Jersey City

Supreme Court Rules on Trial Court’s Probe into Juror Impropriety

Published on: January 16, 2026 | by Stephen J. Natoli

Juror-Misconduct-1-300x300 The New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Ebenezer Byrd is about something most people don’t think about until it happens: what a judge has to do when there is a credible report that a juror may be breaking the rules in the middle of a criminal trial. At its core, the case reinforces a basic promise of the justice system – jurors must decide guilt or innocence based only on the evidence presented in court, not outside information, outside conversations, or conclusions reached before deliberations begin.

In Byrd, court staff received a call reporting “alarming” conduct by a sitting juror. The report claimed the juror had discussed the case with coworkers, shown articles to others, “Googled” the case, and had already decided she would convict, using the phrase that she was going to “burn their asses.” Even though some details were unclear and the information passed through a few people before reaching the judge, the trial court treated it as serious enough to question the juror.

The Supreme Court’s concern was that the questioning did not match the seriousness of what was alleged. The judge asked the juror general questions, including whether she had encountered “posting or newspaper articles” outside of what was presented in court, but the Supreme Court found that approach too narrow and too generic for allegations like internet research and a mind already made up. In other words, once the court decides an allegation is plausible enough to investigate, it has to ask direct, fact-specific questions aimed at the allegation itself.

Seizing Evidence During an Emergency: NJ Supreme Court Weighs In

Published on: December 12, 2025 | by Stephen J. Natoli

Seizing-Evidence-during-Fire-300x300 The New Jersey Supreme Court’s December 4, 2025 decision in State v. Caneiro is a big reminder that “exigent circumstances” is not a slogan courts apply in hindsight, but an objective, fact-sensitive test grounded in what officers reasonably knew in the moment. Here, the Court focused on whether the exigent-circumstances exception applied during an active house fire, where officers believed that getting a warrant was impracticable and immediate action was needed to prevent the destruction of evidence located in an attached garage.

The case arises from a 5:02 a.m. house fire at Paul Caneiro’s home in November 2018. While firefighters were still battling an active blaze in the main structure, police entered the attached garage and seized a security system DVR without a warrant, about forty minutes after first arrival and roughly thirty minutes after the small garage fire had been extinguished. The State alleges the DVR captured Caneiro disconnecting the security cameras before starting the fire. Later, the defendant gave valid consent to search the DVR’s contents. The trial court suppressed the DVR, stressing that the garage fire had been out for nearly thirty minutes and characterizing the officers’ retrieval as calm and deliberate. The Appellate Division affirmed.

The Supreme Court unanimously reversed, holding that under the totality of circumstances, the warrantless seizure was objectively reasonable because time was of the essence and securing a warrant was impracticable while the fire remained active and suppression efforts threatened the integrity of sensitive digital evidence. The Court looked at the whole scene, not just the garage in isolation, and rejected the idea that officers’ calm demeanor meant there was no real emergency. The question, it emphasized, is not how things look in a quiet courtroom years later, but what a reasonable officer on that chaotic scene could conclude at the time.

Prior Convictions Unlawfully Preventing Defendants from Testifying at their own Trials

Published on: February 7, 2022 | by Stephen J. Natoli

Jersey-City-Criminal-Lawyer-Testifying-Witness--300x169 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.

Under the N.J.R.E. 609, the use of a prior conviction is limited “[i]f, on the date the trial begins, more than ten years have passed since the witness’s conviction for a crime or release from confinement for it, whichever is later.” The rule also states that when a conviction is ten years remote, it “is admissible only if the court determines that its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect, with the proponent of the evidence having the burden of proof.”

On December 27, 2021 the Supreme Court of New Jersey decided in State v. Tywaun S. Hedgespeth that a lower court’s ruling, allowing the use of Defendant’s prior convictions for impeachment purposes was not harmless error.

Criminal Statute Partially Struck Down on First Amendment Grounds

Published on: December 16, 2021 | by Stephen J. Natoli

Jersey-City-Criminal-Lawyer-Natoli-Free-Speech--300x300 On December 9, 2021 the New Jersey Appellate Division published a decision which struck down a portion of New Jersey’s terroristic threats statute. In State v. Calvin Fair, the defendant was charged with and convicted of terroristic threats. On appeal, Defendant argued constitutional over breadth regarding N.J.S.A. 2C:12-3(a). Said section criminalizes threats of violence made with the purpose to terrorize another […] or in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror. A three-judge panel agreed with the appellant’s arguments and struck down subsection (a). This resulted in a reversal of Defendant’s conviction and a remand for a new trial.

In Fair, the court analyzed different opinions throughout our nation’s state and federal courts. The court analyzed this case, in part, through the lens of the “true-threat” doctrine. The “true-threat” doctrine recognizes that our nation has a “profound national commitment to the debate on public issues which may well include vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks […]” as well as “vituperative, abusive and inexact language.”

