Success Stories
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
Our Hoboken DWI defense attorneys recently represented a client who was arrested for drunk driving and DWI in a School Zone after Hoboken Police found him passed out unconscious behind the wheel in the middle of the road around 5:44 A.M. Upon approaching the car the police noticed all the doors were locked and there was loud music blasting from inside the car. According to their report, the police could see our client seated inside with his eyes closed but he was completely unresponsive to their commands and it actually took them several minutes of knocking on the windows and physically shaking the car to wake our client from his slumber.
When he finally woke up and rolled down the window, the police smelt an odor of alcoholic beverages emanating from inside the car. According to the report, after speaking with the police, he appeared to be disoriented and did not know where he was at first. The police also noted that he had slow speech and glassy eyes. Based on the circumstances, an ambulance had been called to make sure our client did not need medical attention. When they asked him to step out of the car to be checked by the EMTs he was also observed to be stumbling and had to be guided with the assistance of the medical personnel. Lastly, he was heard making open admissions to the EMTs that he had been consuming alcohol throughout the night.
Based on these observations, the police arrested our client for DWI and DWI in a School Zone and transported him to the police station where he was administered the breathalyzer which showed he was in fact above the legal limit. This was our client’s first time in trouble and he was obviously very distraught about the situation, especially since he faced up to a 2 year loss of his driver’s license, if convicted. In order to challenge the State’s case against him, our defense lawyers began combing through the evidence looking for inconsistencies or potential issues with the police officer’s procedures and the breathalyzer machine itself. Based on the information we uncovered, we brought in a retired state trooper breath test coordinator, as a DWI expert, to challenge the validity of the breathalyzer reading. In the end, our attorneys made a motion to dismiss based on the deficiencies in the State’s evidence and the court dismissed both the DWI and DWI in the School Zone against our client.
State v. G.S. decided on October 24, 2017 resulted in Reckless Driving with 60 day loss of license
Shoplifting Charges in Union City Dismissed
Shoplifting charges are very common in Union City and our criminal defense attorneys frequently appear in the municipal court to defend clients against various disorderly persons offenses including shoplifting. In fact, our attorneys were recently able to secure a dismissal of a shoplifting charge against one of our clients after the case was set for trial and the state’s witness failed to show. Without the witness’ testimony the prosecutor was unable to prove the case.
Shoplifting charges are serious and a conviction will carry various consequences and penalties that could affect your life. Shoplifting, like all Theft Crimes, is based on the amount of merchandise allegedly taken. For instance anything under $200 is a considered a disorderly persons offense punishable by up to 6 months in county jail. Moreover, all disorderly persons offenses will be handled in Union City Municipal Court. If the amount is $200 and over then the charges will be upgraded to an indictable crime and sent to Hudson County Superior Court. Almost all indictable crimes in Hudson County are sent to Central Judicial Processing to be screened by the Hudson County Prosecutor’s Office. Depending on the facts and merchandise alleged, we are often able to secure a downgrade of the shoplifting charges when we appear with our clients in CJP and have the case remanded back down to municipal court as a less serious crime.
Contact Union City NJ Shoplifting Defense Lawyers
Shoplifting is often the result of depression or unwanted side effect of medication. Therefore, it is often habitual and many clients can be repeat offenders. Therefore, it is important to point out that a 3rd offense for shoplifting (no matter what degree or amount) will result in mandatory incarceration. Moreover, shoplifting is considered a crime involving moral turpitude “CIMT” and may therefore affect your immigration status and result in removal proceedings if you are not a U.S. citizen. If you or your loved one has been arrested or charged with shoplifting in Union City, New Jersey then contact our office today for a free consultation with an experienced attorney.
Our office recently defended a client who had been placed on probation for conspiracy to distribute drugs and possession of an assault weapon under 2C:39-9g but then violated his probation by moving out of state and not reporting (referred to as absconding) for several years. His whereabouts were officially unknown for approximately twelve (12) years while he was on the run as a fugitive. However, during this time he had gotten married, had children, and secured a good job in Florida. Recently he was arrested in Florida after being pulled over for speeding and it came up in the system that he had a violation for probation in New Jersey from years earlier. Based on this the Florida police took him into custody for several weeks until he could be extradited back up to New Jersey to address his old charges.
