Success Stories

On May 21, 2021, at approximately 11:00PM, the Jersey City Police Department received numerous calls for shots fired in the area of Brinkerhoff and Crescent Avenue. Upon their arrival they located six (6) victims who sustained gunshot wounds. Two (2) victims were pronounced deceased by doctors at the Jersey City Medical Center.

On July 21, 2021, a warrant was issued for our client C.M., and he was later arrested on August 5, 2021, and subsequently detained. C.M. was later indicted for (Count 1) Murder, pursuant to 2C:11-3a(1) or 2C:11-3a(2) & 2C:2-6; (Count 2) Murder, pursuant to 2C:11-3a(1) or 2C:11-3a(2) & 2C:2-6; (Count 3) Conspiracy to Commit Murder pursuant to 2C:5-2a(1) & 2C:11-3a(1) or (2); (Count 4) Attempt to Commit Murder pursuant to 2C:5-1a(1) & 2C:11-3a(1) or (2); (Count 5) Attempt to Commit Murder pursuant to 2C:5-1a(1) & 2C:11-3a(1) or (2); (Count 6) Attempt to Commit Murder pursuant to 2C:5-1a(1) & 2C:11-3a(1) or (2); (Count 7) Attempt to Commit Murder pursuant to 2C:5-1a(1) & 2C:11-3a(1) or (2); (Count 8) Accomplice Liability for Aggravated Assault pursuant to 2C:12-1B(1); (Count 9) Accomplice Liability for Aggravated Assault pursuant to 2C:12-1B(1); (Count 10) Accomplice Liability for Aggravated Assault pursuant to 2C:12-1B(1); (Count 11) Accomplice Liability for Aggravated Assault pursuant to 2C:12-1B(1); (Count 12) Unlawful Possession of a Handgun pursuant to 2C:39-5b(1); (Count 13) Unlawful Possession of a Handgun pursuant to 2C:39-5b(1); and (Count 14) Possession of a Handgun for Unlawful Purpose pursuant to 2C:39-4a(1).

The case proceeded to trial that went on for several weeks. The jury heard from witnesses, including a survivor of the shooting, detectives, police officers, forensic experts and reviewed hours of footage that captured the shooting unfold. Throughout the trial, William A. Proetta, Esq. argued that the suspect caught on video was not C.M. and that the State had not met their burden of proof. Ultimately, the jury agreed, and found C.M. not guilty of both murders, all four attempted murders, the aggravated assaults, and handgun charges.

Our New Jersey traffic defense attorneys recently represented a client who was charged with leaving the scene of an accident after a car crash on the turnpike. To make matters worse, it was alleged that the car accident resulted from a road rage incident between our client and the other driver after one cut the other off and stopped short.

Our client was adamant that he did not do anything wrong and that there was no accident or damage to either vehicle. Based on this he did not want to take any type of plea deal or admit to doing anything wrong. In order to secure such an outcome we had to appear multiple times in court over several months eventually setting the case for a trial. At the time of trial our attorney made a motion to dismiss the charge for leaving the scene of an accident based on the lack of prosecution because the state was still missing crucial evidence that they would require to prove the charges. In the end, our client was able to walk out of court without admitting any guilt or paying any fines. If you are facing charges for leaving the scene of an accident like the above example, then contact our office today for a free consultation where we can discuss the facts of your case and possible defenses.

State v. W.S. decided June 12, 2017

Our Hudson County criminal attorneys recently defended a client who was charged with lewdness after being arrested by Hoboken police in the early morning hours. Our client was very concerned when he contacted us for help because he was currently serving a suspended sentence for a charge of criminal sexual contact that had been recently downgraded to harassment. To make matters worse our client was not a U.S. citizen and is in the country on a work visa and another criminal conviction for an alleged sex crime could further complicate his immigration status.

The case originated after Hoboken police allegedly spotted our client urinating between two cars on the street after a night out at the bars. Urinating in public citations are common place in Hoboken, although they are normally not charged as criminal lewdness. This is because defendants charged with urinating in public will normally try and be discreet by peeing in an alley-way or side of a building.

