Criminal Law Library Blog
These News Briefs and Decision Summaries are from the the New Jersey State Bar Association. They are an exclusive benefit of the Association in partnership with the New Jersey Law Journal. A subscription may be necessary to access the full text of some of the items listed:
NEWS BRIEFS:
Federal Judge Steps Down From Patent Case After Former Clerk Joins Plaintiff’s Gibbons Team
A federal judge has recused himself from a patent dispute between two pharmaceutical companies after the defendants raised concerns about a former law clerk’s involvement in the case before joining Gibbons—the firm representing the plaintiffs.
This week’s Capitol Report covers the NJSBA’s advocacy in Anchor Law Firm, PLLC v. State of New Jersey. The Association appeared as amicus in the Appellate Division to argue against a provision in the the New Jersey Debt Adjustment and Credit Counseling Act that unconstitutionally regulates attorneys who provide debt adjustment services as part of their practice. Read the full report here.
Daniel’s Law Lets Companies ‘Profit Off Tragedy,’ Group Says
A new group is seeking to revise New Jersey’s Daniel’s Law based on its assertion that the law’s current format “allowed the creation of a cottage industry that has turned tragedy into a money-making enterprise.”
Programming Schedule Set for the 2025 NJSBA Annual Meeting and Convention
The 2025 NJSBA Annual Meeting and Convention is the CLE event of the year, with 25 practice area and interest tracks and over 100 programs to peruse. Check out the array of seminars looking at every aspect of the law facing New Jersey practitioners. View CLE seminars by educational track and register. (All program speakers, dates and times are subject to change.)
Saiber to Defend FanDuel in Patent Suit Over Live Gaming Technology
Katherine A. Escanlar of Saiber has entered an appearance for FanDuel and its affiliates in a patent infringement suit brought by WinView IP Holdings, which accuses the daily fantasy sports giant of violating nine gaming-related patents tied to live television programming.
DECISION SUMMARIES:
Click on any decision below to get the full opinion
from the New Jersey Judiciary – April 10, 2025
APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
There are no decisions approved for publication.
NOT APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
CREDITORS’ AND DEBTORS’ RIGHTS
TD Bank, N.A. v. Burris Enter., LLC, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. , Defendants appealed the orders reinstating plaintiff’s previously dismissed complaint, denying defendants’ motion for reconsideration and granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff in a commercial loan foreclosure case. Defendants borrowed $80,000 from plaintiff’s predecessor to finance commercial property. The loan was secured by a mortgage. Defendants defaulted and plaintiff sought to collect the unpaid balance. Plaintiff’s original attorney failed to prosecute earlier civil actions in the matter, leading to dismissals for lack of prosecution. After successfully serving all defendants, plaintiff moved to reinstate the complaint, which the trial court granted. Trial court granted summary judgment to plaintiff, awarding the unpaid sums and attorneys’ fees and costs. Defendants argued trial court erred in reinstating the complaint, denying reconsideration, and granting summary judgment. Court found the “good cause” standard for reinstatement applied and found no abuse of discretion. Court also found defendants failed to demonstrate trial court’s decision was palpably incorrect and upheld summary judgment because plaintiff provided sufficient documentation of the loan transaction while defendants’ claims were unsubstantiated.
CRIMINAL LAW
State v. Cole, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Defendant appealed an order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. Defendant was indicted following a December 2016 home invasion where a group of men, including defendant, broke into a family’s home, threatened the husband with a gun, and ransacked the apartment. Defendant was convicted of multiple charges, including first-degree robbery and endangering the welfare of a child, resulting in a 27-year prison sentence. In his PCR petition, defendant claimed ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for not challenging the sentence’s fairness under State v. Torres, 246 N.J. 246. The PCR court found that the defendant’s appellate counsel was not ineffective, as the sentencing court had considered the Yarbough factors and the overall fairness of the sentence. On appeal, the court affirmed the denial of defendant’s PCR petition, concluding that defendant failed to demonstrate a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel under the Strickland test, as the sentencing court had adequately addressed the fairness of the consecutive sentences.
CRIMINAL LAW
State v. Bentley, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Defendant appealed the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Defendant was convicted for multiple offenses, including first-degree attempted murder and robbery, related to a 2016 armed robbery and shooting at a convenience store. He was sentenced to a 26-year term subject to the No Early Release Act. In his PCR petition, defendant alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel, claiming inadequate communication, failure to review discovery, and improper advice regarding plea offers, which purportedly led to defendant’s rejection of a favorable plea deal. The PCR court determined that defendant’s trial counsel provided effective assistance, having met with defendant multiple times to discuss evidence and strategy, and adequately communicated the strength of the state’s case and its plea offers. The PCR court found defendant’s testimony regarding counsel’s alleged deficiencies lacked credibility. On appeal, the court affirmed the denial of defendant’s PCR petition, concluding that defendant failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel under the Strickland standard, as he knowingly rejected the plea offer despite being informed of the strong evidence against him and his sentencing exposure. The court agreed with the trial court’s findings and reasoning.
CRIMINAL LAW
State v. Beard, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Defendant challenged trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress statements made to law enforcement. After the denial, defendant pled guilty to second-degree endangering the welfare of a child but preserved his right to appeal pretrial motions. Law enforcement discovered child pornography on the internet and executed a search warrant at a residence linked to the IP address. Defendant and others were detained, read their Miranda rights and defendant immediately experienced a medical emergency requiring transport to a hospital where he was given a sedative before he was “interrogated.” Detective testified “defendant ‘blurt[ed] out'” “but I deleted that sh[*]” while at the hospital when told child pornography was found on the computer found at the residence and that he would be charged. Trial court found detective was credible and the Miranda warnings were effectively administered. Court found detective merely informed defendant of his charges, did not attempt to elicit any incriminating information and defendant’s statements were spontaneous and not the result of any interrogation. Although defendant was under the influence of medication, his waiver was voluntary.
CRIMINAL LAW
State v. Kidwai, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Defendant appealed his conviction after pleading guilty to second-degree sexual assault. Defendant was detained during the COVID-19 pandemic. He asserted jail suspended on-site conferences between inmates and their attorneys due to the pandemic and only allowed telephone or video calls. He claimed State disclosed an email during discovery that stated a detective listened to jail calls between defendant and his attorneys. Those attorneys did not represent defendant during his plea hearing. Defendant filed a pro se motion to dismiss. State offered defendant a revised plea offer which defendant accepted after conferring with plea counsel. At the end of defendant’s plea hearing, defense counsel withdrew defendant’s pro se motion. Defendant alleged State violated his attorney-client privilege rights by intercepting jail calls between him and his attorneys. State argued defendant’s guilty plea waived the unsubstantiated claims asserted in his withdrawn motion to dismiss the indictment. Court dismissed defendant’s appeal, holding defendant’s unconditional guilty plea waived his right to raise constitutional claims on appeal.