Folks that receive “appearance ticket” may come to the part of the criminal court (e.g. part AR2 in Queens) where Judicial Hearing Officer (JHO), rather than the Criminal Court Judge will be presiding. Court personnel would ask one to fill out consent to adjudication before a judicial hearing officer, such as Form CRC 3063-4. Procedure and laws are the same as in other parts before judge, but pace is a bit faster. Court attorneys, who assist judge, are very helpful in suggesting how to proceed, because of their regular presence in the courtroom before that judge. Sometimes, however, the outcome before JHO may not be desirable for defendant. For example, defendant may prefer to engage in the plea bargaining with assistant district attorney (ADA), who is probably not present in JHO’s courtroom, but is present in criminal judge’s courtroom. This designed JHO-Judge system allows flexibility for defendant to present its case to JHO, but also to ask JHO for a transfer to criminal judge for hearing (e.g. part AP2 in Queens). This should be a great news for the defendant who is in a tough spot and would like to explore plea bargaining possibilities before the trial with ADA.
Today, a panel of Judges from the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York (EDNY) put together a very effective presentation for the current U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder. The presentation was about two rehabilitation programs put in place by EDNY: Pretrial Opportunity Program (POP) an Special Options Services program (SOS). After opening statements, EDNY invited successful program participants to address audience about their misfortunes. These were very emotional moments, with presenters’ tears and words even touching upon cold-stone faces of the U.S. Marshall’s Service and the court’s security personnel. The point made by EDNY and (I think) agreed by Mr. Holder is that not everyone deserves equal punishment under the law. There are those who, as a result of the environment where they have been brought up and/or mistakes made, deserve a lighter treatment, especially if offense is drug related. According to the EDNY report, general premise is “that many substance abusers are arrested for behavior that is grounded in their drug or alcohol addictions and, but for those addictions, they might lead law-abiding lives.” Id. at 7. Of course this notion is not new. In the state system, we have Brooklyn Treatment Court that attempts to put…
New Jersey State maintains pretrial intervention program (“PTI”). The program allows individuals to avoid prosecution for the charges pending against them. PTI goal is to rehabilitate individuals and return them to the community without criminal conviction. The program is not for everyone, and has a list of limitations and criteria outlined under N.J.S 2C:43-12. Additional PTI criteria requirements have been promulgated by the Supreme Court under Rule 3:28, which among other things adds time requirements for PTI submission: Application for pretrial intervention shall be made at the earliest possible opportunity, including before indictment, but in any event no later than twenty-eight days after indictment. (emphasis added). Is there anything that can be done by individuals, that are otherwise PTI eligible, but missed the 28-day filing time frame? One obvious answer is “it depends” on the circumstances of that individual. The “it depends” phrase also implies that the 28-day rule can be applied flexibly. The extend of flexibility depends on the prosecutor. Prosecutor has great discretion to decide whether a defendant should be admitted into PTI. State v. Wallace, 146 N.J. 576, 582 (N.J. 1996). The discretion includes prosecutorial consent to apply for PTI “out of time.” State v. Horner, 2012…
Read More 28-Day Rule of New Jersey Pretrial Intervention Program
