Top 25 Cases affecti ng Municipal Court for NJ Lawyer Magazine

Revised 9/2/ 2!!

"y #ennet$ %erca&&en' (s)*
No discussion of recent Municipal Court caselaw would +e
co&plet e wit$out first &entioni ng t$e &ost i&portant case in t$e
past 25 years, State v. Chun 194 NJ 54 (2008). Here the NJ -upre&e
Court $eld' subject to certai n condi tions the !"cotest breath testi n#
$achine is scienti %ica"" & re"iab"e and that its resu" ts are ad$issib"e in drun'
drivin# (rosecuti ons. Since Chun is ana" &)ed in other artic"es in the NJ
*a+&er ,a#a)ine the %o""o+i n# are the to( cases recent" & decided.
./0 * ./0 .is&issed 1nder -peedy Trial /$ere More t$an 23!
.ay Lapse*
State v. -setse'as 411 NJ Su(er 1 (!((. .iv. 2009)
-he court reversed the *a+ .ivision convicti on and re/ui red dis$issa"
o% the .01 char#e due to a vio"ati on o% de%endant2 s ri#ht to a s(eed& tria".
-he e3tensi ve de"a& in adjudicati n# this $atter caused so"e"& b& the
state2s re(eated "a(ses in (re(arati on and the %ai"ure to secure its
+i tnesses in%ri n#ed on de%endant2 s due (rocess ri#hts.
./0 2* 0n ./0 case -tate &ust provide 2! &inute o+servati on of
driver prior to +reat$ test +y clear and convincing evidence' +ut
arresti ng officer can testify as part of 2! &inutes
-tate v 1grovics 410 NJ Su(er. 482 (!((. .iv. 2009)
-his a((ea" concerned the ad$issibi"i t& o% the resu" ts o% an !"cotest. 4&
"eave #ranted the State a((ea"ed %ro$ the order o% the *a+ .ivision
su((ressin# the resu" ts o% the !"cotest because the arresti n# o%%icer rather
than the !"cotest o(erator +as the (erson +ho observed de%endant durin#
the t+ent & $inutes (rior to hi$ ta'in# the test. 1n reachin# this
conc"usion the tria" court re"ied on +hat it characteri)ed as the
5(rocedures5 $andated b& the Su(re$e Court in State v. Chun 194 N.J. 54
(2008). -he court reversed. -his !((e""ate (ane" he"d that the State is on" &
re/ui red to estab"ish that the test subject did not in#est re#ur#i tate or
("ace an&thi n# in his or her $outh that $a& co$(ro$i se the re"iabi"i t & o%
the test resu" ts %or a (eriod o% at "east t+ent & $inutes (rior to the
ad$inistrati on o% the !"cotest. -he State can $eet this burden b& ca""in#
an& co$(etent +i tness +ho can so attest.
./0 2* No se)uestrati on of defense e4pert in ./0 case
-tate v* 5opovic$ 405 NJ Su(er. 692 (!((. .iv. 2009)
.e%endant2 s convicti on is reversed7 the tria" court erred +hen it ru"ed
that de%endant2 s e3(ert +as subject to a se/uestrati on order and +ou"d
not (er$i t the e3(ert to +atch the tria" testi $on&.
1
./0 6* .estruction of %ideo Tape &ay 5er&i t ./0 .efendant to
%acate 7uilty 5lea*
State v. ,ustaro 411 NJ Su(er 91 (!((. .iv. 2009)
-he court considered de%endant2 s a((ea" %ro$ the denia" o% a (ost8
sentence $otion to vacate his ("ea o% #ui" t& to drivi n# +hi"e into3icated.
-he $otion +as (redicated on a c"ai $ that the state +i thhe" d e3cu"(ator&
evidence but b& the ti $e the $oti on +as %i"ed the evidence 9 a videota(e
recorded b& the ca$era in the arresti n# o%%icer2 s (atro" car 9 had been
destro&ed throu#h reuse in accordance +i th the (o"ice de(art $ent 2 s
(rocedures. !(("&i n# State v. Parsons 641 N.J. Su(er. 448 (!((. .iv.
2001) and State v. Marshall 126 N.J. 1 10:8 09 (1991) the court
conc"uded that de%endant %ai"ed to estab"ish that he +ou"d not have
ad$i tted to drivi n# i% he had access to the videota(e (rior to the ("ea and
the court %urther conc"uded that the denia" o% his $oti on +as %u"" &
consistent +ith a (ro(er a(("icati on o% the (rinci("es set %orth in State v.
