A Non-Hostile Takeover Episode with Rich Lomurro

(00:00.482)
This podcast is not a source of legal advice. No two legal cases are the same. Contact an attorney if you require legal assistance. back to Mighty Merp, Rich. Great to be back. About exactly a year. A year later, and a lot happens in 12 months. I'm excited to chat with you again. Well, what's most exciting is that I'm taking your show over. And this is going to be called the Merp Takeover hosted by

Rich Lemuro and in the hot seat is going to be you. How does that sound? I think I'm prepared for it. I'm a little concerned. Can I like take the fifth every so often if I feel I need to? You can, but I'm not going to stop there. We'll see how goes. I would love for you to take us through your journey the way I explained my journey.

into practicing law? Because I am myself I'm curious about you. that's a good question. I don't think I've shared my origin story on the Mighty Murr podcast. That's why we're doing this. I am from New Jersey, but I'm from North Jersey. I grew up in Wayne, New Jersey and went to Wayne Valley. There's a

There's a hills and a valley. It's always which side did you live on and what's high school. So I went to Wayne Valley. I sort of had an interesting childhood in the sense that I, when I was younger, I didn't talk until I was about five years old, which is pretty interesting since that's what I do for a living. And at the time they didn't really have a diagnosis. They just.

I just couldn't talk. I went to a speech therapist. I learned every single letter individually. And still sometimes there's words that I've never heard before and I just, my brain will not process it. I literally have to practice the words out loud. I've never known you to be someone for a loss for words. So I'm shocked. I'm shocked. Well, you know, the joke in my family is that I didn't talk till I was five, but I've been making up words since then. Truth.

 (02:25.294)
And was a speech therapist greatest accomplishment was told so So Academically, I was not a great student when I was younger because of the delay. I was a loved to play sports But as I got older I sort of knew I wanted to go to law school. It was always in my mind I have a Cousin aunt, know, she's my cousin but more like an aunt who was a

criminal defense attorney in Texas. did federal criminal defense, white, a lot of white collar crimes, and she just was amazing and wanted to grow up and be her. So I'm going to give a shout out to Shirley Bacchus Lobel, who we still talk and definitely was inspirational and one of the reasons why I went to law school. Went to Ithaca College undergrad, was a political science major, and then

I got married right after college. literally graduated in May of 93 and I got married in June of 93. I took a year off. Studied for the LSATs and, just applied to all the local schools in the area. Seton Hall, Delaware law school, Temple Rutgers. think that was really it. And, Seton Hall and,

was accepted into Cian Hall in Delaware, waitlisted at Rutgers and Temple. I went to Delaware law school. I loved it. And I declined, sent letters to Rutgers and Temple and said, take me off your wait list. Knew I wanted criminal law. That was my next question. That never changed. That was always the gig for you. But here's the thing. This is what did change.

I went to law school thinking that I was going to prosecute violent crimes against women and children. And that really was my focus when I went to law school. I just did a lot of work with violence against women in undergrad, a lot of studies, a lot of courses on that issue. And then

 (04:45.248)
I did work at a women's center in between college, not a domestic violence women's center, but a women's center that provided health care services to women and usually underprivileged women were the majority of our clients, our patients. And so that was really what my goal was. And then pretty quickly in law school, it was clear that I would say my sense of justice and fairness and values really more aligned.

to be on the defense side and be a public defender. And I think that was clear within like the first semester. think everyone said like, you will be a public defender. I don't know if it was Doc Martens that I was wearing at the time or... Something spoke about a public defender in a minute. That may have been I know. I remember interviewing with the district attorney's office of Philly for an internship and like, I knew I was not answering the questions correctly.

which included, know, well, what happens if a victim didn't want to prosecute? Would you subpoena them? Would you, you know, mandate them to testify? And I said, no, I wouldn't make a woman do that, which is not how cases are prosecuted, you know? So, and then I went to the public defender's office after that in Philadelphia, which I, is the,

One of the best offices in the country, the Philadelphia Public Defender's Office, you have an intensive training program when you're there. It's not like you just go and you're in a courtroom. The first three weeks or so, you're literally in a classroom and you're training and you start off in very basic probable cause hearings and you're doing that for three to six months until they feel that you have the skills to go to the next

