Success Stories
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 had the opportunity to help out another one of the our clients who had been charged with a DWI and 3rd degree drug possession of prescription drugs. Our client was a hard working family man who had no prior record and had a great job which could have been easily lost if he was convicted of the felony drug possession or couldn’t drive to work for an extended period of time from a DWI conviction.
His case was sent to CJP in Hudson County Superior Court since he was charged with a 3rd degree felony which could carry up 3 – 5 years in state prison if convicted. At CJP our criminal defense attorney was able to speak with the prosecutor about the circumstances of the case and the state agreed to downgrade the charges from an indictable crime down to a disorderly persons offense and send the case back down to municipal court. This was a huge win right from the beginning because now our client was no longer facing the possibility of a felony conviction.
Once at municipal court we began challenging the evidence against our client as it pertained to the drugs and DWI. We were able to put forth a compelling argument and convince the judge to sign an order demanding that the state produce certain evidence against our client by a certain date or in the alternative that those missing pieces be suppressed. Ultimately, we were able successfully argue that the judge dismiss the DWI charges based on several items of missing evidence and the fact that the state may have trouble proving that the defendant actually had the intent to operate the vehicle. As for the drug charges – our client was admitted into the conditional discharge program which will result in a dismissal of the case after 12 months with no violations. To learn more about how a Kearny NJ DWI attorney may be able to help you, contact our office today for a free consultation.
State v. L.B. decided August 30, 2016
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 Jersey City criminal defense attorneys recently represented a former-military client who had been charged criminally with simple assault under 2C:12-1a and criminal mischief under 2C:17-3a after an alleged altercation with his then girlfriend. Each of these charges required appearance in municipal court. To make matters worse for our client, she also filed a temporary restraining order against him and was attempting to get a final restraining put in place. Although restraining orders are considered civil or “quasi” criminal by nature, they actually require an appearance before a County Superior Court Judge. There is no mistaking that these charges are always serious but they held even greater consequences for our client who was a gun owner and in the process of trying to become a police officer. If he lost any aspect of either case, he could kiss his future and his guns goodbye.
The allegations in this case were ugly, like many domestic violence cases, and these situations normally come down to a “he said she said” scenario where a judge may have to make credibility findings on who they believe is telling the truth. These allegations surrounded a night of drinking that escalated into a verbal argument and eventually turned physical. In particular, the plaintiff alleged that our client became aggressive and pushed her face, at which time she attempted to leave his residence but he grabbed her ripping her blouse. He then forced her into his bedroom and stated that he did not want her to leave. The plaintiff then testified that she remained there out of fear of being hurt again if she tried to leave. She was not able to escape until the defendant began vomiting and went to the bathroom.
In most domestic violence cases, passions and emotions run high and this situation was no different. The plaintiff was adamant that she wanted to pursue the restraining order even though they had been dating only days earlier. At the final restraining order trial the judge heard detailed accounts and testimony from both her and our client and considered evidence that was introduced. Based on the testimony that our attorney elicited through cross-examination of the plaintiff, the judge denied her final restraining order outright and dismissed the temporary restraining order previously put in place. Once the restraining order had been dismissed against our client, we appeared back in municipal court and took a hard position against the prosecutor based on the fact that our client had no prior record and the restraining order had been dismissed at the county. In the end, after some back and forth and plea negotiations, all the criminal charges were also dismissed against our client.
State vs. J.G. decided on September 5, 2017
M.B.R. vs. J.G. decided July 19, 2017
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 at (201) 793-8018 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.