Slater 198 N.J. 145 (2009).
Refusal 5* "reat$ Test warnings now &ust +e given in -panis$
-tate v* Mar)uez ;;;; NJ ;;;;; (2010) (!8658 09) :<12<10
1n this case invo" vi n# a convicti on %or re%usin# to sub$i t to a che$ica"
breath test the Court ho"ds that Ne+ Jerse&=s i$("ied consent "a+ N.J.S.!.
69>48 50.2 and re%usa" "a+ N.J.S.!. 69>48 50.4a re/ui re (roo% that an o%%icer
re/uested the $otorist to sub$i t to a che$ica" breath test and in%or$ed
the (erson o% the conse/uences o% re%usin# to do so. -he state$ent used
to e3("ain to $otorists the conse/uences o% re%usa" $ust be #iven in a
"an#ua#e the (erson s(ea's or understands. 4ecause de%endant ?er$an
,ar/ue) +as advised o% these conse/uences in @n#"ish and there is no
dis(ute that he did not understand @n#"ish his re%usa" convicti on is
reversed.
Refusal 3 0f not enoug$ +reat$ supplied on 8lcotest' officer &ust
read addi tional warni ngs
-tate v* -c$&idt 194 NJ Su(er. 214 (!((. .iv. 2010)
1n this o(inion the court ho"d that (1) the (o"ice are re/uired to co$(" &
+i th N.J.S.!. 69>48 50.2(e) b& readin# the standard "an#ua#e concerni n# the
conse/uences o% a re%usa" to ta'e an !"cotest ((art t+o o% the Standard
State$ent) +hen a de%endant une/ui voca"" & a#rees to sub$i t to an
!"cotest but then %ai"s +ithout reasonab"e e3cuse to (roduce a va"id
sa$("e and (2) the (o"ice have the discreti on to disconti nue the !"cotest
and char#e the arrestee +i th re%usa" +i thout a%%ordi n# the arrestee the
$a3i $u$ e"even atte$(ts that the !"cotest $achine (er$i ts.
Refusal 9* Condo 5ar:ing 7arage is ;uasi, pu+lic for Refusal
2
%iolation*
-tate v* "ertrand 6!< NJ -uper* 5<6 =8pp* .iv* 2!!9>
.e%endant2 s convicti on %or re%usin# to (rovi de breath sa$("es N.J.S.!.
69>48 50.2 is a%%ir$ed. -he (ar'i n# #ara#e o% a hi#h8 rise condo$i ni u$
that he"d 654 cars and the use o% +hich +as restricted to residents o% that
bui"di n# consti tuted a A/uasi8 (ub"ic area5 %or (ur(oses o% the statute.
Refusal <* 5rior refusal counts for 2
rd
./0
-tate v Ciancaglini 411 NJ Su(er. 280 (!((. .iv. 2010) cert #ranted
1n this a((ea" %ro$ a .01 convicti on a%ter (rior se(arate .01 and
re%usa" convicti ons this !((e""ate (ane" disa#rees +ith the ho"din# o% State
v. .iSo$$a 2B2 N.J. Su(er. 6:5 (!((. .iv. 1996) and ho"d that the (rior
re%usa" convicti on does count to+ard $a'i n# this a third o%%ense. -he court
%ee"s this ho"din# is consistent +i th a "ine o% cases both be%ore and a%ter
.iSo$$a conc"udi n# that a (rior .01 convicti on counts to+ard
enhance$ent o% the sentence i$(osed %or a re%usa" convicti on. See e.#.
State v. -e'e" 281 N.J. Su(er. 502 (!((. .iv. 1995). -he court a"so he"d
that doub"e jeo(ard& does not bar reinstate$ent o% the sentence ori#ina"" &
i$(osed in the $unici (a" court %or a third .01 o%%ense +hich +as reduced
in the *a+ .ivision to a sentence %or a %irst .01 o%%ense.
Refusal 9 Refusal does not &erge into ./0
-tate v (c:ert 410 NJ Su(er. 689 (!((. .iv. 2009)
! convicti on %or re%usa" to sub$i t to a breath e3a$i nati on cannot be
$er#ed +ith a .01 convicti on. Such a ("ea a#ree$ent vio"ated a(("icab"e
$er#er (rinci("es as +e"" as the Court2 s ?uide"ines %or C(eration o% D"ea
!#ree$ents in the ,unici(a" Courts o% Ne+ Jerse&.
