to contain a determination of the person’s legal settlement. Ibid.; see N.J.S.A. 30:4-49 et seq. An essential prerequisite to sentencing an offender to the ADTC for a program of specialized treatment is that the examination reveal that the “offender’s conduct was characterized by a pattern of repetitive and compulsive behavior.” N.J.S.A. 2C:47-3(a). Upon such a finding the court may, upon the recommendation of the ADTC, sentence the offender to the center for a program of specialized treatment for his mental condition. Ibid. No person may be sentenced to the ADTC in the absence of a finding that his conduct was characterized by a pattern of repetitive, compulsive behavior. N.J.S.A. 2C:47-3(d).

This court recognizes defendant Logan’s legitimate expectation not to be sentenced to Avenel absent a finding of repetitive and compulsive behavior. However, defendant has willfully refused to comply with a court-ordered evaluation necessary to make such findings. The effect of defendant’s refusal is to shut down the safeguards instilled to protect defendant from being arbitrarily sentenced to Avenel. This counterproductive behavior has not been tolerated by our courts. As stated in Artway v. Com’r, N.J. Dept. of Corr., 216 N.J. Super. 213, 523 A.2d 275 (App.Div. 1987), “A defendant shall neither be allowed to abuse the correction system nor select where he is to serve his sentence by deliberate, illegal conduct.” Id. at 218, 523 A.2d 275. Interestingly, Artway addressed the issue of whether a sex offender eligible for resentencing after being transferred from ADTC is denied due process rights when the Commissioner of Corrections transfers him back to ADTC. The court found that defendant’s due process rights were not violated and cited Gerald v. Com’r, N.J. Dept. of Corr., 102 N.J. 435, 439-40, 508 A.2d 1113 (1986), finding that the opinion of the Supreme Court unquestionably vests in the commissioner the option of transferring defendant back to ADTC if the commissioner determined that some therapeutic benefit would be derived *141 from such transfers. Artway, supra, at 217, 523 A.2d 275.

The issue in this case rests on broad public policy considerations of whether a defendant protected by constitutional rights of our judicial system can defy a court order, which defiance has the effect of allowing this defendant to fashion his own sentencing guidelines or whether those rights can be knowingly waived by defendant by his refusal to submit to an ADTC examination.

This issue of waiver of constitutional rights by a defendant was recently addressed by the Supreme Court in State v. Hudson, 119 N.J. 165, 574 A.2d 434 (1990). The court in Hudson held that a defendant’s inexcusable absence before trial has begun, under circumstances demonstrating knowledge of time and place of trial, the right to be present and that the trial may proceed if defendant is absent, constitutes a sufficient basis for a trial court’s decision to allow the trial to proceed in absentia. The court referred to a United States Supreme Court case, Diaz v. United States, 223 U.S. 442, 32 S. Ct. 250, 56 L. Ed. 500 (1912) which held:

If, after the trial has begun in his presence, he voluntarily absents himself, this does not nullify what has been done, or prevent the completion of the trial, but, on the contrary, operates as a waiver of his right to be present. [223 U.S. at 454, 32 S. Ct. at 253, 56 L. Ed. at 505; emphasis supplied]

The Supreme Court in State v. Hudson, supra, rationalized that while a defendant is guaranteed the right to be present in the courtroom at every stage of the proceeding, there can be a voluntary waiver of that constitutional right under the State and Federal Constitutions. Thus, when defendant has been given the conditional requisites of notice of trial, the right to be present and that the trial may proceed if he is absent, he waives his right to be present at trial.

The same analogy should be applied to the factual circumstances of this case. The Sex Offender Act requires a finding that defendant’s conduct is characterized by a pattern of repetitive and compulsive behavior and that this finding is a prerequisite *142 for sentencing to the ADTC for specialized treatment. N.J.S.A. 2C:47-3. It is clear that the constitutional safeguards of due process through such a finding by a preponderance of the evidence enure to the benefit of defendant, due to the parole or liberty ramifications and stigma effect on defendant as discussed in State v. Howard, 110 N.J. 113, 127-130, 539 A.2d 1203 (1988). Defendant, therefore, is entitled to a hearing to contest a positive finding of the ADTC, may present evidence to the contrary and may convince the court that a sentence to Avenel is not warranted even if ADTC finds him to be repetitive and compulsive. The court is not bound by the ADTC finding and may sentence defendant to Avenel if the requisite findings are made. N.J.S.A. 2C:47-3. See also State v. Chapman, 95 N.J. 582, 472 A.2d 559 (1980) and State v. Tucker, 169 N.J. Super. 334, 404 A.2d 1209 (App.Div. 1979).

