Governor Christie has proposed that the Constitution be amended so that New Jersey judges can impose detention without bail for repeat violent offenders.

Judges in federal courts already have the ability to do this, as do state judges in many states. However, because of New Jersey’s constitutional requirement, judges here are not permitted to deny bail even if flight or repeat offense is likely. Instead, their only recourse is to increase the amount of bail a defendant must put up.

Many have argued that the amount of bail imposed by a judge is mostly irrelevant, as defendants never put up their own money. Instead, they seek bail bonds from businesses, which make money putting up bail for defendants in exchange for a high fee.

Those who favor this new rule argue that it is senseless to release repeat offenders while awaiting trial. Studies have shown that one in six defendants released while awaiting trial was arrested for a new offense.

The bail industry and many defense attorneys are against the proposal from Christie. Opponents argue that the cost would be incurred mostly by the state, which would be required to house many more inmates under this requirement. Additionally, defendants’ rights would diminish under the new rule, and many argue it treats defendants as though they were guilty before they have even been tried, a principle which defies the nature and spirit of our Constitution.

This information is not intended to be legal advice.

The CSI Effect refers to the notion, common among viewers of network TV, that police can prove scientifically whether a defendant is guilty or not. On the hit show CSI, investigators use elaborate and advanced technology to determine the exact nature, length, time, and cause of a crime. No guesswork or doubt lingers, and it is clear that a defendant is guilty by the time the results taken from the scene of the crime have been tested in the laboratory.

But in the real world, our police are not as advanced, evidence is spotty, altered, or simply not complete. And when there is a tiny gap in evidence, a jury now considers this gap to be reasonable doubt enough to acquit a defendant. It used to be, or so the theory goes, that juries were much more willing and comfortable with making some educated guesses.

The CSI Effect has been named as a culprit in the acquittal of Casey Anthony. In that trial, Caylee’s body had decomposed to such an extent that no cause of death could be affirmatively named. This was supposedly the gap in evidence which lead to reasonable doubt of Casey’s guilt.

While we all praise scientific advances that lead to greater accuracy of convictions, many have wondered whether the jury’s expectations are too high.

This information is not intended as legal advice.

But now that it is so easy to document our daily events, it is also easier to prove or defend against a claim in court. More and more, camera-phone snapped images are admitted as evidence in trial. We can document the time they were taken, and can show documentation of how something actually occurred, both during and after the event.
It used to be that an accident was later documented by photographers and other experts. Now, additional information gathered from our gadgets can help make or break a lawsuit or criminal case.

But just as increased scientific evidence has affected the expectations of jurors as to the level of proof needed to find a defendant guilty, the availability of instant documentation may lead to unsuccessful lawsuits that might otherwise been successful before the information age. This leaves those who fail to document their events at a disadvantage in court, even if it shouldn’t. If you have an accident or witness a crime, snapping evidence on your cell phone may make all the difference in the world to the case’s outcome.

This information is not intended as legal advice.

Legal document preparer companies cannot give legal advice of any kind. A paralegal or document preparer who helps you prepare legal documents can make sure you answered all the questions and filled out information accurately. They cannot legally tell you how to respond, what consequences your responses will have, or any other relevant piece of information.

Another option is to purchase legal forms, without any assistance in preparing them from a paralegal or document preparer. This also has the same downfall as a document preparer, because you are stuck with guessing at how to answer questions and represent your case. However, you may receive some benefit from the court as an unrepresented individual, and may be given some instructions by the clerk in how to prepare your forms (although, once again, without legal advice).

The only individuals legally and appropriately permitted to give advice on how to prepare forms and what consequences you may face are attorneys who are licensed to practice law within your state. An attorney may cost more than a paralegal, but can be much more valuable in the long run. Additionally, many attorneys grant low flat fees for one-time consultations without ongoing representation, at which time you can ask all the questions you have for a relatively low cost.

This information is not intended as legal advice.

Along with Florida, Georgia, Colorado, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Tennessee, the Garden State has been given permission to fail to comply with No Child Left Behind, a request the state made long ago.

Many of No Child Left Behind’s critics have argued that the law does not give any freedom to local schools or teachers regarding curriculum and is overly rigid in its focus on testing results. With New Jersey and those eight other states released from its control, they now have more freedom to plan and prioritize on what matters locally in education.

However, in order to get the waiver, New Jersey had to make some serious promises to the federal government. The State proposed to identify schools in need of serious help. Two categories of schools will be the focus of the State’s education work and funding: priority schools, which are the lowest performing schools in the State, and focus schools, which have low graduation rates and other educational problems. Additionally, the State will give mention to reward schools with high graduation rates and high proficiency in academics.

Most of New Jersey’s priority schools are in Camden, which came as no surprise to those who are aware of the school systems within the area.

This information is not intended as legal advice.