-earc$ !* Car searc$ re)uires e4igent circu&stances? No
auto&atic auto e4ception? Telep$onic searc$ warrants approved
-tate v* 5ena, @lores 198 NJ B (2009)
-he Su(re$e Court a%%ir$s its "on#standi n# (recedent that (er$i ts an
auto$obi " e search +i thout a +arrant on"& in cases in +hich the (o"ice have
both (robab"e cause to be"ieve that the vehic"e contai ns evidence and
e3i#ent circu$stances that +ou"d justi%& dis(ensin# +i th the +arrant
re/ui re$ent. 0hether e3i#ent circu$stances e3ist is to be decided on a
case8b&8 case basis +ith the %ocus on (o"ice sa%et& and the (reservati on o%
evidence. -he Court a"so deter$i nes that a +arrant obtai ned b&
te"e(honic or e"ectronic $eans is the e/uiva" ent o% an in8(erson +arrant
and does not re/uire (roo% o% e3i#ent circu$stances.
-earc$ * 5assenger 5at down during traffic stop per&i t t ed if
+elief gang &e&+er is ar&ed and dangerous*
8rizona v Jo$nson 1:2 *. @d. 2d B94 (2009)
0hi"e (atro""i n# near a -ucson nei#hborhood associated +ith the
6
Cri(s #an# (o"ice o%%icers servin# on !ri)ona=s #an# tas' %orce sto((ed an
auto$obi " e %or a vehicu"ar in%racti on +arranti n# a citati on. !t the ti $e o%
the sto( the o%%icers had no reason to sus(ect the car=s occu(ants o%
cri $i na" acti vi t&. C%%icer -revi)o attended to res(ondent Johnson the bac'8
seat (assen#er +hose behavior and c"othi n# caused -revi)o to /uestion
hi$. !%ter "earni n# that Johnson +as %ro$ a to+n +ith a Cri(s #an# and
had been in (rison -revi)o as'ed hi$ #et out o% the car in order to
/uestion hi$ %urther out o% the hearin# o% the %ront8 seat (assen#er about
his #an# a%%i"iati on. 4ecause she sus(ected that he +as ar$ed she (atted
hi$ do+n %or sa%et& +hen he e3ited the car. .urin# the (atdo+n she %e"t
the butt o% a #un. !t that (oint Johnson be#an to stru##"e and -revi)o
handcu%%ed hi$. Johnson +as char#ed +ith inter a"ia (ossession o% a
+ea(on b& a (rohi bi ted (ossessor.
He"d> C%%icer -revi)o=s (atdo+n o% Johnson did not vio"ate the Eourth
!$end$ent =s (rohi bi ti on on unreasonab"e searches and sei)ures.
-earc$ 2* 5olice cannot searc$ car passenger co&part &ent if
occupant already arrested*
8rizona v* 7ant 29 -* Ct* 9! =2!!9>
Do"ice $a& search the (assen#er co$(art $ent o% a vehic"e incident
to a recent occu(ant2 s arrest on"& i% it is reasonab"e to be"ieve that an
arrestee $i#ht access the vehic"e at the ti $e o% the search or that the
vehic"e contai ns evidence o% the o%%ense o% arrest. 4e"ton overru"ed.
-earc$ 2 -c$ool 5rincipal can searc$ ve$icle on sc$ool grounds*
-tate v* "est 2! NJ !! =2!!>
! schoo" ad$i nistrator need on"& satis%& the "esser reasonab"e #rounds
standard rather than the (robab" e cause standard to search a student= s
vehic"e (ar'ed on schoo" (ro(ert &
-earc$ 6* (rror +y police dispatc$er in invalid arrest warrant
re)uires suppression of evidence under NJ Constituti on*
-tate v* Aandy 62 NJ -uper* 692 =8pp* .iv* 2!!>
-his a((ea" re/uired the Court to deter$i ne +hether evidence %ound
durin# the search incident to de%endant2 s arrest shou"d have been
su((ressed because the dis(atcher +ho incorrect" & in%or$ed the arresti n#
o%%icer that there +as an outstandi n# arrest +arrant acted unreasonab" &
under the circu$stances even thou#h the conduct o% the arresti n# o%%icer
4
hi$se"% +as reasonab"e.
-he +arrant at issue +hich +as ten &ears o"d at the ti $e had the
sa$e birth $onth but a di%%erent birth da& and &ear. -he %irst na$e on the
+arrant +as a variant s(e""in# o% de%endant = s %irst na$e. -he court
conc"uded that su((ression is re/ui red and conse/uent" & reversed the
convicti on based on NJ Consti tuti on.
