Hudson County Criminal Lawyer Blog
The New Jersey Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in State v. Jamel Carlton that has immediate and far-reaching consequences for how extended-term sentences are sought and challenged across the state. At its core, the Court held that a constitutional error occurred when a judge, rather than a jury, made the factual findings required to sentence Carlton as a persistent offender under N.J.S.A. 2C:44-3(a). But the Court did not stop there. It went on to hold that such an error is subject to harmless error review, and that under the specific facts of Carlton’s case, the error was indeed harmless. For criminal defense attorneys and prosecutors working in Hudson, Essex, Union, Passaic, and counties throughout New Jersey, the decision raises important questions about pending cases, ongoing sentencing proceedings, and the long-term viability of the persistent offender statute as it currently reads.
The background of the case is straightforward. Jamel Carlton was convicted after a jury trial of first-degree aggravated sexual assault, burglary, and related offenses. At sentencing, the State moved to have him sentenced as a persistent offender based on two prior New York convictions such as a third-degree robbery from 2007 and a fourth-degree possession of stolen property from 2011. The trial judge, not a jury, made the factual findings establishing Carlton’s persistent offender status and imposed an aggregate forty-two-year term subject to the No Early Release Act. While Carlton’s appeal was pending, the United States Supreme Court decided Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024), which held that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments require a unanimous jury, not a judge, to determine whether a defendant’s prior offenses were committed on separate occasions when those findings increase sentencing exposure. Both the State and Carlton agreed that his sentence was unconstitutional under Erlinger.
The constitutional backdrop matters here, and the New Jersey Supreme Court traced it carefully. The line of cases from Apprendi v. New Jersey through Blakely v. Washington and into Erlinger stands for a consistent proposition: any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Erlinger extended that logic directly to the persistent-offender context, rejecting the government’s argument that the narrow “prior conviction” exception established in Almendarez-Torres allowed a judge to resolve the surrounding factual questions such as whether the prior offenses were committed on different occasions. The New Jersey Supreme Court made clear that Erlinger abrogated the Court’s own earlier holding in State v. Pierce, which had permitted judges to make exactly those findings.
Prosecutors are given considerable room to be forceful at trial. They can strike hard blows, paint vivid pictures for the jury, and provide context for how an investigation unfolded. But there is a line between vigorous advocacy and conduct that undermines a defendant’s right to have guilt or innocence decided solely on the evidence. In a unanimous opinion issued on February 25, 2026, the New Jersey Supreme Court drew that line in 
New Jersey’s Compassionate Release Act is supposed to do one thing well. It exists to ensure incarceration does not become a death sentence for someone who is seriously ill, medically vulnerable, or otherwise unable to be safely housed. The New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Celestine Payne is a reminder, though, that medical eligibility is not the end of the analysis. Even when a person meets the statute’s medical requirements and shows low public safety risk, release remains discretionary. The State can still defeat the motion if it proves extraordinary aggravating circumstances.
The Supreme Court of New Jersey’s decision in State v. Isaiah J. Knight offers a nuanced examination of the limits of reciprocal discovery in criminal cases, particularly focusing on the circumstances surrounding an affidavit recanting a witness’s previous identification of the defendant as the perpetrator of a crime. The facts of this case play a crucial role in understanding the Court’s rationale and its implications for criminal defense.
In a landmark decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court provided critical insights into the state’s witness tampering statute through the case of State v. William Hill. This case scrutinized the boundaries of lawful communication and witness intimidation, posing significant implications for criminal defense strategies.
In a landmark decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court weighed in on a crucial issue of first impression: Must a criminal defendant be provided in-person interpreting services during a jury trial, or will video remote interpreting (VRI) suffice? The case of State v. Juracan-Juracan dives into this question, addressing a major point of contention within the legal community—especially given the significant adjustments courts have had to make in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Attorney Stephen Natoli successfully argued before a three-judge panel that his client’s rights had been violated during a 2019 trial handled by prior counsel. Following the trial, Defendant was sentenced to twenty-three (23) years in prison. He had been serving his prison sentence when he retained Mr. Natoli for his appeal.
Under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the laws of New Jersey, suspects are entitled to have an attorney present while they are held in custody for questioning.
Three Strikes Laws were adopted in certain jurisdictions to protect the public from habitual offenders who repeatedly commit certain violent crimes. These law typically mandate a sentence of life imprisonment without parole for a third-time offender.
Witness “impeachment” refers to the process of attacking a witness’s credibility and the accuracy of their testimony at trial. The Federal Rules of Evidence and the New Jersey Rules of Evidence both allow the impeachment of a witness’s credibility by use of their prior convictions. However, when the witness is a defendant testifying in their own trial, there are specific rules that apply to the State’s use of their prior convictions.