It was fully explained to defendant that he must submit to the Avenel evaluation, that he had a right to contest any adverse finding made by Avenel through cross-examination of the expert and presentation of independent evidence on the issue. Defendant, however, chose to voluntarily defy the requisites of the act and a court order by refusing to cooperate with any aspect of the evaluation or the hearing. As found in State v. Hudson, supra, this type of obstinate behavior is a defiance of the judicial system which will and can only lead to a disruption of all offenders.

It must be remembered that while the act seeks to safeguard the rights of defendant by establishing requisite findings, the act also protects the public. This concept was considered in Howard, supra, when the Supreme Court addressed what constitutes due process under the Sex Offender Act. The Court said that “… due process generally involves balancing three factors: the nature of the private interest, the counter-vailing governmental interest and the risk of error in the ultimate determination created by not using the requested procedure.” 110 N.J. at 129, 539 A.2d 1203. The Court went on to state that there is a twofold private interest to consider. *143 One private interest is that the requisite finding is made of compulsive and repetitive behavior. The Supreme Court, however, felt that defendant’s liberty interest in an Avenel sentence is weak. Id. at 130, 539 A.2d 1203. It further considered that the rehabilitation procedures of the act are also for the benefit of society, concluding that the State’s interest in rehabilitation of a convicted sex offender is substantial. Ibid. Finally, the Court determined that the third factor, the enhanced risk of error, is satisfied under the preponderance of the evidence standard when weighed against a higher standard which would subvert the State’s interest in the rehabilitation of repetitive sex offenders. Id. at 131, 539 A.2d 1203.

It is through balancing these standards of due process that this court holds that defendant can waive the rights afforded under the Sex Offender Act by refusing to cooperate with an evaluation to determine whether he falls within the purview of the act. The State’s interest and, for that matter, the interests of victims of sex offenses are admittedly substantial. If, therefore, a defendant subverts the rights of the State and society by refusing to participate in a hearing, by refusing to submit to psychological testing and examination, knowing he has a right to contest the issue of compulsive and repetitive conduct and where, as in this case, he has been convicted of multiple sexual assaults over a protracted period of time which support a finding of repetitiveness, defendant then waives his due process rights as to the mandated statutory finding that his behavior be deemed compulsive and repetitive before an ADTC sentence can be imposed. The strong governmental and societal interest dictate that defendant be sentenced under the facts of this case to Avenel to determine if rehabilitation is warranted and can be achieved. Should it be found that it is not warranted or achievable, then defendant can always be transferred pursuant to law to another institution. As stated in Artway, supra, this defendant shall not be allowed to abuse the judicial system nor select where he is to be sentenced by a deliberate refusal to comply with an order of the court. When *144 sentencing a convicted sex offender, the court does not choose between freedom and commitment of defendant, but only between commitment at one state correction facility or another. State v. Howard, supra, 110 N.J. at 131, 539 A.2d 1203.

2023 New Jersey Revised Statutes Title 2C – The New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice Section 2C:39-5 – Unlawful Possession of a Weapon Can be a First Degree Offense-2C:39-5j

Clifford E. Lazzaro, P.C. Team — Fri, 24 May 2024 12:00:00 GMT

2C:39-5 Unlawful possession of weapons.

2C:39-5. Unlawful possession of weapons. a. Machine guns. Any person who knowingly has in his possession a machine gun or any instrument or device adaptable for use as a machine gun, without being licensed to do so as provided in N.J.S.2C:58-5, is guilty of a crime of the second degree.

b. Handguns. (1) Any person who knowingly has in his possession any handgun, including any antique handgun, without first having obtained a permit to carry the same as provided in N.J.S.2C:58-4, is guilty of a crime of the second degree. (2) If the handgun is in the nature of an air gun, spring gun or pistol or other weapon of a similar nature in which the propelling force is a spring, elastic band, carbon dioxide, compressed or other gas or vapor, air or compressed air, or is ignited by compressed air, and ejecting a bullet or missile smaller than three-eighths of an inch in diameter, with sufficient force to injure a person it is a crime of the third degree.

c. Rifles and shotguns. (1) Any person who knowingly has in his possession any rifle or shotgun without having first obtained a firearms purchaser identification card in accordance with the provisions of N.J.S.2C:58-3, is guilty of a crime of the third degree.

