The People of New Jersey Have Been Warned

Domestic-violence registry a flawed plan
Daily Record - Nov. 30, 2013

On the Monday before Thanksgiving, Assemblyman Reed Gusciora announced on the radio that he was going to save the women of New Jersey from abusive “husbands and boyfriends” by introducing legislation that would create a registry for those found to have committed domestic violence.

Never mind his gender-biased language. Never mind studies sponsored by the state Department of Corrections, Rutgers and others that have shown sex offender registries have had no effect on sexual offense statistics. Repeat sexual offenses have actually increased slightly because of the climate of fear created by the Scarlet Letter-like list, which gives offenders nothing left to lose. Never mind that restraining orders are handed out in divorce cases like candy by the courts.

No one wants to think, much less talk about the climate of fear these lists would create. The honorable assemblyman scored some points for women. Ostensibly.

It turns out that he did introduce the legislation on Tuesday but made no announcement whatsoever about it. Not even on Wednesday.

In the media, this is called a holiday eve news dump.

Erik B. Anderson
HACKETTSTOWN

Know Your Rights

Preponderance of the evidence, also known as balance of probabilities is the standard required in most civil cases. The standard is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than not true. Effectively, the standard is satisfied if there is greater than 50 percent chance that the proposition is true. Lord Denning, in Miller v. Minister of Pensions,[3] described it simply as "more probable than not." Until 1970, this was also the standard used in juvenile court in the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof#Preponderance_of_the_evidence

Know Your Rights

The importance of the role of counsel in alerting the court to the possibility of a defendant's incompetence has long 315*315 been recognized. State v. Lambert, 275 N.J. Super. 125, 129, 645 A.2d 1189 (App.Div. 1994) (citing Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 177 n. 13, 95 S.Ct. 896, 906 n. 13, 43 L.Ed.2d 103, 116 n. 13 (1975)). In fact, defense counsel is ordinarily "in far better position than the trial judge to assay the salient facts concerning the defendant's ability to stand trial and assist in his own defense." State v. Lucas, 30 N.J. 37, 74, 152 A.2d 50 (1959). Likewise, defense counsel is in a better position to alert the court when a mentally ill defendant is competent to stand trial, yet not competent to proceed pro se. When a bona fide doubt is raised as to the competence of a mentally ill defendant to proceed pro se, counsel should be appointed to aid in the competency determination, as well as to assist the defendant in trying the case.

Where a defendant demonstrates a history of psychiatric problems and a current thought disorder, creating a reasonable basis to question his or her competency to stand trial or to raise a defense centering on mental condition, the court is obligated to conduct a further inquiry either by appointing counsel or directing that a psychiatric examination be conducted. Under such circumstances, it is irrelevant that a defendant is not facing a "consequence of magnitude" and is therefore ordinarily not entitled to appointment of counsel. A municipal court should not permit a clearly mentally ill defendant charged with a disorderly persons offense to proceed pro se, even absent the possibility of imposing "consequences of magnitude." Such a defendant should be assigned an attorney, even if by providing counsel he or she is given greater protection than that afforded to a defendant without a psychiatric disability.

More...

Know Your Rights

RULE 4:19. PHYSICAL AND MENTAL EXAMINATION OF PERSONS

In an action in which a claim is asserted by a party for personal injuries or in which the mental or physical condition of a party is in controversy, the adverse party may require the party whose physical or mental condition is in controversy to submit to a physical or mental examination by a medical or other expert by serving upon that party a notice stating with specificity when, where, and by whom the examination will be conducted and advising, to the extent practicable, as to the nature of the examination and any proposed tests. The time for the examination stated in the notice shall not be scheduled to take place prior to 45 days following the service of the notice, and a party who receives such notice and who seeks a protective order shall file a motion therefor, returnable within said 45-day period. The court may, on motion pursuant to R. 4:23-5, either compel the discovery or dismiss the pleading of a party who fails to submit to the examination, to timely move for a protective order, or to reschedule the date of and submit to the examination within a reasonable time following the originally scheduled date. A court order shall, however, be required for a reexamination by the adverse party's expert if the examined party does not consent thereto. This rule shall be applicable to all actions, whenever commenced, in which a physical or mental examination has not yet been conducted.

Note: Source-R.R. 4:25-1; amended July 13, 1994 to be effective September 1, 1994; amended July 5, 2000 to be effective September 5, 2000; amended July 12, 2002 to be effective September 3, 2002.