However, the circumstances alleged in this case seemed to be more egregious because the defendant was between two cars positioned between the sidewalk and the street so he could easily be viewed by pedestrians or traffic driving by. And that’s exactly what the police alleged when they drove by and said they saw the defendant’s penis clearly exposed to the public with no intention to hide what he was doing.

Based on these facts, the police charged our client with a crime of Lewdness under 2c:14-4 and gave him a summons to appear in court. This meant that the police felt he had exposed his genitals in a manner likely to be seen by others. Now this could have been chalked up to just a bad night, which would allow for an argument that the defendant was just so intoxicated that he didn’t realize what he was doing. However, given his recent past discretion, our client was concerned that the police and court would simply assume the worst and quickly jump to the conclusion this was a continuing pattern of sexual deviant behavior.

One of our primary defense arguments in this case was that our client shouldn’t be treated any different from any of the other countless offenders ticketed for urinating in public in Hoboken just because he had a prior record. At court we were able to convince the prosecutor to give our client the benefit of the doubt even though the circumstances appeared a bit inordinary or “fishy”.

Therefore, in the court agreed to amend the criminal charge to a municipal ordinance and our client was able to walk out of court without a criminal conviction and only had to pay a fine. If you have been charged with lewdness under circumstances similar to the events described above then feel free to contact us for a free consultation.

State v. O.K. decided March 20, 2018

Our Hudson County drug defense lawyers recently defended a young father who had been arrested by Harrison police after a concerned citizen called in to report a suspicious vehicle sitting a gravel parking lot off the main road. The gravel parking lot is a municipal lot that is typically used by commuters who park their during the day while at work in the city. However, the caller thought it was suspicious because the car was there on a non-commuting day late a night and they thought someone might be sitting inside the vehicle. When police arrived to investigate the area based on the call, they spotted our client and a passenger sitting in the car, which was running. Police can typically approach a parked vehicle that they deem suspicious based on something we call the “community caretaking” function. This gives them wide latitude to go up to a vehicle and talk to the occupants inside to make sure everyone is okay and that there is nothing illegal taking place. And that is just what this officer did – but when he approached to the car to speak with our client, he smelled the odor of marijuana coming from inside the car which quickly escalated the situation. When this case was decided, before New Jersey legalized marijuana in 2021, courts treated the odor of marijuana as evidence of criminal activity that allowed police to remove the occupants and search the car without a warrant. Under current law, the odor of cannabis alone no longer justifies a search.

Multiple Drugs Charges Result in No Criminal Conviction

Based on the smell of the marijuana the police officer removed our client and the passenger from the car and a subsequent search revealed marijuana, a smoking pipe and a pill of MDMA. After finding the drugs, the police officer began to question our client and his passenger as to whose drugs it was that he found in the car. Our client admitted that the marijuana and smoking pipe were his and the passenger took responsibility for the MDMA. He was arrested and charged with Possession of Marijuana under 2C:35-10a(4), Drug Paraphernalia under 2C:36-2 and Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance in a Motor Vehicle under 39:4-49.1 and given a court date to report into court. Based on these charges our client was looking at up 6 months in county jail on each criminal charge (although incarceration is unlikely for a first time offender) and a realistic 3 year loss of his driver’s license and a year of probation. This was the first time our client had ever been in trouble and he hired our law firm with the hopes of keeping his record clean and not losing his driver’s license. After receiving and reviewing the evidence, it appeared on the surface that everything was pretty cut and dry and done properly. The police had a reasonable suspicion to approach and investigate the vehicle in the first place and had probable cause to search our client’s vehicle based on the smell of the marijuana. But after further review there was one big thing missing – there was no signed Miranda card by our client proving that he knowingly waived his right to self-incrimination when he spoke to the police and allegedly took responsibility for the marijuana that was found within the car. Based on this issue and the fact that the passenger had already taken responsibility for the pill, the Court agreed to downgrade the criminal charges against our client to a municipal town ordinance which only carried a $300 fine and no criminal conviction. Our client was ecstatic and grateful for all our effort that resulted in no criminal record and we were happy to help a young father who was deserving of a break. To learn more about how our Hudson County criminal attorneys may be able to help you or your loved one, give us a contact us for a free consultation during which time we can discuss the facts of your particular case and your options.

