Call Today for FREE Consultation… 856-424-4494
JEFFREY EVAN GOLD
Two Time Winner
of New Jersey State Bar Practice Award !
WITH OVER 30 YEARS EXPERIENCE IN:
• Criminal offenses • Drugs offenses • Drunk Driving
• DWI / DUI, Refusal • Traffic Offenses • Disorderly Persons
• Juvenile • Expungements
♦ 1847 Route 70 East, Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08003
♦ 37 Grant Street, Mount Holly, New Jersey 08060
Sex Offenses, Assault, Weapons, Embezzlement, Theft, Computer Crime, Burglary, Arson, Robbery, Fraud, Homicide.
Possession, Distribution, Conspiracy, School Zone, Marijuana, Cocaine, Heroin, Methamph., X, GBH, Steroids
DWI, DUI, Refusal, Assault by Auto, Death by Auto Leaving Scene, Reckless, Driving suspended, Revoked, No Insurance, Etc.
Shoplifting, Harassment, Loitering In CDS Area, Criminal Mischief, Lewdness, Resisting Arrest, Obstructing Justice
Expungements of your criminal record & Juvenile matters of all kinds.
CLICK ON PICTURES BELOW FOR DETAILS:
Jeffrey Gold & Associates Law Office
1847 Route 70 East
Cherry Hill, New Jersey
4/5/13, In State v Cahill, a Speedy Trial case I argued before the Supreme Court, the court just upheld the dismissal of a DWI for failure of the municipal court to list the case for 17 months after downgrade from the county. The Court used the 4 factor test of Barker v Wingo, declining to revamp NJ law on the issue.
State v Gomez published today 4/5/13: “To summarize our conclusions, a trial court may exercise its inherent authority consistent with due process to issue a subpoena or an order for a victim or a witness to attend a non-invasive physical or mental examination. Such a discovery order should be issued rarely, only upon a showing by the defendant of a compelling or substantial need for the examination. Defendant must demonstrate that comparable evidence is not available through another source, and that the benefit to the defendant clearly outweighs the hardship or inconvenience to the victim or the witness. Normally, any punishment for refusal should not fall upon the victim, but consequences can be imposed upon the State. Finally, any such order should include provisions to avoid any expense to the victim and to minimize other monetary loss or inconvenience.”
In State v Gibson the court held that a trial court may not incorporate the testimony from a motion to suppress evidence into a trial without the consent of the parties. The result here was the required acquittal of a DWI where no evidence was taken beyond that at the motion to suppress which was heard before trial and not incorporated by consent.