Murder Charges in Hasidic Divorce Case – Defense by Robert Stahl, Esq.
Esther begged Joseph for a Hasidic divorce but got nowhere. Then a rabbi stepped in to solve her problem, permanently. His lawyers claim the FBI set him up.
Esther begged Joseph for a Hasidic divorce but got nowhere. Then a rabbi stepped in to solve her problem, permanently. His lawyers claim the FBI set him up.
On May 2, 2017, the New Jersey Supreme Court beat back an attempt by prosecutors and a lower court judge to require a defendant to create and turn over evidence prior to trial over the defendant’s objection that doing so violated his right to remain silent. In State v. Tier, the Supreme Court clarified an issue that often causes a great deal of argument in the days leading up to criminal trials: the extent to which and in what form a defendant must provide the State with statements by witnesses who are expected to testify for the defense. In ruling for the defense, the Supreme Court provided criminal defendants with a valuable precedential opinion by which to combat overly-aggressive attempts by the State to shift the burden onto the defendant to produce evidence before trial.
Technology has advanced the ease and quality of life immeasurably. Smart phones are handheld computers that can surf the internet; deliver emails, texts and phone calls; take videos and pictures; make dinner reservations and track your every movement through various apps. Our cars can almost drive themselves with lane change warnings; infrared cameras; heads-up displays, cruise control with radar; event data recorders that record speed, braking and seatbelt use; and GPS tracking in case the car is stolen. Home security cameras, Amazon Echo, smart TV, smart appliances and the like can all be controlled remotely through the internet. A variety of devices that are small and comfortable enough to wear, such as Fitbits, iWatches and the like can track our movements, heart rates, calories burned, number of steps and location.
On Wednesday, May 10th, 2017, The Bar Foundation of Union County will be hosting a continuing legal education course entitled “Domestic Violence: Statute and Case Law Update.” Andrew Olesnycky will be speaking during this CLE with active sitting judges in Union County, as well as other professionals. The event will be held at the Garlic Rose Bistro at 28 North Ave. West in Cranford, New Jersey, with the seminar and appetizers happening from 4:45 p.m. – 6:45 p.m. and dinner being served at 6:45 p.m.
You are driving on the roads of New Jersey, paying attention to the speed limit, road conditions, and other drivers, when you glance in your rearview mirror and see the flashing strobe lights of a police car. You carefully reduce speed and pull to the side of the road to let the officer pass, but you realize he is pulling you over. What do you do, and what are your rights?
On April 4, 2017, New Jersey Supreme Court Chief Justice Stuart Rabner issued an order designating Andrew Olesnycky and 13 other attorneys as Certified Criminal Trial Attorneys. By this order, Mr. Olesnycky joins a small group of New Jersey lawyers -- less than 1% state-wide -- who have demonstrated the experience, knowledge, and dedication to the field of criminal law necessary to earn the designation of Certified Criminal Trial Attorney.
You’ve just enjoyed a great vacation in Europe and are now on your way home. After suffering the hassles of long lines and security at the airport and a cramped flight in coach, you arrive back at Newark Airport. You patiently wait in line for the Customs and Border Entry check and sail through after casually chatting about your trip with the officer who stamps your United States passport and welcomes you back home. While waiting at the luggage carousel and hoping that your luggage hasn’t been lost, you’re approached by a Customs and Border Protection officer (“CBP”) and asked to come with him to another room. In that room, CBP officers ask you about your travels - why you were there, how long you were gone, who did you meet and what did you do. You explain that it was a simple, straightforward holiday trip that you had saved up for over the past year. The officers then ask for your cellphone, iPad and computer. You ask why and they say that it is routine. They examine the devices and find that they are all password protected. They ask you to unlock your devices so that they can examine the contents. You are shocked, you are a U.S. citizen with constitutional rights to privacy. Doesn’t the Fourth Amendment protect you from unreasonable searches and seizures, and require the officers to have a warrant supported by probable cause? Usually it does, but not at the border. When you re-enter the United States, you enjoy significantly fewer protections against searches and seizures.
Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense is proud to announce that our managing partner, Robert G. Stahl, has been selected once again for the 2017 Super Lawyers, White-Collar Criminal Defense. This is the 10th straight year that Bob has been selected for this honor by his peers.
An arrest warrant is, in many cases, the formal start of a criminal case against an individual. It is a sworn written recitation of enough “facts” of the case that demonstrate to a judge that there is probable cause to believe that a crime(s) has been committed and the at the defendant committed the alleged crime(s).
Violent police encounters and police officer involved shootings have dominated the national press for some time. Such encounters have led to mass protests; much-needed examinations of police policies, procedures and training; and pleas for better relations between the police and the communities they serve. One result has been the call for body worn video cameras that record encounters between police and citizens in real time. While not perfect, these body worn cameras can provide valuable evidence of what transpired at a given moment during what may have been a high stress encounter.