Division, which is the municipal court, which are bench trials. wow. three to six months until they feel that you're ready to move to the next unit, which could be either the juvenile unit or felony trials that are waiving the juries. And so it takes you about two years at the fastest. You could about two years to get a jury trial. And during that whole time, they are training you. and then you're with, you know,

 (07:08.98)
a hundred other attorneys that you can ask, you know, every question of how to handle cases. So it really was an amazing learning experience. And I was there for about six years. like you were in fact, doing the thing that you wanted and believed you were meant to do. my goodness. Yes. I loved it. It clicked. I loved it. And I

I graduated in 97 and right when I graduated, I had a professor's husband who was starting a business, which is ironic because it's a very outdated concept now, but it was a digital business to deliver up-to-date case law to different big law firms. And I was working with them to start the business initially, and I didn't start at the public defender's office until the spring of 98.

And so it was about six months or so of not working as a lawyer after I graduated. And so it definitely was the perfect fit. And I loved it. And I was there for about six years. I specialized my last three years in juvenile. I was a supervisor in the juvenile unit, which I also love to have that specialty. And then

I think you know this, but I had four kids in four years. It's hard for me to have them that. Yes, I do. Not understanding it as a different thing. Wow. Yeah. So what point is this after the six year stretch or is it during during. So I was pregnant with my first one when I was in the major trial unit, which is the jury trial unit. and

then came back after her full time and then had the twins two years later came back part time. And when I had Max, which is who's my youngest, which knows this, there's nothing new, was a little bit of a, my goodness, how did that happen situation? It just didn't make sense anymore to go back to work after Max to have four kids.

 (09:32.004)
And I started teaching at Rowan in their law and justice department. taught criminal law, criminal sentencing. I like to call that the time where I was like putting a little bit of brakes on my legal career. And, and then I went back full time a few years later, teaching and full time in South, South Jersey area and, working in Atlantic city. And my former partner also was a Philadelphia public defender as well, which is how we.

Yeah. So I worked with Joe Levin, law firm was Levin Pesetsner Levin at the end. The last five years we were together and it just worked because we both had that same training of being Philadelphia public defenders. We would talk to the clients exact same way and it just sometimes it would be funny. They would call him and he would give them the answer. They call me. I'd give them the same answer. We would never talk about it. You know. So,

We talked about this when I was your guest, which was that that's probably the best training you can have is in the public defender sector, because you're dealing with the most challenging cases and you're being confronted with some of really challenging clients with challenging cases. And that kind of, want to segue that into a question for you. You have these heavy cases and you have clients looking at 20, 30 years.

How do you navigate that issue with them when a plea has been presented to them where they can serve a fraction of that time and then the consequences if they turn that down and go to trial? How did you navigate those waters? mean, I think that with every case, you know, there is

an evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the case and what the state can prove and what the state can't prove when somebody is charged with offenses. And so, and this comes with years of experience of figuring out what the value of the case is. And it's really hard to use that terminology because when I say value, I mean the value of the appropriate, fair and just sentence.

 (11:58.365)
I love that concept. We don't think of value, but that's exactly what it is. That's really very interesting. In civil, all we do is think about value. That's all we do is say dollars and cents, but really what you're saying is completely logical for criminal as well. Right. And every case is different and it develops differently. So, I'm going to go with a really serious case and example.

Okay, and I'm going to bring up cases that people don't like. so you know, the cases that people don't like and when I say people, mean, anyone in the world does not like these cases and they're hard cases to try are the sexual assault charges that involve a minor. Sure. And they're really hard cases. And

You know, the hardest part is managing expectations with clients on all cases. but I find that these cases are hard because so many of my clients, you know, are vehemently deny any wrongdoing or they believe that the conduct might've been wrong, but not criminal, which is like a very weird line. but you know, I will give you an example of maybe there was inappropriate

conversations that were not, should not have had with the child, but is that an endangering the welfare of a child type offense? And then the ramifications, it's not just prison on these cases. There's Megan's law, there's parole supervision for life. There's like all these additional penalties. And so I always say to my clients, my first goal is to keep you out of prison and jail.

so you can maintain your freedom. And then, you know, I have to go through cases. It's really about weighing the strengths and weaknesses of the case. There are some cases where there's no evidence other than the individual's word. It's their word against my client's word, right? There's no DNA. There's no what we call fresh complaint, like early reporting.