We were able to speak with the County Prosecutor and probation officer assigned to the case and put forth a compelling argument that our client had turned his life around now and that this amounted to a substantial change of circumstances from the original charges. Moreover, we were able to convince the court that any further incarceration would only act as a giant set back and create a hardship for our client and his family instead of serving to help. Based on these persuasive arguments, the prosecutor and probation officer agreed to dismiss the case against our client and release him from jail that day so he could be reunited with his family and return to Florida.
State v. W.W. decided October 21, 2016
Our office recently defended a client who had been placed on probation for conspiracy to distribute drugs and possession of an assault weapon under 2C:39-9g but then violated his probation by moving out of state and not reporting (referred to as absconding) for several years. His whereabouts were officially unknown for approximately twelve (12) years while he was on the run as a fugitive. However, during this time he had gotten married, had children, and secured a good job in Florida. Recently he was arrested in Florida after being pulled over for speeding and it came up in the system that he had a violation for probation in New Jersey from years earlier. Based on this the Florida police took him into custody for several weeks until he could be extradited back up to New Jersey to address his old charges.
We were able to speak with the County Prosecutor and probation officer assigned to the case and put forth a compelling argument that our client had turned his life around now and that this amounted to a substantial change of circumstances from the original charges. Moreover, we were able to convince the court that any further incarceration would only act as a giant set back and create a hardship for our client and his family instead of serving to help. Based on these persuasive arguments, the prosecutor and probation officer agreed to dismiss the case against our client and release him from jail that day so he could be reunited with his family and return to Florida.
State v. W.W. decided October 21, 2016
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.
On August 28, 2025, Bayonne police officers responded to the victim’s home on a report of a female that had been stabbed. Upon arrival they met with the victim who was in distress and bleeding from a laceration on her thigh. Police called the ambulance to respond and render aid.
A subsequent investigation resulted in our client, J.A. being charged with 1st degree home invasion 2C:18-2.1. The police alleged that J.A. had forcibly broken down the door of the victim’s home and attacked her inside which resulted in the victim’s injuries and laceration. Initially, the victim claimed she had been stabbed my J.A. but we were able to successfully contest her allegation with the prosecutor. Based on the allegations, our client, J.A., faced a mandatory period of incarceration between 10 – 20 years in New Jersey state prison, of which 85% of the time must be served without parole. William A. Proetta, Esq. was able to challenge the evidence alleged against J.A. and convince the State to dismiss the first degree home invasion charges. Ultimately, a deal was struck where J.A. was entered into Pre-Trial Intervention for 12 months for criminal mischief.
State v. J.A.
On June 6, 2020, a fight broke out between the defendant, F.H., and the victim, D.H., while inside the kitchen of their shared residence in Jersey City. During the fight, F.H. was alleged to have plunged a 6 inch long knife into the neck of F.H. which severed his carotid artery and jugular vein and caused acute blood loss and anoxic brain injury. Paramedics and police responded to the scene and found the victim unconscious but were able to revive him. Inside the residence, police found the kitchen covered in blood and recovered the blood soaked knife. As part of their investigation, detectives interviewed the other residents who overheard and witnessed part of the fight. Investigators were also able to collect footage which showed the victim bleeding from the neck and losing consciousness as well as the defendant, F.H., covered in blood fleeing from the house.
Police were unable to find F.H. since he had fled before their arrival. Based on their findings, they filed a warrant for F.H.’s arrest on 2nd degree aggravated assault. The charges carried a mandatory period of 5-10 years in state prison with 85% parole disqualifier. F.H. was later picked up on the warrant out-of-state and extradited back to New Jersey to stand trial.
At the time of trial, William A. Proetta, Esq. argued to the jury that F.H. was acting with self-defense when he stabbed D.H. in the neck and had only fled the scene prior police arrival because he was scared of possible retaliation by D.H. and for being blamed by the police for something he didn’t do. Ultimately, the jury agreed with Mr. Proetta’s arguments and, after a short deliberation, the jury found F.H. not guilty of all charges.