(2) Unless otherwise permitted by law, any person who knowingly has in his possession any loaded rifle or shotgun is guilty of a crime of the third degree.

d. Other weapons. Any person who knowingly has in his possession any other weapon under circumstances not manifestly appropriate for such lawful uses as it may have is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree.

e. Firearms or other weapons in educational institutions.

(1) Any person who knowingly has in his possession any firearm in or upon any part of the buildings or grounds of any school, college, university or other educational institution, without the written authorization of the governing officer of the institution, is guilty of a crime of the third degree, irrespective of whether he possesses a valid permit to carry the firearm or a valid firearms purchaser identification card.

(2) Any person who knowingly possesses any weapon enumerated in paragraphs (3) and (4) of subsection r. of N.J.S.2C:39-1 or any components which can readily be assembled into a firearm or other weapon enumerated in subsection r. of N.J.S.2C:39-1 or any other weapon under circumstances not manifestly appropriate for such lawful use as it may have, while in or upon any part of the buildings or grounds of any school, college, university or other educational institution without the written authorization of the governing officer of the institution is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree.

(3) Any person who knowingly has in his possession any imitation firearm in or upon any part of the buildings or grounds of any school, college, university or other educational institution, without the written authorization of the governing officer of the institution, or while on any school bus is a disorderly person, irrespective of whether he possesses a valid permit to carry a firearm or a valid firearms purchaser identification card.

f. Assault firearms. Any person who knowingly has in his possession an assault firearm is guilty of a crime of the second degree except if the assault firearm is licensed pursuant to N.J.S.2C:58-5; registered pursuant to section 11 of P.L.1990, c.32 (C.2C:58-12); or rendered inoperable pursuant to section 12 of P.L.1990, c.32 (C.2C:58-13).

g. (1) The temporary possession of a handgun, rifle or shotgun by a person receiving, possessing, carrying or using the handgun, rifle, or shotgun under the provisions of section 1 of P.L.1992, c.74 (C.2C:58-3.1) shall not be considered unlawful possession under the provisions of subsection b. or c. of this section.

(2) The temporary possession of a firearm by a person receiving, possessing, carrying or using the firearm under the provisions of section 1 of P.L.1997, c.375 (C.2C:58-3.2) shall not be considered unlawful possession under the provisions of this section.

h. A person who is convicted of a crime under subsection a., b., f. or j. of this section shall be ineligible for participation in any program of intensive supervision; provided, however, that this provision shall not apply to a crime under subsection b. involving only a handgun which is in the nature of an air gun, spring gun or pistol or other weapon of a similar nature in which the propelling force is a spring, elastic band, carbon dioxide, compressed or other gas or vapor, air or compressed air, or is ignited by compressed air, and ejecting a bullet or missile smaller than three-eighths of an inch in diameter, with sufficient force to injure a person.

i. A person convicted of violating subsection a., b. or f. of this section shall be sentenced by the court to a term of imprisonment, which shall include the imposition of a minimum term during which the defendant shall be ineligible for parole, if the court finds that the aggravating circumstance set forth in paragraph (5) of subsection a. of N.J.S.2C:44-1 applies. The minimum term of parole ineligibility shall be fixed at five years. The sentencing court shall make a finding on the record as to whether the aggravating circumstance set forth in paragraph (5) of subsection a. of N.J.S.2C:44-1 applies, and the court shall presume that there is a substantial likelihood that the defendant is involved in organized criminal activity if there is a substantial likelihood that the defendant is a member of an organization or group that engages in criminal activity. The prosecution at the sentencing hearing shall have the initial burden of producing evidence or information concerning the defendant’s membership in such an organization or group.

j. A violation of subsection a., b., c. or f. of this section by a person who has a prior conviction of any of the crimes enumerated in subsection d. of section 2 of P.L.1997, c.117 (C.2C:43-7.2) is a first degree crime.

amended 1979, c.179, s.4; 1990, c.32, s.2; 1992, c.74, s.2; 1992, c.94, s.1; 1995, c.389; 1997, c.375, s.2; 2007, c.284; 2009, c.13; 2013, c.113, s.1.

N.J. has a new diversion program for people with mental illness who commit certain types of crimes

Clifford E. Lazzaro, P.C. Team — Fri, 24 May 2024 11:59:00 GMT

A New Jersey bill is now law that will create a statewide program to divert some people with certified mental illnesses who commit certain crimes into a special treatment program rather than sending them to prison.