 (14:20.421)
There's no injuries, there's no medicals, there's no support. There is no one else who can corroborate that, you know, this may have occurred or they witnessed, you know, the defendant coming out of the room or the defendant, you know, like sometimes it's just one person's word against another. said, she said, question. Those are, those are tough. They're very hard cases. Right. And sometimes.

not even their sexual assaults, their, this occurs on college campuses a lot. This occurs with, individuals where one person says it's consensual. The other person says it's not. and then, you know, the real issue that I try to convey to my clients is that, you know, trial is not a guarantee. That's the hardest thing when it's about someone's freedom and about their guilt or

their guilt or not guilt, right? It's whether the state can prove the person guilty or not guilty. And unfortunately, in that equation, because I think of it somewhat as an equation is, will the jury believe the complaining witness? And I use the term complaining witness because I'm a defense attorney, but I know people listening are going to say victim. And some of them are victims and some of them aren't. And that's really the truth of the matter. But

It really, in these cases come down to that individual. And, I, I said it to Tom when we were previewing the whole kind of season is that everyone wants the truth to come out in trial. don't, I don't know how you would feel about my comments in a civil trial, but when I say to my clients is the truth does not come out at trial. That doesn't there. There is a version of the truth. There is the state's version of the truth.

And there is a defense version of the truth if defense is able to present it because we can't always present it. Our clients can't always take the witness stand. There's sometimes no other evidence other than, you know, the defendant denied making a denial on the witness stand. And it's not like there's a movie camera that comes back of like what occurred. then we know.

 (16:47.997)
So I always say to my clients, what version of the truth is going to be believed by the jury? And unfortunately in those cases, if the victim complaining witness is believed and is determined to be credible, they're hard cases to win because the jurors do not like them. so it's a lot. Yeah. You couldn't be more correct about, the truth not coming out at trial.

It's a misconception of our society that all of a sudden, you know, the drapes pulled back and there's the truth. In civil cases, you have one doctor that says there's a herniated disc, you have one doctor that says there isn't a herniated disc, and there is no great explanation at trial. It is a credibility call. And for the sexual assault case, by the way, I have to ask you this, I'm going to pivot for a second because this is... I can't get past the thought that you were brought to the practice of law.

advocating for women and children on the other end of the criminal justice system and then representing the same people who may have been accused of those types of crimes. You got to take me through that process for you. that's a really, you know, see, you hear very often the prosecutors could never flip it over beyond the other side or victims advocates. I need to understand Melissa Rosenblum's story. I think after working at the public defender's office for a really long time,

that and I'm not going to say I'm jaded because I think I'm actually pretty still shocked by some cases and shocked by I think there's still a naivety to me after 27 years, which I think is surprising. It's good. yeah. I think it's necessary. I think when you no longer have it, when I no longer like care, that's when you're done.

You can't do it anymore. But what I learned and what people don't really like to hear is that there's just a huge injustice in the system. And people use the criminal justice system sometimes as a sword and not as a shield. And when you see cases after cases of people trying to gain an upper hand by filing criminal charges,

 (19:12.595)
You realize that it's not always and it's really never what it seems. And what I would say is, as corny as it sounds, is I really believe in our constitutional rights. I really believe that if someone is accused, they have this presumption of innocence and they have the true right to an zealous advocate for them.

And I say to my clients, it doesn't matter if I believe you or not. doesn't matter if I think like, it doesn't matter the strengths or weaknesses of the case. I'm always going to go in and argue for you as zealously as I can. So I think what I learned in working in Philadelphia is that the police investigation on cases were so minimal.

Literally, it felt like I could go to the police department in Philly and say, this guy that I used to know, Rich Lamora, pushed me down and grabbed my purse and I have injuries. And you would be charged with a robbery based on that level of information without a lot of investigation. I've also seen, when I was in Philadelphia,

there was a domestic violence court. And we called it love court because I guess we have like a very warped sense of humor. And I was in that courtroom a lot. And I would say that more often than not, and this is a sad statistic, more often than not, the cases were not real cases. They were people utilizing the criminal justice system to get their partners out of the house

to try to gain a benefit in a custody issue. And I'd have cases like 40 to 50 cases on a list in a day and maybe, maybe see a handful of real cases of real victims that needed those protections. And I know this is not what people want to hear, but it is unfortunately part of the system as well. So I think

 (21:35.123)
realizing that and then believing having that true belief in your constitutional rights that You have a right to a zealous advocate and an attorney Kind of combined to realize that in order for the system to be fair and just for everyone They need a strong attorney Let me ask you this That's 100 % right and I I subscribed to the same thought process

The issue is that a lot of people can't, they just cannot accept that, which is hard. Because you say, yeah, go ahead. Yeah. I was gonna say, but here's the thing is that the clients, my clients that I represent, that have done bad things, that's the figuring out the value of the case. Sometimes people call me and I look at the facts of the case and there are cases that they're gonna have to spend time in prison for.