Search 5 * 5assengers can +e ordered out if +elief of danger*
-tate v* Mai 2!2 NJ 2 =2!!>
-he o%%icers (resented su%%icient %acts in the tota"i t& o% the
circu$stances that +ou"d create in a (o"ice o%%icer a hei#htened a+areness
o% dan#er that +ou"d +arrant an objecti ve" & reasonab"e o%%icer in securin#
the scene in a $ore e%%ecti ve $anner b& orderi n# the (assen#er to e3i t
the car. -hose sa$e circu$stances authori)e a (o"ice o%%icer to o(en a
vehic"e door as (art o% orderi n# a (assen#er to e3i t. -hus the sei)ure o%
the +ea(on +as (ro(er under the ("ain vie+ doctri ne and the sei)ure o%
the ho"ster and "oaded $a#a)ine %ro$ the (assen#er +as "a+%u" as the
%rui ts o% a (ro(er search incident to an arrest.
-earc$ 3* Mirror B+struction -$ould B+struct .riverCs %iew for
%iolation*
-tate v* "arrow 6!< NJ -uper* 5!9 =8pp* .iv* 2!!9>
! (o"ice o%%icer sto((in# a $otor vehic"e %or vio"ati n# N.J.S.!. 69>68 :4
$ust (rovi de articu"ab" e %acts sho+in# that he or she reasonab" & be"ieved
that an object han#in# %ro$ a rearvi e+ $irror obstructed the driver2 s vie+.
F$i ni bo3in# #"oves han#in#G
-earc$ 9* 5olice cannot searc$ $o&e wit$out warrant *
-tate v* Jefferson 62 NJ -uper* 266 =8pp* .iv* 2!!>
(1) 1n the absence o% a +arrant or a reco#ni)ed e3ce(ti on %ro$ the Eourth
!$end$ent 2 s +arrant re/uire$ent the (o"ice cou"d not "a+%u"" & enter
de%endant2 s ho$e to conduct a -err& t&(e detenti on and investi #ati on o%
de%endant.
(2) ! (o"ice o%%icer2s +ed#i n# herse"% in the door+a& to (revent de%endant
%ro$ c"osin# his %ront door +as entr& into the ho$e.
(6) -he (o"ice %ai"ed to sho+ either 5hot (ursui t5 e3i#ent circu$stances or
a co$$uni t & careta'i n# e3ce(ti on %ro$ the +arrant re/ui re$ent.
(4) !"thou#h the (o"ice entr& +as un"a+%u" de%endant had no ri#ht to resist
(h&sica"" & and the search o% his (erson incident to arrest +as "a+%u".
(5) Consent to search de%endant2 s a(art $ent #iven b& de%endant2 s +i%e
+as tainted b& the unconsti tuti ona" (o"ice conduct and +as not sho+n to
be vo"untar&.
-entenci ng <* Judge Can -uspend .L for Traffic Bffense*
-tate v* Moran ;;;;;; NJ ;;;;;;; (2010) (!8558 09) :<16<10
5

-he "icense sus(ension (rovision o% N.J.S.!. 69>58 61 +hich is
(ub"ished in the ,otor Hehic"e Code o% the Ne+ Jerse& Statutes !nnotated
is not Ahi dden I and de%endant "i'e a"" $otorists is (resu$ed to 'no+ the
"a+. -o ensure that "icense sus(ensions $eted out (ursuant to N.J.S.!.
69>58 61 are i$(osed in a reasonab" & %air and uni%or$ $anner so that
si$i"ar" & situated de%endants are treated si$i"ar" & the Court toda& de%ines
the ter$ A+i "" %u" vio"ati onI contai ned in N.J.S.!. 69>58 61 and enunciates
sentenci n# standards to #uide $unici(a" court and *a+ .ivision jud#es
-entenci ng 9 .efense counsel &ust advise cri&inal of
deport ati on conse)uences*
5adilla v* #entuc:y 2! -* Ct* 692 =2!!>
Detitioner Dadi""a a "a+%u" (er$anent resident o% the Jnited States
%or over 40 &ears %aced de(ortati on a%ter ("eadin# #ui" t& to dru#8
distri buti on char#es in Kentuc'&. 1n (ost convicti on (roceedin#s he c"ai$s
that his counse" not on" & %ai"ed to advise hi$ o% this conse/uence be%ore
he entered the ("ea but a"so to"d hi$ not to +orr& about de(ortati on since
he had "ived in this countr& so "on#. He a""e#es that he +ou"d have #one to
tria" had he not received this incorrect advice -he JS Su(re$e Court he"d
because counse" $ust in%or$ a c"ient +hether his ("ea carries a ris' o%
de(ortati on Dadi""a has su%%icient" & a""e#ed that his counse" +as
consti tuti ona" " & de%icient.