The prime sponsor of the legislation, New Jersey state Senate Majority Leader Teresa Ruiz, said this new law makes sense because a significant number of people enter the criminal justice system who are suffering from mental illness.

“The core of their issue is a mental health issue, criminalizing that doesn’t help the individual, it doesn’t help recidivism, and doesn’t help any of those agencies that then become part of the network that’s around that person,” Ruiz said.

“There are many individuals that end up in the criminal justice system, that at the time of committing the crime, were presenting or in the middle of a crisis,” she continued.

One such person, 58-year-old Newark resident April Wilson, was diagnosed with schizophrenia when she was 21.

After graduating from Rutgers University with a degree in psychology, she earned another degree in psych rehabilitation from the University of Medicine and Dentistry. She held a steady job for years and taught a mental health Crisis Intervention Training (CIT) course for law enforcement — but then her medication stopped working properly.

She had never been in trouble with the law, but in 2018 she was arrested twice for burglary, damaging property, and assaulting a neighbor. She wound up spending four months in jail and more than eight months in two different psychiatric hospitals.

“I just lost touch with reality, my thoughts were not clear, I thought they were out to hurt me,” she said.

During the time when she was incarcerated, a public defender recognized Wilson from the CIT class she once taught. After she was transferred to a psychiatric hospital, that lawyer worked to get her into an Essex County mental health diversion program.

Wilson’s medication was changed, she was admitted into the program, and did well. She has avoided additional jail time and hasn’t had any problems since.

“They knew about my mental illness, they understood this was not a normal case,” she said. “This is not who she [Wilson] normally is.”

Ruiz said if people with mental health issues pay their debt to society and spend a certain amount of time in prison, but then are not medically treated for the root cause of the problem, “chances are they’re going to come back out, unfortunately perhaps another incident will occur, and then the revolving door of recidivism just continues to go.”

In order to be eligible to participate in the statewide mental health diversion program, which will be coordinated by the New Jersey Department of Human Services, someone charged with an eligible criminal offense must have a diagnosed mental illness, and a mental health professional must certify there is a direct link between the crime that’s been committed and the mental illness.

Republican state Senator Joe Pennacchio is opposed to the new law, calling it a “get-out-of-jail-free card.”

“At one time it was up to the judge and the jury to decide if there was a mental incapacity if you use as your defense. Now that is the sole discretion of the prosecutor,” he said.

Pennacchio said 21 different prosecutors may have 21 different opinions about whether an individual should be admitted to the mental health diversion program.

“At least with the court there would be some type of consistency in the way that these rulings happen,” he said. “There really won’t be any consistency, it will be totally determined by a prosecutor at his own sole discretion to avail this person to this program.”

According to the new law a person is eligible for admission into the program, which includes counseling and treatment services, if they have committed a non-violent lower-level crime, and have a prior diagnosis of mental illness or other indications of mental illness.

The law stipulates individuals are typically not eligible for the program if they have committed a crime involving violence or the threat of violence, if the crime or offense involves the violation of any restraining order or protective order of another person, or when the crime victim of the offense objects to the diversion.

Periodic status reports will be issued to law enforcement regarding the eligible person’s participation and recovery progress.

The prosecutor in the county where the crime was committed has the sole discretion to determine if an eligible person qualifies for and is admitted to the Mental Illness Diversion Program after consideration of the nature of the offenses and all relevant issues.

To qualify for the new diversion program, an eligible person must agree in writing to certain terms and conditions and the prosecutor would determine the duration of the person’s participation in the program, not to exceed two years.

The legislation was approved almost six months ago, but Ruiz asked Governor Murphy to conditionally veto the measure, and he did so in order to allow possible loopholes to be tightened after some Republican legislators voiced fears some Megan’s Law criminals could become eligible for it.

Ruiz said she believes this was “an attempt to create a false narrative” about the program and who might possibly be allowed to participate in it, and specific changes in the language of the legislation were made to allay any doubts and fears.

Nevertheless most Republicans in the Senate did not support the measure when it was reintroduced in the Upper House for a vote a few days before Christmas, and several GOP members in the Assembly also voted no.

Pennacchio argues mental health checks and balances already exist within the system and this is an attempt at “social engineering, whatever we were doing for 250 years wasn’t quite working the way they wanted to, so we have to throw out the baby with the bathwater.”