Like the facts are the allegations are provable. Then the question is what's the right number? What's the right number to deter them to punish them and to protect and That's what's figuring out the value of the kids We don't live and we shouldn't live in a society Where we are judged by the worst conduct and it is never redeemable

I don't believe in that fact that people aren't redeemable and that people can't change and that people can't evolve. Yeah. I found from discussing with criminal defense lawyers that most of them don't believe in a good person or an evil person, that there's just decisions that are made. I say that I would never want to be judged by the worst decision I've made in my life.

Yeah, well, I'm very thankful there were no cameras in college, right? The world is shit. Well, yeah, we've we've got, you know, And you think about, know, someone one scenario always troubles me and that maybe somebody gets into a fight because their girlfriend got hit on at the bar, they throw one punch and that one punch. May kill somebody. And if it kills them, they're in this completely different world versus.

 (23:53.051)
the punch that does nothing to the guy and they get the car and everybody drives away. It's just a matter of inches. And also whether they're charged or not. I recently had a client, 20, 24 year old in a bar, you know, someone's trash talking him, trash talking to him, getting him in getting in his face, you know, my client throws a punch, one punch. I want to confirm this.

Maybe more than I think one punch maybe more but I think it was one punch and the guy went down hit his head. My clients now charged with a third degree felony. Yeah. And and we thankfully had it resolved in a very favorable way. But yeah, it's a bar fight. And it's the same idea of you know, was it stupid. I mean, I said to my client he was doing it purposely and you're like,

totally walked into it, but you're right. My client is lucky that it wasn't worse, that it was a serious bodily injury or that it caused a death, but he's also unlucky that he was charged because there's lots of bar fights where nobody's charged. you've also that value of

the case example comes into play there, right? Cause you have some things that go in your favor, bar fight, might've been getting harassed by that guy. You have the value on the other end, which is that he did some significant damage. What's the value you kind of meet in the middle? That's a really good point. Yeah. And the last one. And it's different for everyone. That's the other thing, which is what people don't understand. So this client that I'm talking about had no prior record. he was

eligible for a diversionary program. yeah. And he chose not to do that. He chose to plead to a simple assault mutual fight, which is a petty disorderly person's offense for no further penalty. So it was in the end a good result. To me, it's logical. In that scenario, I say you want that diversionary program in your pocket. God forbid something happens in the future. Another value analysis.

 (26:14.385)
You may also say I'm the type of guy that's never gonna be near a bar again. I'll take the diversion of value analysis. I really love the way you put that. Yeah, so and every person, every client that comes in is in a different situation. And so I, my hardest issue with clients and client control sometimes is when they're seeing what's in the paper or they're in jail being detained and they're like this person just got

this sentence, why can't you do that? And I try to explain the nuances of each case, it depends on what you're charged with, how serious the offense is, what the proofs are, what your prior record is, any mitigation. So it's very hard to compare cases based on just what somebody's charged with.

I couldn't agree with you more and people walk into the office and say, well, that person got $5 million. I read it in the paper. I want $5 million. That's not, you have to look at all the other circumstances. And then when you go to trial, you have in the criminal realm, mandatory minimum sentences and that plays in. you know, for civil, you know, it's just the jury picking out a number out of the air and awarding it to my client. in criminal, you have these things just

Haunting you where if you lose you can't ask for probation You're going away and you're going away for a very long time. How does that play? Yeah, I mean I will tell you that I have heavy heart and it's hard like when my clients For whatever reason they have like, you know, I understand clients that are like I'm not guilty I'm not admitting I did anything and I respect that but I

I am not a gambler. I like the guarantees. being in Atlantic City, you're not a gambler. I love it. I'm not a gambler. mean, everyone can come and gamble and I'm happy to like see you in Atlantic City or represent you in Atlantic City. But now I like the sure thing. And I'm going to give you two examples of the reality of going to trial or not. You know, I had a client with charge with two

