Some Serious Traffic Offenses in NJ
Traffic violations can lead to fines, license suspension and even jail time. Defend your traffic violation charges with the help of an experienced and reliable traffic violations lawyer in NJ.
If your child makes a mistake, then you should make sure it does not ruin the future. When your child is charged with a crime in New Jersey, contact Attorney Joel Silberman to discuss your options.
Like any other criminal charge, a person charged with driving under the influence (DUI) is presumed innocent until he/she is proven guilty. If you are found guilty, the penalty will depend on the state law, as well as on any other circumstances, e.g., if there was an open bottle of liquor in the car; and your cooperation with the police. The following are the penalties for a DUI charge:
Jail Time
In all states, first-offense DUI is a misdemeanor, and punishable by up to six months in jail. This jail time can be increased under certain circumstances. In some states, if the blood-alcohol content at the time of arrest was very high and crossing the legal limit of 0.08%, the punishment can be more severe.
In most states, a minimum jail sentence of at least several days on a first offense is required. Subsequent offenses will result in a jail sentence of several months to a year.
For a DUI that is a felony because either the driver killed or injured someone, or because it’s your third or fourth DUI, a jail sentence of several years can be given.
Fines
Courts also impose high fines for a DUI in addition to a jail sentence. This can range from $500 to $2,000.
License Suspension
Your license can be suspended for a considerable period of time. In many states, a first time offender’s license can be suspended for 90 days. A second time offender’s license can be suspended for one year; and a third time offender’s license can be suspended for three years. If you refuse to take a blood, breath, or urine test, it can result in license suspension. In some states, if you are a repeat offender, you may not be allowed to get back on the road. Your registration can be canceled temporarily or permanently and the state may confiscate your car.
Young Offenders
In most states, the legal drinking age is 21. A minor who is arrested for driving while under the influence will not get any respite from punishment. Adult sentences on minors can be imposed, and their license suspended for one year.
Other Forms of Punishment
In many states, a court sentence may include alcohol education and prevention programs, rehabilitation for alcohol abuse, assessment of a person for alcohol or drug dependency, and community service or victim restitution. If you are a first time offender, these programs can be recommended instead of jail time or paying fines.
Other Consequences
Your insurance company may also cancel the insurance policy or increase the rates because of the mark on the driving record. A DUI charge stays on a person’s driving record for many years. If your license is suspended, the insurance company may cancel the insurance policy.
After being convicted under DUI charges, you can still protect your rights. You have the right to contact your DUI defense lawyer. We will work to protect your rights, and fight on your behalf to avoid a serious criminal conviction. Get in touch with The Law Offices of Joel Silberman, LLC You can call us at 201-420-1913 or email us at joel@joelsilbermanlaw.com.
Attorneys at the law office of Joel Silberman have been serving clients in New Jersey from more than a decade. We provide aggressive and diligent criminal defense representation to clients who are facing charges for DUI/DWI. We have extensive knowledge of New Jersey DUI laws. We have the necessary experience and skills in handling DUI matters.
The Eighth Amendment denies federal officials authority to require excessive bail, impose excessive fines, or inflict cruel and unusual punishments.
In case of Timbs v. Indiana, 139 S. Ct. 682 (2019), the Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause incorporates the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause
Tyson Timbs purchased a Land Rover for approximately $42,000 in January 2013 using the proceeds from his father’s life insurance policy. During the following four months, Timbs used the vehicle for multiple trips within Indiana to transport heroin. After a series of controlled purchases involving a confidential informant, Timbs was arrested at a traffic stop. At the time of his arrest in May, the Land Rover had approximately 15,000 more miles on it than when he purchased it in January.
The state charged Timbs with two charges of felony dealing and one charge of conspiracy to commit theft. He later pleaded guilty to one charge of felony dealing and one charge of conspiracy to commit theft in exchange for the state dismissing the remaining charge. After accepting the plea, the trial court sentenced Timbs to six years, five of which were to be suspended. Timbs also agreed to pay fees and costs totaling approximately $1200.
In addition, the state sought to forfeit Timbs’ Land Rover. The trial court denied the state’s action, ruling that the forfeiture would be an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment, characterizing it as grossly disproportional to the seriousness of the offense. The court also noted that the maximum statutory fine for Timbs’ felony dealing charge was $10,000, and the vehicle was worth roughly four times that amount when Timbs purchased it. The trial court ordered the state to release the vehicle immediately. The court of appeals affirmed.
The Indiana Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the U.S. Supreme Court had never clearly incorporated the Eighth Amendment against the states under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court also ruled that the state had proven its entitlement to forfeit the Land Rover under state law.
(Ref: “Timbs v. Indiana.” Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-1091. Accessed 23 Sep. 2020.)
The question before the Supreme Court was – “Has the Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause been incorporated against the states under the Fourteenth Amendment?”
The Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause is an incorporated protection applicable to the states. The court termed it as “fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty” and “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”
(Ref:
The Term, in Timbs v. Indiana verdict by the Supreme Court reiterates the right to be free from excessively harsh punishment at the hands of the government
If you have been subjected to excessive bail or imposed excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishments, you have right to curative remedies.
For years Joel Silberman served as an Assistant Prosecutor with the Hudson County Prosecutor’s Office. He will appeal against the injustice you may have suffered to get you a justice you deserve.
Call (201)-420-1913 today to schedule an appointment.
According to the Supreme Court order released on Sep 18, 2020, New Jersey courts are set to resume jury trials from Monday, Sept. 21.
On Sep 21, the Superior Court Judge Robert Vinci. Jury selection will be conducted using a hybrid approach. Voir dire questioning will primarily take place in a virtual format, with technology provided by the Judiciary as needed.