Ruiz argues this kind of legislation makes sense now because mental health has become a front-burner issue and there is a growing trend “to call for help, to create better policies that wrap around communities that don’t have access to professionals that perhaps are at their fingertips or covered by Medicaid and for the under-insured.”

She said mental health diversion programs in different parts of the state have been operating successfully for many years, including one in Essex County, and the new statewide law is modeled after that program to a large degree.

Governor Murphy Signs First-in-the-Nation Legislation to Hold Gun Traffickers Criminally Liable for Resulting Deaths and Injuries

Clifford E. Lazzaro, P.C. Team — Fri, 24 May 2024 11:58:58 GMT

New Initiative Continues the Murphy Administration’s Steadfast Commitment to Combatting Gun Violence

TRENTON – Expanding on New Jersey’s nation-leading gun safety laws, Governor Phil Murphy today signed S3150, which establishes strict liability criminal penalties for gun traffickers when an illegally trafficked firearm provided by them is used in a crime that results in serious or significant bodily injury or death.

Under the first-in-the-nation legislation, also known as the “Real Accountability for Consequences of Unlawful Trafficking of Firearms Act,” a trafficked firearm used for a crime resulting in a death may be charged with a first-degree crime. Similarly, a person who commits a firearm trafficking violation resulting in serious or significant bodily injury may be charged with a second-degree crime. The bill will also allow New Jersey prosecutors to charge out-of-state traffickers, who have supplied around 80% of guns used for crimes in our state, for the harms their illegal out-of-state conduct causes in New Jersey.

The legislation is modeled on similar, longstanding laws that impose strict criminal liability on drug dealers for overdose deaths caused by their illicit products.

“Far too many New Jerseyans live with the daily fear that people in their communities who cannot legally possess guns can illegally obtain firearms and cause great harm,” said Governor Murphy. “This bill allows us to hold those who illegally traffic those guns accountable for the harm that those weapons are used to cause. With today’s new law, New Jersey will become the first state in the nation to go after illegal gun traffickers in this way. This is yet another historic step to protect our children and families from gun violence, and we will continue to support long-term solutions that will break the cycle of violence once and for all.”

Today’s strong anti-trafficking bill builds on the Governor’s commonsense record of gun reforms, which has positioned New Jersey as a leader in gun safety. Since the beginning of the Murphy Administration, more than a dozen steps have been taken to address gun violence in the state. In July 2022, Governor Murphy signed seven comprehensive gun safety bills, his third significant gun safety package signing since taking office in 2018.

In collaboration with the Office of the Attorney General, more actions have been taken beyond the passing of legislation to address violence. Last week, it was announced that $15 million would be made available through a competitive grant process to support Community-Based Violence Intervention (CBVI) Programs throughout the state. The program now stands at a $40 million investment in state and federal funds since 2021. CBVI programs use interventions and protective activities in communities and among populations associated with risk factors for exposure to violence. Through this public health approach to interrupt cycles of violence, and with a focus on reducing gun violence, CBVI initiatives include a range of strategies: mentoring programs, street outreach, trauma support services, de-escalation among high-risk individuals, targeted afterschool programs, job training, and more.

The first prime sponsors of today’s bill, which passed unanimously through both houses, include Senator Troy Singleton and Assemblywoman Linda Carter.
“Under the leadership of Governor Murphy and Attorney General Platkin, we are strengthening New Jersey’s existing status as a national leader in combating gun violence,” said First Assistant Attorney General Lyndsay V. Ruotolo. “The legislation signed today will provide more tools for prosecutors and law enforcement across the state to hold firearms traffickers accountable and make our communities safer.”

“Approximately 80 percent of crime guns traced in New Jersey come from out of state. We must continue to hold gun traffickers responsible for their role in perpetuating gun violence,” said Senator Troy Singleton. “Increasing the penalties of gun traffickers will aid in deterring and holding traffickers responsible for the risk they pose to residents. This law will specifically target traffickers that pose a severe threat to the safety of residents through illegal gun transfers and sales.”

“Those responsible for illegal firearm trafficking must be held accountable for the consequences of their actions,” said Assemblywoman Linda Carter. “These individuals are responsible for putting dangerous weapons in the hands of wrongdoers, and they deserve to be held responsible when a life is lost due to their unlawful actions. We will be able to impose stricter penalties on firearm traffickers thanks to this law.”

