New Jersey DWI Defense Center
800-262-7170
New Jersey DWI Defense Center
800-262-7170
Court decisions involving DWI and DUI issues in New Jersey have been handed down by the Supreme Court and the Appellate Division. Your DWI defense attorney will be versed in these and other important court decisions that are relevant to your DWI charges.
A portion of Peter Lederman's presentation to lawyers at the Annual Middlesex County Bar Association was video taped - the importance of State v. Bernokeits in DWI cases in New Jersey.
Update on 2 recent Appellate Court decisions related to DWI cases in New Jersey; State v. Bernokeits and State v. Regis. ...read more
The most important court decision involves the determination of the scientific reliability of the new breath test device which is being implemented throughout the State of New Jersey for evidential breath testing purposes known as the Alcotest 7110 MK III-C.
The importance of this case cannot be overstated. Besides being the first comprehensive evaluation of this new breath test device in the United States, the Chun decision will profoundly effect the manner in which prosecutions for driving while intoxicated will be handled throughout our State. The absence of a determination of these issues over more than two years also has adversely effected the State's ability to prosecute Defendants due to the uncertain status of breath test results where this device is used. ... read more
An important line of New Jersey cases has also arisen as a result of the United State Supreme Court decision in a matter entitled Crawford v. Washington. The Crawford case requires the State to produce witnesses to prove "testimonial" aspects of criminal prosecutions, so that a Defendant's sixth Amendment right to the confrontation can be exercised. This decision recognizes that documents presented by the State to provide elements of its case, cannot be admitted into evidence if challenged, as documents cannot be cross- examined by their very nature.
New Jersey Courts have applied this principle in DWI cases
where blood samples have been taken to establish the Blood Alcohol Content of Defendants. In State v. Berezansky, the Appellate Division held that laboratory certificates of blood test results could not be used to prove compliance with testing procedures, in the absence of testimony by the laboratory technician who conducted the test. Similarly, in State v. Renshaw the Court held that the State cannot demonstrate that a blood sample taken from a Defendant was taken in a reasonable manner without the testimony of the nurse or phlebotomist who took the sample.
These decisions are important in affording a Defendant the
opportunity to require the State to prove it's case with
testimony which in turn, will allow cross examination by the
Defendant's attorney. This will provide the Court with important information in determining whether procedures employed in withdrawing blood meet applicable standards.