Our DUI defense attorneys recently represented a client who was charged with a DWI and Refusal after State Police allegedly found her on the shoulder of the Garden State Parkway intoxicated.

If convicted, our client would receive a mandatory suspension of upwards of 15 months and be required to install an ignition interlock device in her vehicle. Refusal and DUI cases are some of the hardest offenses to win in Municipal Court because, when this case was handled, New Jersey did not allow any plea bargaining in DWI cases. The law changed in 2024, but DWI plea offers are still rare.

In order to secure a downgrade or dismissal of a DWI or Refusal, you have to aggressively attack the State’s case against you. Right from the beginning we began laying the groundwork for a trial and creating leverage for our client’s defense. We did this by challenging the State’s ability to establish operation of the motor vehicle and by identifying crucial discovery issues.

In order to exploit the discovery issues, we successfully argued for the Judge to sign an order mandating that the State provide missing discovery and comply within a reasonable amount of time. In the end, upon a motion by our defense attorneys, were able to successfully argue for a dismissal of all the charges against our client including the Driving While Intoxicated, Refusal, and Reckless Driving. This allowed our client to walk out of court without ever losing her license and without paying any fines.

If you or a loved one has been charged with a DWI and Refusal, contact our office today to see hw we may be able to help you during a free consultation with an experienced DUI attorney.

State v. S.C.

We recently defended a client who had been charged with shoplifting from a convenience store. Our client had no prior record and was adamant about avoid a conviction and any possible jail. However, shoplifting cases can be very tough since almost all major stores employ their own security, referred to a Loss Prevention Officers, who are trained on what type of suspicious activity to look for and to document it properly. Moreover, it is standard for them to record all alleged acts or attempts to shoplift and to introduce these videotapes in court to use against the defendant. In order to secure a victorious outcome for our client, our attorneys had to use an aggressive defense strategy and attack the State’s case and challenge whether they could actually meet their burden of proof to convict our client. Eventually, after the matter could not be worked out, it was set for a trial. On the trial date, the State was unprepared to try the case because they still could not meet their burden and requested an adjournment. However, our criminal attorneys made an application to dismiss based on the fact that our client and the State each had ample time to prepare for trial. After some consideration, the Judge granted our motion and all charges were dismissed. Our client was able to walk out of court with their record intact and without having to pay any fines or fees to the court.

State v. S.C.

We recently defended a client against several criminal charges that included prostitution and drug paraphernalia. Our client had been arrested after police received a tip from a concerned citizen about potential criminal activity and prostitution taking place at a local motel. Police arrived at the motel and after talking to the supervisor, they quickly ascertained which room our client was staying in. The police then alleged that once our client opened the door to speak with them they could see drug paraphernalia in plain view. However, the cops didn’t stop their investigation there and had a growing suspicion that there was more going on then just drug use. In the end, based on the statements of the witness, our client, and the items found in the room, she was charged with engaging in prostitution.

At court, our client admitted she had battled drug addiction for many years but was adamant that she had not committed an act of prostitution. The prosecutor, on the other hand, was not swayed by her story and given the circumstances and evidence against our client, the prosecutor was unwilling to entertain any downgrade or dismissal. However, that did not stop us and we continued to fight on behalf of our client and argued that much of this evidence could not be used at trial because of potential suppression issues. In the end, based on these challenges, the prosecutor completely dismissed the prostitution charges against our client.

State v. A.D.

