Kenneth Vercammen is past president of the Middlesex County NJ Municipal Court Prosecutor's Association. He served as the Cranbury Township Prosecutor. Ken is a NJ trial attorney who has published 130 articles in national and New Jersey publications on Criminal Law and litigation topics. He was awarded the NJ State State Bar Municipal Court Practitioner of the Year. He lectures to police departments as a volunteer on criminal cases, Municipal Court, DWI, traffic and other litigation matters. He is co- Chair of the ABA Criminal Law Committee,GP and was a speaker at the 2012 ABA Annual Meeting attended by 10,000 attorneys and professionals. To schedule a confidential consultation, email us at VercammenAppointments@NJlaws.com, call or

visit Website www.njlaws.com

Kenneth Vercammen & Associates, P.C.

2053 Woodbridge Avenue - Edison, NJ 08817

(732) 572-0500

September 23, 2014

George C. Riley v. New Jersey State Parole Board (A-94-11

George C. Riley v. New Jersey State Parole Board 
(A-94-11; 069327) 

The retroactive application of the 2007 Sex Offender Monitoring Act to George Riley twenty-three years after he committed the sexual offense at issue and after he fully completed his criminal sentence violates the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the United States and New Jersey Constitution. 

State v. Kirby Lenihan (A-45-12; 071497)

9-18-14 State v. Kirby Lenihan (A-45-12; 071497) 
Under the circumstances presented in this case, a violation of the Seat Belt Law, clearly “intended to protect the public health and safety,” is a predicate offense that can support a conviction under N.J.S.A. 2C:40-18b. 

Disbarment- In the Matter of Peter J. Cammarano, III, An Attorney at Law (D-46-13; 073714)

In the Matter of Peter J. Cammarano, III, An Attorney at Law (D-46-13; 073714) 

Respondent’s unethical conduct, consisting of offering favored treatment to a private developer in exchange for money, betrays a solemn public trust and undermines public confidence in honest government, thereby warranting his disbarment. 

State v. Bruno Gibson (A-11-13) (072257)

State v. Bruno Gibson (A-11-13) (072257) 

Due to the fundamental differences between a pre-trial motion to suppress and a trial on the merits, the best1practice is to conduct two separate proceedings. However, the motion record may be incorporated into the trial record if both parties consent and counsel are given wide latitude in cross-examination. Where the evidence from a pre-trial hearing is improperly admitted at the trial on the merits, the correct remedy is remand for a new trial.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JUNE GORTHY A-2678-09T2

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JUNE GORTHY 
A-2678-09T2 
We affirm a trial judge's refusal to allow a defendant who was otherwise competent to stand trial to waive the insanity defense. As called for in State v. Handy, 215 N.J. 334 (2013), the judge engaged in a thorough and searching inquiry of the defendant, her psychiatric history, and the circumstances of the offense. His conclusion was amply supported by the record. Despite defendant's competence to stand trial and to raise substantive defenses to other crimes simultaneously tried, she was unable to make a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of the insanity defense on the charge of stalking.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. SALADIN THOMPSON A-1375-11T4/A-2154-11T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. SALADIN THOMPSON 
A-1375-11T4/A-2154-11T4 (CONSOLIDATED) 

In this appeal, we set aside defendant's convictions for murder and weapons offenses, after our earlier remand to the trial court to conduct a hearing pursuant to State v. Gilmore, 103 N.J. 508 (1986). Based upon our review of the remand record, we determined that we were unable to determine whether the State's exercise of seven of its nine peremptory challenges to excuse African-Americans was the product of impermissible discrimination as opposed to situation-specific bias, because the court failed to engage in the requisite "third-step" analysis established in Gilmore. 

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MARK C. SHEPPARD A-1423-11T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MARK C. SHEPPARD 
A-1423-11T4/ A-0195-12T4(CONSOLIDATED) 
In this appeal, we consider State v. Rose, 206 N.J. 141 (2011) in the context of when other bad acts evidence do not occur contemporaneously with the crime charged and therefore requires "intrinsic"/"non-intrinsic" analysis. A jury found defendant guilty of second-degree aggravated assault and four other offenses, arising out of the stabbing of a Hispanic man. Defendant asserts the trial judge erred by failing to 
suppress, appropriately sanitize, or properly instruct the  jury on the evidence concerning an encounter with the police that occurred three months after the stabbing, in which defendant revealed himself as a loud, aggressive, and foul-mouthed drunk, who made a single anti-Hispanic comment referencing the victim. We reverse and remand for a new trial, concluding the trial court mistakenly exercised its discretion when it admitted the bulk of the evidence concerning the prior encounter, without appropriate "sanitization" or jury instructions. In a companion case, we affirm the trial court's denial of a suppression motion and resulting conviction of weapons offenses.