|
WHAT WERE YOU
CHARGED WITH?
New Jersey Criminal Lawyer
Home
NJ Criminal Law:
Criminal Charge
Resource Ctr.
NJ Appellate Opinions
Criminal Law Articles
NJ Criminal Law Blog
Criminal Lawyer
Bio
FREE Consultation
15% discount to new web
clients using this form
Contact Info/Office
Directions
HARK & HARK
New Jersey Criminal Lawyer
1101 Marlton Pike West
Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
(866) 427-5529
Practicing in all NJ Counties
|
New Jersey Criminal Lawyer - Appellate Opinions
State v.
Broom-Smith, 201 N.J. 229 (2010)
Moreover, the cross-assignment order, which may provide for more
than one substitute judge, should prescribe the sequence to which
substitute judges are to be resorted. That, in turn, will eliminate
any question of judge shopping. Practically speaking, prescribing
the sequence will militate against assigning every municipal court
judge in a vicinage as a substitute for every other judge because of
the burden that would cast on the first judges in the sequence.
It goes
without saying that when a warrant applicant applies to a substitute
judge, a record should be made of the reason the application is not
being presented to the territorially-appropriate court. Finally, the
cross-assignment order should be renewed annually to account for
changes in judicial appointments.
Part III. Warrants
State v. Broom-Smith, 201
N.J. 229 (2010)
Nevertheless,
in the exercise of our supervisory authority over the courts, we
have determined that, going forward, some order and uniformity must
be imposed on the cross-assignment procedure. First, we reiterate
that the rule and the statute are co-extensive and authorize
cross-assignment only in cases of disqualification or “inability” to
hear a case. That, generally, will require the officers seeking the
warrant to attempt to contact the judge of the
territorially-appropriate court. It will be that judge's
disqualification or inability to hear the case that will trigger the
cross-assignment order. Obviously, if the judge is absent or
otherwise incapacitated (for example, away on vacation or
hospitalized), the officers need not go first to the judge's
chambers, office or home. In that case, the “inability” standard is
plainly satisfied. However, the fact that the judge is busy with
other matters or home for lunch should not automatically trigger
cross-assignment. Rather, the officers should wait a reasonable
period unless, for some reason, the matter is emergent and time is
of the essence.
Further, the fact that a particular municipal court is not “in
session,” that is, holding court, does not necessarily mean that the
judge is “unable” to hear a warrant application. It may be that in
furtherance of his private practice, the judge is far from his
vicinage. In that case, he may, in fact, be “unable” to hear the
matter, especially if there are time constraints involved. But it
does not follow that a judge who is sitting in his local law office
is “unable” to entertain a warrant application, especially since
that is part and parcel of his judicial responsibilities.
Contact
experienced, aggressive
New Jersey criminal lawyer, Jeffrey Hark
Email Now or Call
1.866.427.5529
|