Although the idea of jury nullification has been around almost as long as juries have, there have been specific instances in United States history when it has been used famously and intentionally. In the 1600s, England tried William Penn, the Quaker after whom Pennsylvania was named. He was tried for disturbing the peace and preaching a Quaker sermon, which was illegal at the time. Several jurors refused to find him guilty, for which they were punished for days by refusal of food and drink. During the lead-up to the Civil War, jury nullification was used to protest the law. Typically, these sort of protests are the reason for the use of jury nullification.

Technically, a jury is not supposed to find someone not guilty simply because it believes the law is wrong or inappropriately applied. However, because jurors cannot be punished for their verdict, and because a defendant cannot be retried after he is acquitted, juries can potentially get away with a jury nullification even today, although it rarely occurs.

Throughout history, jury nullification has been a controversial subject. Because it is a final protest to be used when nothing else will work, many have claimed it is an important protection on our liberty. Others, however, note that it goes against the very framework of the legal system, and is wrong and can be abused. Is jury nullification wrong, or an important safeguard against tyranny, as historically believed? You decide.

This information is not intended as legal advice.

Until the recent revision, home brewers and wine makers were required to purchase a $15 permit, and their consumption was still limited to personal use. Now, this requirement no longer exists, but it has failed to effect most home brewers, who never realized the law required them to obtain a permit.

The permit requirement was put in place in 1991, when the law first began to permit home brewing. Before that date, it was actually illegal to brew beer or make wine. As a concession to those who were concerned about unregulated alcohol, the Assembly put in place this permit, in hopes of keeping track of home alcohol creation.

In 2010, a bit more than 2,000 permits were issued for home brewing and wine making, which many cite as extremely low compared to the number of home brewers that exist in the state. Because the law was viewed as unnecessary, and was not followed to begin with, state legislators decided to change it.

Bills were also introduced into the legislature that would have permitted greater quantities of brewing (the law currently permits up to 200 gallons annually), and even sale of home brews. However, these bills were not passed.

This information is not intended as legal advice.

Yes! You have the legal right to appeal your property taxes. However, a successful property tax appeal will still not change the amount you owe unless the assessed value is 15% or more higher than what you were told initially. If the difference is less than that amount, the county will not decrease the amount you owe.

Once you obtain your mass-mailing assessment, you have 45 days within which to file for appeal. Appeal applications can be found on the state website. Once you file your application, a hearing will be scheduled before the County Tax Board. As an individual, you can represent yourself before the tax board. You can present evidence that the amount you were assessed varies more than 15% from the amount you believe is accurate based on the formula/ratio present on the State webpage.

The Tax Board has three months after the deadline for filing appeals within which to hear and determine all appeals. After that, you will receive notice of the judgment rendered in your appeal.

You can file an appeal for between $5 and $150, depending on the assessed value of your home.

Over the past four years, due to the bursting of the real estate bubble, there has been a marked increase in the number of property tax appeals. In 2008, about 20,000 New Jersey residents filed an appeal of their assessment. Last year, almost 70,000 filed.

This information is not intended as legal advice.

This past week, attorneys David Anziska and Jesse Strauss and a group of other attorneys filed claims against 12 law schools: Albany Law School of Union University, Brooklyn Law School, California Western School of Law, Chicago-Kent College of Law, DePaul University College of Law, Florida Coastal School of Law, The John Marshall Law School, University of San Francisco School of Law, Southwestern Law School, and Widener University School of Law.

However, the problem, according to the plaintiffs, is not limited to these 12 schools. To the contrary, the plaintiffs would like to file suit against 20-25 schools every month, suing almost all law schools by the time they are done.

So what is their complaint? Law students around the country are having trouble landing legal work. And not just their dream jobs – many are claiming it is impossible to find a law job, even a temporary job reviewing documents. This, in turn, makes it almost impossible to pay off their extremely high loans, which are driven up by the ever-increasing law school tuition. And some complain that law schools charge tuition similar to medical schools, but medical schools have technical costs and overhead that law schools simply don’t have. In fact, most law school classes are large lecture halls with one professor to 100 students. And these students are claiming that law schools are lying to prospective students about their prospects on the job market once they get out of school.

The schools, on the other hand, claim they are being sued without anyone ever asking to see their documentation beforehand. Several schools claim they can support their statistics with hard data.

This information is not intended as legal advice.

Until the recent revision, home brewers and wine makers were required to purchase a $15 permit, and their consumption was still limited to personal use. Now, this requirement no longer exists, but it has failed to effect most home brewers, who never realized the law required them to obtain a permit.

The permit requirement was put in place in 1991, when the law first began to permit home brewing. Before that date, it was actually illegal to brew beer or make wine. As a concession to those who were concerned about unregulated alcohol, the Assembly put in place this permit, in hopes of keeping track of home alcohol creation.

In 2010, a bit more than 2,000 permits were issued for home brewing and wine making, which many cite as extremely low compared to the number of home brewers that exist in the state. Because the law was viewed as unnecessary, and was not followed to begin with, state legislators decided to change it.

Bills were also introduced into the legislature that would have permitted greater quantities of brewing (the law currently permits up to 200 gallons annually), and even sale of home brews. However, these bills were not passed.

This information is not intended as legal advice.