The court then focused on Virginia v. Black which held that Virginia’s criminal statute did “not run afoul of the First Amendment” because it did not just ban cross burning; it banned cross burning “with intent to intimidate.” The Court in Black held that a state can punish threatening speech or expression only when the speaker “means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.”

Sentencing Beyond a Jury’s Verdict

Published on: October 11, 2021 | by Stephen J. Natoli

jersey-city-criminal-sentencing-judge-1 In New Jersey, a criminal defendant’s right to a jury trial is guaranteed by both the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the State Constitution. The principles of fairness and justice are encompassed in the roles assigned to the judge and the jury. The jury, otherwise known as the “finder of fact,” is tasked with determining what happened in a specific case and how those facts are relevant to the legal proceeding. The judge, otherwise known as the “trier of law”, is tasked with making legal rulings and ensuring that legal proceedings adhere to specific guidelines.

However, there are instances in which courtroom actors confuse the role they must play.

In State v. Melvin and State v. Padden-Battle , the Defendants were sentenced by the same judge who overlooked a jury’s acquittal and made decisions based on their own “fact-finding”.

Supreme Court Deals with IEC Claim in Jersey City Homicide Case

Published on: August 30, 2021 | by Stephen J. Natoli

Ineffective assistance of counsel is a claim that a criminal defendant may assert when their defense attorney’s inadequate representation constitutes a violation of their Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

However, not all cases concerning an attorney’s unsatisfactory performance entitle a defendant to relief. The 1984 landmark Supreme Court case of Strickland v. Washington outlined the two requirements for proving ineffective assistance of counsel: (1) counsel’s performance must be deficient under the circumstances, and (2) but for the counsel’s deficient performance, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the case would have been different.

Since inadequate representation creates unfair disadvantages to defendants, and often wrongful convictions, successful ineffective assistance of counsel claims may allow for an overturned conviction, vacated sentence or even a new trial.

Can Invoking The Right to Counsel Be Construed As An Inference of Guilt?

Published on: August 3, 2021 | by Stephen J. Natoli

No, a defendant’s right to have an attorney present during interrogation is guaranteed by both the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona.

Accordingly, any statements made during the interrogation of a defendant in custody may be admissible as evidence only if the defendant is fully aware of their rights and made their statements voluntarily.

On July 20th, 2021, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey decided in State v. Dorff, that the trial court erred in denying the Defendant’s motion to suppress her statements to law enforcement during one of two separate interrogations. The Court came to this conclusion based on the circumstances surrounding the Defendant’s statements to law enforcement and the violation of her right to counsel.

Erroneous Jury Instructions: A Recipe for Unjust Verdicts

Published on: July 15, 2021 | by Stephen J. Natoli

Jury instructions are directions from a judge to the jury that provide guidance in their deliberations to reach a verdict. These instructions are meant to help jurors understand the applicable laws and how they should assess the facts of the case.

Sadly, there are instances where such instructions are flawed and can unjustly influence a jury’s decision-making process.

In State v. Oguta, the Defendant sought to appeal his conviction on a fourth-degree unlawful possession of a weapon charge because the trial court judge did not grant his request for a self-defense jury instruction.

A Balancing Act: The Rights of the Accused v. The Rights of the Alleged Victim

Published on: June 17, 2021 | by Stephen J. Natoli

The process of criminal pretrial discovery, which involves an exchange of information between parties, is guided by specific rules and limitations. Protective orders, for example, may limit what information is provided to the opposing party or to whom such information may be provided.

Although restricting information may seem like a detriment to the party seeking certain discovery, such restrictions are sometimes justified by public policy considerations such as fairness and privacy.

On June 4th, 2021, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey decided in State v. Ramirez, that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the State’s motion for a protective order to exclude a victim’s home address from discovery made available to the Defendant and his counsel. The Court came to this conclusion based on (1) the nature of the alleged sexual assault, and (2) the relevant matters of public policy.

Voir Dire: Revealing or Creating Bias in Prospective Jurors?

Published on: June 9, 2021 | by Stephen J. Natoli

Voir dire, which means “to speak the truth” in French, also refers to the examination of prospective jurors to determine whether or not they are suitable for jury service. During this jury selection process, a judge may ask standard questions to excuse anyone deemed incapable of serving on a jury. Attorneys involved in the case may also question the jurors to identify any potential biases. If any such biases are suspected, the attorneys may request to remove the biased jurors or exercise a peremptory challenge to exclude those jurors from the trial.

However, some questions asked during this process are likely to create rather than reveal partiality within prospective jurors.

In State v. Leo T. Little, Jr. , the Defendant sought to challenge his convictions for aggravated assault and weapons offenses on the ground that voir dire questioning by the trial court of prospective jurors during jury selection deprived him of a fair trial.