Top Ten Defenses to Drug Charges

Notice of Pretrial Motions CDS

We often file:
1) Suppress Evidence
2) Miranda/Privilege
3) Exclude Lab Tests
4) Discovery
5) Experts
6) Reciprocal discovery
7) Speedy Trial
8) Notice of Objection to Lab Reports

PRE TRIAL MOTIONS
At a time to be set by the Court, Defendant will move for Orders pursuant to R. 3:10 5, 3:13 1, and 7:7-7, as follows and requests oral argument pursuant to R. 1:6 2(d) to preserve all of defendant's rights and defenses:
1) Suppress Evidence. Defendant will move to suppress, evidence obtained by the State during its investigation of case, pursuant to R. 3:5 7 and 7:5-2, because evidence ie defendant's person, breath, blood, and/or other things was seized unlawfully, without a warrant and contrary to U.S. Const. Amends. IV and XIV and N.J. Const. Art.1, para.7. Defendant believes the State will use this evidence in proceedings before this Court on the above captioned charges.
2) Miranda/Privilege. Defendant will move to exclude statements by, and evidence obtained from, Defendant during the State's investigation of this case because the statements and evidence (a) create substantial danger of undue prejudice to Defendant contrary to Evid.R. 403 (previously Evid.R. 4), (b) are privileged under Evid.R. 503 (previously Evid.R. 25), and (c) were obtained contrary to U.S. Const. Amends. V, VI, IX, and XIV, NJ Constitution 1, paras.1, 10, and 2], and requirements stated in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US. 486, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and its progeny.
3) Exclude Drug Tests. If police used a drug testing instrument in this case, Defendant will move to exclude evidence ( of drug test results because (a) the Attorney General failed to exercise administrative authority and prescribe methods and procedures for periodic inspection of drug testing instruments as required by statute, and (b) without such properly prescribed methods and procedures, the State cannot lay the foundation needed for admission of drug test results into evidence at trial.
4) Discovery. Demand is made the state preserve any video and audio and advise if there is a video of the stop or arrest. Defendant requests that the State provide paper copy of any relevant discovery as required by Rule 3:13-3, Rule 7:7-7(b). Defendant further requests that the Court enter a DISCOVERY ORDER, provided the prosecutor neither sends notice of specific objections in writing pursuant to R. 3:1 4 nor moves timely for a protective order pursuant to R. 3:13 3(d). . If the State fails to provide discovery as requested herein, Defendant may move either before or during trial pursuant to R. 3:13 3(f), R. 3:17 4, and Evid.R. 807 (previously Evid.R 64), as applicable, for an Order (a) permitting discovery or inspection of undisclosed materials, (b) granting a continuance, (c) prohibiting introduction in evidence of undisclosed material, (d) monetary sanctions, (e) dismissal of the charges, and (f) such other order as the Court deems appropriate.
5) Defense demands expert reports of the state. Defendant may call the following experts to testify- Expert Frank Novakowski, Kevin M. Flanagan, and/or Others to be provided if and when retained following receipt of the state's expert.
6) Reciprocal Discovery. Defendant may call certain fact witnesses to testify, inter alia, that: they have known Defendant, b) they saw Defendant before or after police saw Defendant, c) Defendant was not under the influence of drugs, d) and e) there was no articulable suspicion that Defendant had violated the law. The witnesses will be named following/ after the state provides complete discovery.
Defendant may use demonstrative and documentary evidence, which the State may inspect and copy or photograph after paying reasonable expenses therefor: a) photographs c) video e) maps g) pharmacy records h) films d) diagrams f) medical/hospital h) weather records
7) Speedy Trial. Defendant demands a speedy trial pursuant to U.S. Const. Amend. VI and N.J. Const. Art.1, para.10.
8) Notice of Objection. If the State gives notice of intent to proffer a certificate executed by a laboratory employee pursuant to N.J.S. 2C: 35 19c, Defendant hereby objects to it on the grounds that Defendant intends to contest at trial the composition, quality, and quantity of substances submitted to the laboratory for analysis.
Pursuant to ¬¬N.J.S.A. 2C: 35-19, the defendant through attorney, Kenneth Vercammen, does hereby object to the entry of proffered laboratory certificate as evidence at the time of trial in this matter, pursuant to Bullcoming v New Mexico 131 S. Ct. 2705 (2011), Crawford v. Washington 541 U.S. 36 (2004), State v. Berezansky 386 NJ Super. 84 (App. Div. 2006), State v. Kent 391 NJ Super. 352 (App. Div. 2007) State v. Renshaw 390 NJ Super. 456 (App. Div. 2007), State v. Simbara 175 NJ 37 (2002)