 (28:37.469)
pretty serious offenses to alleged victims and offered seven years. He had three years in and it was, he would have had to serve 85 % of it. So he was going to serve around sex plus years. He did. He, he rejected the offer. He was around 57, 58 at the time. said, I'm not guilty. The truth will come out. And, know, and I said,

It's not really how the case works. I explained to him the same thing I've said multiple times. and he was found guilty after trial. he hasn't been sentenced yet, but he's gonna, he's gonna spend the rest of his life in jail in prison. He has to what he has. He's got mandatory. And I, I do feel terrible and I will, because I don't think life sentences are what is needed.

or just, will tell him to appeal and I will give him the two to three issues that he may have. But I don't think he has appeal issues. I won almost all my pretrial motions, is probably why the charge was that charge. I had another case, which was a huge case, a domestic violence case where my client shot her husband on Christmas day and it made very big news.

And there was no doubt that she was a victim of domestic violence. and when she, she resolved with a plea in the end, she did, she did. So it's resolved. She's been sentenced and I will say I've spoken to her and she has given me permission to talk about her case. So, but. So we had an expert report which said that she was a victim of domestic violence.

He physically beat her for their whole marriage of 30 years. We know that prior to the shooting, he put a gun to her face and threatened her. The problem is, that he put the gun down, he got into bed and he was lying in bed. He was naked. And we don't know how much time passed. We know that it could have been as.

 (30:58.351)
much as five minutes, could have been three minutes. It was like a very short amount of time. But door was away from him, you know, so she could have possibly walked out the door. And instead she picked up the gun and shot him. And she got, she pled guilty to a manslaughter. She was initially charged with the murder. So for people that don't know, murder is the most serious offense. It's 30 years to life. If you're found guilty of that.

never thought she was going to be found guilty of that, to be honest with you. Then there's ag manslaughter, and then there's manslaughter. And the maximum penalty on manslaughter was 10 years. And we talked about everything. And what's interesting about the case, which is why one of the reasons why I wanted to really have this conversation with you is that when the plea went through and she was sentenced,

The reactions to this case were visceral and very extreme on both sides of the spectrum. Sure. People thinking that she didn't get enough sentence and people thinking that she shouldn't have spent any time in prison. Problem is, that self-defense in New Jersey is very specifically defined. And although we know about intimate partner violence and battered women syndrome, they're in perfect self-defense.

They're just imperfect self-defense. And so the family, the family came to me. It's okay. I'm like, I do that too with my staff. I don't know if it was your staff where I'm like, I can like coo them while they're at the door. but the family said to me, what do you think? And I said, it's a good offer of six years. She already had almost two years in. I said, I would love to try this case.

If you're asking me from a criminal trial perspective, I would love to try this case. This is a great case for a criminal defense attorney. It's rare that our facts line up, you know? But I can't tell you what to do. It's not my mom. Because I was talking to the son and he said, if it was your mom, what would you do? And not a lot of people he he's smart. He's a smart young man to ask me that.

 (33:22.715)
And I said, if it was my mom, I would tell her to take the deal because she'd be happy at the time she was 57 years old. Yeah. We've, we've been in that situation many times. also say, if you went to trial, speaking of moms, if my mom's on your jury, you're guilty. If my dad's on your jury, you're not guilty. And that's the type of, that's the type of risk you're taking. Right. And so listen, there, there were a lot of people that, and you know, I had so many people reach out to me and comment, but there,

The truth is, that there were people who responded with she could have left, right? She could have left. Right. And then there were people that were like, I mean, there's no dispute that she was assaulted that night, but you know, and there were people that didn't think she should have been charged at all. And unfortunately, the way the system is, is that going to trial is a risk.

And, unfortunately my client really couldn't remember the time period between the gun being in her face and then her firing the weapon. that's, that's, that's the whole case. And that's the case. And, and, and listen, that's the result of trauma. And that's the result of, you know, you know, it's not unusual. She, she, the reason why I know she's believable, besides the fact that they do like,

psychological testing that can show that she's not being deceptive to some extent, right? Is that she could have put it together and said, this is what happened and this is why, but she never did because she really couldn't remember. She remembered the gun in her face and then she remembered him bleeding and she called 911. She tried to get him help. And I think it's a really good example that for those of us practicing

We all thought it was a pretty fair and just result. got a number of calls from people saying retired judges, for example, who said you did a really good job because it was the right result. And people just don't understand that, you know, trials are not certain. And, you know, she was found guilty of an ag man or the manslaughter. She would have gotten more than the six years. No question. No question.