“This bill is another victory for our citizens and public safety. I applaud the Governor’s and Sponsor’s efforts to address the horrific consequences of how easily criminals provide firearms to others who engage in acts of violence. This bill will better secure communities such as Trenton throughout the state. This law will give our law enforcement officers the tools to cut off illegal supply lines and help keep unregistered weapons off the streets and away from our neighborhoods,” said Trenton Mayor Reed Gusciora.

“This law sends a clear message to those who would participate and/or profit from the illegal distribution of firearms, that they can now be held accountable for the injuries sustained and the lives lost due to gun violence,” said Trenton Police Department Director Steve Wilson.

“I want to thank the Governor and the Legislature for passing such an important bill for the safety of all New Jerseyans. It’s very important across our state that we address guns that are sold illegally and taking the lives of our youth. The illegal distribution of guns is destroying our communities and today’s bill signing is a step towards holding illegal traffickers accountable for their actions,” said Pastor John Taylor of Friendship Baptist Church.

“Today’s signing creates a strong deterrence for those who would bring illegal firearms into the State of New Jersey from the South via I-95 and from our western neighbors through other interstate roadways. Last year, 777 illegal guns were recovered by Newark Police, representing a 26 percent increase over the previous year. This new legislation is a crucial tool for more significantly holding accountable those who traffic illegal guns across state lines and for progressively reducing the number of senseless deaths and shootings that occur each year in New Jersey. I am grateful to Governor Murphy and our legislators who have tightened the screws on gun traffickers and made S3150 the law of the land,” said Ras J. Baraka, Mayor of the City of Newark and President and Chair of the New Jersey Urban Mayors Association.

State Police failed to address racial profiling

Clifford E. Lazzaro, P.C. Team — Fri, 24 May 2024 11:57:08 GMT

TAYLOR JUNG, SOCIAL JUSTICE WRITER | MAY 23, 2024 |

Report prompts calls for action, as police accountability measures remain stalled in the Legislature

The New Jersey State Police’s history of racial profiling, a decades-long injustice that’s been the focus of lawsuits, federal monitoring and legislative reviews is not over, a new state watchdog report says, echoing the recent findings made by several others.

The State Police failed to consider implicit bias as a cause for racial disparities in motor vehicle stops, the state comptroller’s office now says, the same practice officials acknowledged 25 years ago after troopers shot at Black and Hispanic men in a van following a traffic stop on the New Jersey Turnpike.

The state attorney general’s office also did not sufficiently oversee the State Police, including a special management review team set up after the U.S. Justice Department intervened to end racial profiling by state troopers.

Criminal justice experts were not surprised by Tuesday’s report and said they are concerned the findings are a statewide law-enforcement issue. Several key police reform measures stalled in the Legislature should move forward, they said. And they want to see the State Police and the attorney general make concrete, public steps to correct what this report and other recent reviews have found.

“New Jersey State Police is the premier law enforcement agency in New Jersey. And if it’s shirking its responsibilities, it sets the tone for other departments to do the same,” said Yannick Wood of the New Jersey Institute for Social Justice.

Common themes

The findings of the comptroller’s office come after two other reports, one which found that State Police trainers didn’t adequately provide racial profiling lessons and another that found Black and Hispanic drivers were more likely to undergo searches after traffic stops. Racial disparity in policing has been a decades-long issue for the State Police, who were subject to a federal lawsuit and a subsequent consent decree with the U.S. Justice Department that mandated reforms and regular public reports that lasted from 1999 to 2009.

Under a 2009 law, the state comptroller conducts annual reviews of the State Police and the attorney general’s Office of Law Enforcement Professional Standards. This year’s examination reviewed the State Police’s Risk Analysis Core Group, which was created when the federal consent decree ended to review motor vehicle stops by troopers and to proactively suggest improvements. It reports to a management advisory panel.

The comptroller’s office decided to do a deeper dive into the State Police risk management group and advisory panel after the state attorney general last year said Black and Hispanic drivers were more likely to be stopped by State Police. And those Black and Hispanic drivers were more likely to be searched and arrested than white drivers, as well as more likely to have police use force during encounters.

However, the report said it couldn’t “complete a comprehensive review” because the State Police and the attorney general’s office either did not provide all documents requested or withheld certain information because it was “privileged.”

‘Performative’ steps

With the information it did receive, the comptroller’s office found that State Police leaders who worked with the risk analysis group failed to recommend a “single initiative to address unexplained trends” in racial disparities in motor vehicle stops. Any “processes and policies” enacted were “largely performative,” the report said. State troopers are trained on implicit bias and cultural diversity, but the state comptroller said that wasn’t enough.

