Location: New Jersey DWI Lawyer 609 Main St. Toms River, NJ - 08753
The specific offense is defined under New Jersey Statute (N.J.S.) 39:4-50 and is commonly referred to as driving under the influence (DUI) or driving while intoxicated (DWI).
A DUI charge can seriously affect many spheres of the offender’s life, so you should address the situation at the earliest time possible. Many offenders consult a DUI lawyer in NJ to defend them. DUI Attorney in NJ Bartholomew Baffuto is known by reputation for formidable and zealous defense of his clients. Attorney Baffuto does not quit. See an example of an aggressive, sophisticated tactical argument made on behalf of a third-offender client.
AT ORAL ARGUMENT ON 11/15/22 THE STATE FIRST ARGUED THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE AND THE DEFENSE SO STIPULATED
Preliminarily, the State’s argument that the undersigned is debarred from arguing a vital Sixth Amendment issue is nonsensical and proffered without citation or analysis. It is risible that the State would have this Court impair effective assistance of counsel by gagging an argument for relief from prejudicial ineffective assistance of counsel. Any attorney invidiously debarred from a viable Sixth Amendment application must of necessity be relieved as counsel—voluntarily or no. It is legendary that James Burke a/k/a Jimmy the Gent Burke’s defense attorney argued counsel’s own ineffective assistance of counsel following Burke’s conviction in federal court. Once the issue arises then ineffective assistance of counsel is the failure to argue ineffective assistance of counsel—even as to one’s own performance.
At oral argument before Judge Snyder on November 15, 2022 the prosecutor asserted that the defense should be barred from any reliance upon State v. Zingis, 471 N.J.Super. 590 (App.Div. 2022) because Mr. Baffuto has had since April to cite Zingis.
The undersigned, as defense counsel for Mr. Xxxxxx in this matter since September 2021, is once again constrained to stipulate to the State’s argument, delivered before Judge Snyder on November 15, 2022, that defense counsel’s performance was deficient in not having reviewed case law published on April 25, 2022 affording relief to defendants similarly situated to Mr. Xxxxxx, and, as the State would have it, said relief becoming out of reach on July 28, 2022 by action of the Supreme Court. QED, Strickland prejudice to Mr. Xxxxxx. It was error for the Law Division to have disregarded the stipulations of both parties.
The undersigned trusts that the prosecutor will now correct the misrepresentation set forth on page 6 of the State’s Brief and acknowledge the prosecutor’s argument–delivered on her feet on November 15, 2022—i.e., to paraphrase–Baffuto snooze and Xxxxxx lose. My client is in jail. The State apparently now finds its prior position inconvenient. This cannot stand. I cannot and shall not have the prosecutor deny and memory-hole an argument made for the sole purpose of convincing the Court to jail a man. I respectfully apply for the Court to retain jurisdiction of the issue of the specifics
of the prosecutor’s argument for jail and any misrepresentation thereof to this honorable Court. The defense shall undertake to provide a transcript of the November 15, 2022 argument.