-entenci ng 2!* @our @actors re)uired to wit$draw guilty plea
State v. S"ater 198 NJ 145 (2009)
Jud#es are to consider and ba"ance %our %actors in eva"uati n# $oti ons
to +i thdra+ a #ui" t& ("ea>
(1) +hether the de%endant has asserted a co"orab"e c"ai$ o% innocence7
(2) the nature and stren#th o% the de%endant = s reasons %or +i thdra+a" 7
(6) the e3istence o% a ("ea bar#ai n7 and
(4) +hether +i thdra+a" cou"d resu" t in un%ai r (rejudice to the State or
un%air advanta#e to the accused. -his de%endant has $et his burden and
is enti t" ed to +i thdra+ his #ui" t& ("ea in the interest o% justice.
-entenci ng 2 No 5oints on 1nsafe 99* 2 if More t$an @ive Dears
+etween Bffenses*
Date" v. Ne+ Jerse& ,otor Hehic"e Co$$ission 200 NJ 416 (2009)
-he unsa%e drivi n# tic'et is no (oints %or o%%ense one and t+o. -he
6
rd
#ives the driver 4 (oints un"ess there is $ore than 5 &ears bet+een the
2
nd
and 6
rd
o%%ense. -he Su(re$e Court he"d Jnder N.J.S.!. 69>48 9:.2(e)
the e3e$(ti on (rovision %or assessin# $otor vehic"e (ena" t& (oints %or an
unsa%e drivi n# o%%ense that occurs $ore than %ive &ears a%ter Athe (rior
o%%enseI Athe (rior o%%enseI re%ers on"& to the $ost recent (recedi n#
o%%ense based on both a ("ain readin# o% the statute and a revie+ o% the
B
"e#is"ati ve histor&. -hus the ,otor Hehic"e Co$$ission correct" & i$(osed
$otor vehic"e (oints on Date" %or havin# a %ourth unsa%e drivi n# convicti on
in 200: on"& one &ear a%ter the date o% her (rior third unsa%e drivi n#
o%%ense.
Miranda 22* 5olice did not always need to read&i nister Miranda
warnings
State v. N&ha$$er 19: NJ 686 (2009)
-he tria" court did not err in %indi n# based on the tota"i t& o% the
circu$stances that N&ha$$er 'no+i n#" & vo"untari " & and inte""i #ent" &
+aived his ,iranda ri#hts under both %edera" and state "a+. -hus the tria"
court did not abuse its discreti on in ad$i tti n# N&ha$$er= s con%ession into
evidence. Eurther a de%endant cannot assert that he +as denied his ri#ht
o% con%rontati on under the %edera" and state consti tuti ons un"ess he %irst
atte$(ts to cross8e3a$i ne the +itness on the core accusations in the
case. N&ha$$er had the o((ortuni t & to cross8 e3a$i ne the chi"d8 victi $ at
tria" about her out8 o%8 court testi $on& i$("icati n# hi$ in the cri $e but
chose not to do so7 there%ore he cannot c"ai$ that he +as denied his ri#ht
o% con%rontati on.
Miranda 22* Miranda %iolation cannot +e 8sserted +y Co,
defendant * -tate v* "au& 99 NJ 6!9 =2!!9>
.e%endant (assen#er ,oore=s $oti on to su((ress evidence %ound
durin# a +arrant" ess search o% the vehic"e in +hich he +as ridin# shou"d
have been denied because he did not have standin# to ar#ue that the
driver=s ri#ht a#ainst se"%8 incri $i nati on +as vio"ated and because the
search +as not unreasonab"e.