“The fact that for years the State Police was aware of data showing disparate treatment of people of color on our roads — yet took no action to combat those trends — shows that the problems run deeper than previously realized,” said acting State Comptroller Kevin Walsh in a statement.

“‘Racial profiling’ are two traumatic words for many Black Americans and minorities in New Jersey.” — Assemblywoman Shavonda Sumter (D-Passaic)

State Police motor vehicle stop-data is publicly available, “so the public knows that it’s disproportionately people of color, who are pulled over, who are having these post-stop interactions. But it’s concerning that the State Police is not looking at that same data and observing a problem,” said Wood, of the Institute for Social Justice.

“And they need to acknowledge that a problem exists. The fact that they were in a consent decree should have alerted them,” he added.

In its response to the comptroller’s report, the attorney general’s office said that it “raised implicit bias as a possible explanation” for trends in police motor vehicle stops. The state comptroller’s office, however, said it did not find any discussion of it in five years of meeting minutes for the management advisory panel. There were also “significant breakdowns” in the attorney general’s oversight of the State Police, the report read.

According to the report, the analysis found one case where the attorney general’s oversight office “asked the same question about a disparity across racial and ethnic groups that appeared in the data with no substantive response” from the State Police. It finally stopped asking the question,” the report said.

‘Inexcusable’

Attorney General Matt Platkin said in a statement to NJ Spotlight News that he has looked at the comptroller’s report and found the findings “inexcusable,” but noted that they were the “same findings” his office was addressing. He said he appointed a new director of the Office of Law Enforcement Professional Standards, which oversees the State Police, with a “proven track record in enhancing police accountability.”

‘We want this to be a moment in which it actually leads to some type of statewide change.’ — Joe Johnson, ACLU-NJ

Platkin has introduced several measures over the years to address police misconduct, including a rewrite of use-of-force guidelines.

“An agency’s failure to review its actions, analyze the data generated by its actions and embrace reform when issues are identified does a disservice not only to the residents it serves, but also to the many brave men and women in uniform who do perform their duties honorably and fairly — including members of the NJSP who put their lives in danger on a daily basis to protect others,” Platkin said.

In a separate statement, to NJ Spotlight News, the State Police said that it was “steadfastly committed to accountability and public trust” and has been “following the recommendations of a federal consent decree” for years.

“Despite challenges, we have exceeded mandated requirements and satisfied every request from the Office of the Attorney General. As the largest law enforcement agency in this state, we will continue serving the public and remain devoted to open dialogue and communication while ensuring our duties are carried out impartially,” said Sgt. Charles Marchan, spokesperson for the State Police.

Stalled legislation

Criminal justice experts, however, say actions are more important than words. They have been fighting for several police accountability measures for years — including a bill to create a civilian complaint review board with subpoena power to oversee reports of police misconduct — which have received pushback from law enforcement. One of the only bills to become law requires police to now hold licenses for their jobs, but advocates say that’s not enough.

More political will is needed to push reforms put forth by Legislative Black Caucus members and that change shouldn’t only happen when the worst-case scenario occurs, said Marleina Ubel of New Jersey Policy Perspective.

‘Gov. Phil Murphy’s office said in a statement that he’s read the report and signaled faith in the government leaders involved to address the identified issues.’

“To be frank, one of the only reasons that we were even able to get the [community-based violence intervention programs] off the ground was because people died,” said Ubel. “We shouldn’t have to wait for someone to lose their life to do something about it.”

Many police accountability bills that remain stalled in the Legislature have been put forth by members of the Legislative Black Caucus. Caucus Chair Assemblywoman Shavonda Sumter (D-Passaic) said she will take a “deeper dive into the report with a lens towards solutions to keep our communities safe.”

“‘Racial profiling’ are two traumatic words for many Black Americans and minorities in New Jersey. The OSC report details inconsistencies and the absence of action to address how all people of color are treated in policing. In 2024, we need and must do better,” Sumter said in a statement.

What next?

Joe Johnson of ACLU New Jersey said he welcomed the report’s findings, but that he’s more interested in what corrective steps the State Police and attorney general will take.

“[ACLU New Jersey] would love to make sure that this report isn’t just a one-off moment in which people read it and realize that the police did something bad,” Johnson said, “We want this to be a moment in which it actually leads to some type of statewide change.”

As for next steps, it’s up to the state to make fixes, say advocates. The state comptroller has demanded the attorney general’s office and the State Police to come up with a plan to address its findings in the next 90 days. Gov. Phil Murphy’s office said in a statement that he’s read the report and signaled faith in the government leaders involved to address the identified issues.