Read the full text here:
https://njcourts.gov/pressrel/2020/pr091820a.pdf?c=DB2
The decision to resume a limited number of jury trials is motivated by providing legal recourse to the detained in jail awaiting trial, as well as the rights of victims of crime seeking access to the courts to complete a critical step in their recovery, both being greatly restricted due to measure taken due to prevailing Covid19 pandemic situation.
The Sep 11 notice to the Bar by Hon. Glenn A. Grant, J.A.D., acting Administrative Director of the Courts, detailed out the measures on the resumption of criminal and civil jury trials. Read the text here:
https://njcourts.gov/notices/2020/n200914a.pdf?c=gcn
If you have been detained in jail or awaiting trial, contact Defence Attorney Joel Silberman. The Law Offices of Joel Silberman are proud to protect the innocent from criminally prosecution and equally as proud to expose abuses by those who have taken an oath to protect us.
Law enforcement never rests and neither do we. Immediately after retaining Joel Silberman you will receive a 24/7 dedicated line to contact him on. Call (201)-420-1913 today to schedule an appointment.
Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court again reversed and returned the case to the Mississippi courts where the prosecutions repeated, racially motivated misconduct during the defendants six trials for the same murders precluded a creditable Batson finding that the prosecutors challenge of an African-American prospective juror was based on race-neutral factors.
In case of Rehaif who entered the United States on a student visa and later lost his immigration status, the Supreme Court held that the Government therefore must prove both that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm and also that he knew he belonged to the relevant category of persons barred from possessing a firearm, and reversed Rehaif’s conviction
Rehaif entered the United States on a student visa. When the university to which he was admitted dismissed him for poor performance, it advised him that he would lose his immigration status unless he enrolled elsewhere, which he did not do. He went to a shooting range where he purchased ammunition and practiced using the ranges firearms. The ammunition he bought came from out-of-state and the firearms he used were from Austria.
Federal law declares it unlawful for an individual, unlawfully present in the United States, to possess a firearm or ammunition that has been transported or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce. A second statute makes it a federal crime to knowingly engage in such unlawful possession.
At his trial, the U.S. district court advised the jury that the government did not have to prove that Rehaif knew that he was in the U.S. unlawfully. The jury convicted Rehaif, and the court sentenced him to prison for 18 months.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (Eleventh Circuit) affirmed Rehaif’s conviction on several grounds. The Eleventh Circuit noted that conviction requires proof of three elements:
The Supreme Court held that the Government therefore must prove both that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm and also that he knew he belonged to the relevant category of persons barred from possessing a firearm, and reversed Rehaif’s conviction. Speaking for a majority of the Court, Justice Breyer pointed out that mens rea questions are first and foremost a matter of congressional intent. He noted that the longstanding presumption, traceable to the common law, that Congress intends to require a defendant to possess a culpable mental state regarding each of the statutory elements that criminalize otherwise innocent conduct. Nevertheless, he explained that the presumption does not necessarily apply to all of a crime elements.
If you are facing criminal charges, you need a legal defense from an attorney like New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney Joel Silberman. He is dedicated to fighting for individuals that are facing Federal, State and Municipal charges.
At the Law Offices of Joel Silberman, no case is too big or too small. Whether you have been issued a summons for Municipal Court or been charged with a First Degree offense, you will receive the same aggressive and hard-hitting representation.
Call (201)-420-1913 today to schedule an appointment.
Recently, in Flowers v. Mississippi, 139 S. Ct. 2228 (2019), the U.S. Supreme Court again reversed and returned the case to the Mississippi courts where the prosecutions repeated, racially motivated misconduct during the defendants six trials for the same murders precluded a creditable Batson finding that the prosecutors challenge of an African-American prospective juror was based on race-neutral factors.
State authorities prosecuted Flowers six times for an offense in which a furniture store owner and three employees were shot to death. The state supreme court reversed Flowers first and second convictions due to numerous instances of prosecutorial misconduct. The state supreme court overturned Flowers third conviction on the grounds of discriminatory jury selection. The fourth and fifth trials ended in hung juries. A sixth jury convicted Flowers of murder and sentenced him to death. Flowers argued that the prosecutor in his sixth trial used peremptory challenges in a racially discriminatory manner. (Read full details at https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R46105.pdf)
Supreme Court: The U.S. Supreme Court again reversed and returned the case to the Mississippi courts. The Court, speaking through Justice Kavanaugh, declared [f]our critical facts, taken together, require reversal:
Peremptory challenges allow prosecutors to have prospective jurors dismissed without having to explain the reason for the challenge. A prosecutor may not exercise peremptory challenges in a racially discriminatory manner.
The Supreme Court in Batson v. Kentucky established a three-part test to assess claims of racially discriminatory use of peremptory challenges. First, the accused must make prima facie showing that the challenge was made for discriminatory reasons. Second, the prosecutor has the burden of proving a race-neutral justification for the challenge. Third, the trial court must determine whether the prosecutor has satisfied his burden.
For years Joel Silberman served as an Assistant Prosecutor with the Hudson County Prosecutor’s Office. During this time Joel litigated hundreds of felony and juvenile cases and appeared before the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division on multiple occasions. He knows what prosecutors can do and cannot do. If you are a victim of prosecutorial misconduct or a racially biased jury, he will appeal against the adverse verdict you have got to get you justice you deserve.
Call (201)-420-1913 today to schedule an appointment.
After a DWI conviction, you can still protect your rights. DWI attorneys at the law office of Joel Silberman have been serving clients in New Jersey for more than a decade.
We provide an aggressive and diligent criminal defense for DUI/DWI cases. We will work to protect your rights, and fight on your behalf to avoid a serious criminal conviction.
Connect with us