Miranda 26* .efendant &ust invo:e rig$t to re&ai n silent*
"erg$uis v* T$o&p:i ns 160 S. Ct. 2250 (2010)

.e%endant -ho$('i ns2 si"ence durin# the interro#ati on did not
invo'e his ri#ht to re$ai n si"ent. ! sus(ect2 s ,iranda ri#ht to counse" $ust
be invo'ed 5una$bi #uous" &.5 .avis v. Jnited States 512 J.S. 452 459. 1%
the accused $a'es an 5a$bi #uous or e/uivoca" 5 state$ent or no
state$ent the (o"ice are not re/uired to end the interro#ati on ibid. or
as' /uestions to c"ari%& the accused2s intent id. at 4B18 4B2. -here is no
(rinci("ed reason to ado(t di%%erent standards %or deter$i ni n# +hen an
accused has invo'ed the ,iranda ri#ht to re$ai n si"ent and the ,iranda
ri#ht to counse" at issue in .avis. 4oth (rotect the (rivi"e#e a#ainst
co$(u"sor& se"%8 incri $i nati on b& re/uiri n# an interro#ati on to cease +hen
either ri#ht is invo'ed. -he una$bi #uous invocati on re/uire$ent resu" ts in
an objecti ve in/uir& that 5avoidFsG di%%icu" ti es o% (roo% and ... (rovi deFsG
#uidance to o%%icers5 on ho+ to (roceed in the %ace o% a$bi#ui t &. .avis
su(ra at 4588 459. Had -ho$('i ns said that he +anted to re$ai n si"ent or
that he did not +ant to ta"' he +ou"d have invo'ed his ri#ht to end the
:
/uestioni n#. He did neither.
Trial 25* 1- -upre&e Court Rules La+ Report Not 8d&issi+le in
Cri&inal Case*
Melendez, .iaz v* Mass 29 -*Ct* 2529 =2!!9>
.e%endant2 s dru# convicti on is reversed +here the tria" court2 s
ad$ission o% the (rosecuti on2 s certi %icates b& "aborator& ana" &sts stati n#
that $ateri a" sei)ed b& (o"ice and connected to .e%endant +as cocaine o%
a certai n /uanti t & vio"ated (eti ti oner2 s Si3th !$end$ent ri#ht to con%ront
the +itnesses a#ainst hi$.

#ennet $ %erca&&en is an @dison ,idd"ese3 Count& NJ tria"
attorne& +ho has (ub"ished 125 artic"es in nationa" and Ne+ Jerse&
(ub"icati ons on (robate estate ("anni n# cri$i na" and "iti#ati on to(ics. He
o%ten "ectures to tria" "a+&ers o% the !$erican 4ar !ssociati on Ne+ Jerse&
State 4ar !ssociation and ,idd"ese3 Count& 4ar !ssociation.
Kenneth Herca$$en +as the NJ State 4ar ,unici(a" Court !ttorne& o%
the Lear and (ast (resident o% the ,idd"ese3 Count& ,unici(a"
Drosecutor2 s !ssociati on. He is the (ast chair o% the NJ State 4ar
!ssociation ,unici(a" Court Section. He is the .e(ut& chair o% the !4!
Cri$ina" *a+ co$$i t tee ?D .ivision. Kenneth Herca$$en +as se"ected
one o% on" & three attorne&s as a Su(er *a+&er 2009 in NJ ,onth" & in the
Cri$ina" 8 .01.
He is a hi#h" & re#arded "ecturer on "iti#ati on issues %or the !$erican
4ar !ssociati on 1C*@ Ne+ Jerse& State 4ar !ssociation and ,idd"ese3
Count& 4ar !ssociati on. His artic"es have been (ub"ished b& Ne+ Jerse&
*a+ Journa" !4! *a+ Dractice ,ana#e$ent ,a#a)ine and Ne+ Jerse&
*a+&er. He is the @ditor in Chie% o% the Ne+ Jerse& ,unici(a" Court *a+
Mevie+. ,r. Herca$$en is a reci(ient o% the NJS4!8 L*. Service to the 4ar
!+ard.
He has served as a S(ecia" !ctin# Drosecutor in nine di%%erent
8
cities and to+ns in Ne+ Jerse& and a"so success%u"" & hand"ed over Cne
thousand ,unici(a" Court and Su(erior Court $atters in the (ast 18 &ears.
1n his (rivate (ractice he has devoted a substanti a" (ortion o% his
(ro%essiona" ti $e to the (re(arati on and tria" o% "iti#ated $atters. He has
a((eared in Courts throu#hout Ne+ Jerse& severa" ti $es each +ee' on
Cri$ina" (ersona" injur& $atters ,unici(a" Court tria"s and contested
Drobate hearin#s. He serves as the @ditor o% the (o(u"ar "e#a" +ebsi te
+++.nj "a+s.co$
K@NN@-H H@MC!,,@N N !SSCC1!-@S DC
!--CMN@L !- *!0
2056 0oodbri d#e !ve.
@dison NJ 0881:
:628 5:28 0500
+++.nj "a+s.co$
+++.4eNot?ui" t &.co$
9