Understanding the New Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Zero-Point Offenders

Clifford E. Lazzaro, P.C. Team — Mon, 04 Dec 2023 18:55:00 GMT

An Introduction to the Shift in Federal Sentencing

The United States Sentencing Guidelines have long been the cornerstone of the federal criminal justice system, offering a systematic approach to sentencing. A notable recent change is the introduction of the Zero Point Offender Amendment. Effective November 2023, is the new USSG §4C1.1 amendment. This change is a pivotal shift in the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, potentially transforming the legal landscape for certain federal offenders. This blog post aims to explore the nuances of the Zero Point Offender Sentencing Amendment, its potential impact, and what it means for the future of federal sentencing.

Decoding the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines

To fully grasp the implications of the Zero Point Offender Sentencing Amendment, it’s important first to understand the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. These guidelines, established in 1984, aim to standardize federal sentencing, considering factors like the offense’s nature and severity, the defendant’s criminal history, and other pertinent circumstances to ascertain an appropriate sentence.

The guidelines are vital for ensuring consistency in sentencing, making sure that similar offenders committing similar crimes are subjected to similar sentences. They play a crucial role in reducing sentencing discrepancies and fostering a sense of fairness and justice within the criminal justice system.

The Zero-Point Offender Adjustment: A New Chapter in Sentencing

The amendment to Section §4C1. 1 of the federal sentencing guidelines introduces a crucial change. It focuses on “zero-point offenders” – individuals with no prior convictions or those whose past convictions are excluded due to various criteria. Specifically, the amendment provides a two-level reduction for first-time offenders for certain non-violent crimes and this reduction is retro-active!

Impact on Zero-Point Offenders: A Closer Look

The zero-point offender classification under USSG §4C1.1 is important for a few reasons. First, it recognizes the notion that sentences should be proportional to the person who committed the crime. The amendment aims to make sentences more specific to each person’s background and the type of crime they committed. It recognizes that individuals who commit non-violent crimes that are not commensurate with their character, should be given consideration.

At Lazzaro Law, we are prepared to leverage this amendment in your current case or work towards applying it retroactively to secure early release for you or your loved one.

Criteria for Zero-Point Offender Status

Federal inmates can petition the federal district court to recalculate their sentence if they meet the following criteria:

The inmate did not have any prior criminal history (or did not receive any criminal history points)
The offense of conviction was not related to terrorism
The offense did not involve violence or credible threats of violence
The offense did not result in death or serious bodily injury
The offense of conviction is not a sex offense
The offense did not cause substantial financial hardship
The inmate did not possess a firearm in relation to the offense
The offense was not related to violating the rights of others
The inmate was not a leader in the criminal activity.

The new guideline outlines clear criteria for eligibility. Individuals who have committed crimes related to terrorism, violence, or causing significant financial difficulties, among other offenses, are not eligible. This ensures that the amendment focuses on people who are less likely to commit another crime and are more likely to benefit from a shorter prison sentence.

Scope of Sentence Reductions

For those meeting the criteria, the amendment provides a pathway for significant sentence reductions. The two-level decrease in offense level can have a significant impact on sentence length, offering a substantial benefit for first-time federal offenders or those with negligible criminal history. This reduction reflects a shift towards a more rehabilitative approach, focusing on helping people reintegrate into society rather than solely on punishing them.

Implications for Rehabilitation and Reintegration

The amendment’s focus on zero-point offenders highlights a significant change in the justice system towards helping individuals rehabilitate and successfully reintegrate into society. By providing an opportunity for shorter sentences, it recognizes that people who have committed a crime but do not have a history of criminal behavior have the potential for change and growth. This approach aligns with modern criminology, which highlights the significance of offering chances for rehabilitation, especially for individuals who have committed their first offense.

Retroactive Application: A Door to Second Chances

Perhaps the most groundbreaking aspect is the amendment’s retroactive application. This means individuals already sentenced under previous guidelines could see their sentences reduced. It’s a prospect that offers hope and a second chance to many.

Navigating New Sentencing Waters

The USSG §4C1.1 amendment represents a progressive step in federal sentencing, one that balances the need for justice with an understanding of human potential for change. For zero-point offenders, it opens the door to fairer, more proportionate sentences that reflect their individual circumstances. For defense attorneys, it necessitates a strategic reevaluation.