Our Jersey City criminal defense lawyers recently represented a young lady who was charged with resisting arrest and theft of services at the path station after a mistake that quickly turned into a bad situation with serious consequences. Our client was walking into the path station when she followed other through the handicapped entrance to the train station and did not pay for her ticket. Nearby police saw her walk through and stopped her because she had no obvious handicap that would exclude her from regular payment. However, as they were questioning her, the officers became momentarily distracted because of another situation and our client panicked and tried to slip away from the officers by quickly walking out of the path station as their backs were turned. By the time the officers noticed, our client was long gone and they had to call for back up and check cameras to see where she had gone. Eventually they were able to track her down outside the station and she was charged with Theft of Services 2C:20-8a and Resisting Arrest 2C:29-2a for initially eluding their capture.

Our client was arrested and processed and received a notice to appear in court. After that her arrest, she contact our office and explained the situation as well as the fact that she was a young professional and could not afford a criminal conviction on her record. We explained that these charges can often be tough to defend but that we would do everything in our power to help her. We immediately entered a plea of “not guilty” with the court and requested all the evidence in order to see how we could challenge the case against our client. In the end, we had to appear in the court several times but, based on the circumstances, we were eventually able to convince the prosecutor to amend the charges to a local city ordinance that only resulted in a small fine and no criminal record. If you or your loved one has been charged with theft of services or resisting arrest like the example above, contact our office today for a free consultation to discuss the circumstances of your case and how we may be able to help.

State v. J.M.

Picture courtesy of nj.com

Our office recently represented a client in a final restraining order hearing based on allegations brought against him by his ex-wife, the plaintiff, in a temporary restraining order. The two had been divorced for a number of years but still interacted because they had three shared children together from the previous marriage. The ex-wife had alleged that our client had harassed her through text messages and then assaulted her during a child drop off meeting.

At trial, our attorneys cross examined the plaintiff and pulled out inconsistencies and misrepresentations in her testimony of the alleged events. Moreover, in support of our client’s defense, we presented evidence to support his innocence and future challenge the plaintiff’s testimony. After a two day trial, the judge ruled that the facts did not warrant a final restraining order to be put in place and she dismissed the temporary restraining order previously set against our client. The court’s finding was directly supported by the fact they we had successfully challenged the plaintiff’s credibility and the judge did not believe her testimony. If you or a loved one has been charged with a restraining order, then contact our office today for a free consultation to learn more about how we may be able to help you.

We recently defended a client who had been charged and arrested for simple assault under 2C:12-1a after Union City police showed up to her residence on a call of alleged domestic violence.

Upon arrival, the police were met by our client and she advised them that her and her fiance got into a heated argument after he arrived home. She explained that he had left earlier in the night to run some errands but that she had a feeling he was up to no good. At some point she found out that he had been drinking and suspected he was then driving around so she demanded that he come home immediately and then that is when the confrontation started.

After speaking with our client the police officers then decided to interview her fiance in order to better assess the situation. However, upon speaking with him they immediately noticed that he had redness to the left side of his face. When they asked what the redness was from he told them that his fiance had punched him with a closed fist to the eye after he arrived home with the car because he had been drinking.

Based on the statements of both individuals and the physical evidence from the redness in the face, the police arrested and charged her with simple assault and served her with a mandatory court date in municipal court after she was processed and released.

The couple quickly made up after the fight and actually kept their wedding plans and were married shortly after the incident, which was before we appeared on our first court date. Like many couples they had their ups and downs and our client was a professional with no prior record who said things just escalated that night based on the stress of the wedding and some other factors going on.

With this in mind we requested and the evidence the state planned to use against our client and quickly discovered that the police never got a statement from our client that she actually purposed punched the victim and there were no pictures of the injuries. Moreover, based on the fact that they had patched their relationship and were attending couples counseling, her now husband said that he did not want to testify against her and exercise his spousal privilege. Based on these facts, our lawyers successfully argued that the case should be dismissed, and the judge ordered the dismissal after hearing from both the defense and prosecutor.

State vs. M.C. decided November 6, 2017