 (35:48.179)
Yeah, heavy consequences. I think unless you've been in the arena and you've played in this specific set of boundaries for a long time, it's hard to just pick the paper up and say that was fair, but that was fair. Yeah. I mean, that's really, I mean, that's sometimes the hardest thing about working with young prosecutors. And listen, I believe in the teaching I have.

Interns, every semester from Stockton, have law students that I teach that come and work, you know, follow me around. believe that working in the prosecutor's office or a public defender's office is the best way to learn. Right. But as a practitioner, sometimes I'm like, I know where this is ending and I would like to end it, you know, six months sooner. We don't have to do all these things. I promise you, but I get, I was there.

I was there on the other side fighting tooth and nail on a 10 day driver's license suspension where at the end of the day that's where it was going to go anyway. probably nowadays I'd say, let's just get to where we need to be. But yeah, it's not so easy. get it. The interesting question on that, for your client who you've read the riot act to, given them a fair warning that there's a good chance this is not going to go their way, the judge has brought them in the courtroom and given them a plea cut off.

and they say, still want to go to trial. There's something known as a trial tax. Do you think it's a real thing? And what is your experience with that playing in that type of scenario where you have a client who's just being unreasonable? I think there's a trial tax if you take it to vert. And I think the state and I think most people in the judiciary, which again, I'm guessing on this, but I think they would say, no, the plea is called the plea bargain.

It's not that you're getting taxed for taking it to trial. your bargain. Now you're getting the fair deal. I think that's what people would say, but I think it's a... I think it's a tax. I think it's a trial penalty. think clients are, defendants who take cases to trial are punished. And I would give more of an example. know, there's certain... New Jersey laws are really...

 (38:12.619)
rigid in the sentencing. They are. To an extent. You know, the judge doesn't have a lot of authority to sentence out of the sentencing range. The range is the range, but you can get to that end. You can get to that high end. Yes. Yes. And so I would say the best example of a trial tax that I've seen is I had clients charged with second degree robbery and they were

working girls. Understood. And I like to call it as a business transaction that went bad, that they could not agree to the terms of that transaction. And they were offered like a suspended sentence or a probationary sentence. They didn't take it. I went to trial, this is years ago, like over 10 years ago, we went to trial.

and they were found not guilty of the robbery they were found not guilty cross the board they were found guilty that there were two girls of a theft a simple assault which is a robbery but that's a whole nother story that's a hell of a circle yeah but you know a theft is a third degree offense there's no mandatory prison time there non-presumption too they shouldn't go to jail

And there was a presumption of non-incarceration and the judge sent them to jail for five years with a one-third tip. Yeah, that's a tax. That is a punishment That's really good tax exam. I think of the tax more in municipal court where the consequences are not as grand and they had an opportunity to plead to a zero-point ticket but instead they said, I wasn't careless and then they get the max fine and the max points. You see that?

Yes, and I've had that in municipal court and sometimes in municipal court, it sort of upsets me a little bit more. You're going to like this rationale. I'll tell you why. Sometimes the people in municipal court, they just want the court to hear their side of the story. Yeah, that's true. It's their only experience in the justice system. want to be heard. They're law abiding people. They're there for a traffic ticket and they want

 (40:30.609)
Justice and their justice is just to be heard and so a traffic ticket could take 10 minutes that trial 10 minutes So I had a 91 year old woman Who was charged with the careless driving and she said she had never had a ticket in her life Never so we did the trial and she said I looked left. I looked right I looked left and then when

And it was a two lane road and she's like, I merged onto the road and this truck, long truck was barreling down and cut into me. So it looked like she hit the car and she said, I did not in the car was speeding and it's a fender bender, you know? So we listed it for trial. 10 minute trial, 30 minute trial. The judge suspended her license and we took the test.

Yes. that's brutal. Brutal. mean, it's just mean. It's just mean. She just wanted to be, she just wanted her version of the story to be told. And what, what they don't understand the 91 year old is that judges there for 52 weeks, hearing 200 people in court every week, whine, whine, whine. they just, it's hard to come into that traffic ticket with an open mind and to preserve that.

moment that she's supposed to have more and they're more like, nah, wasting my time. Not an easy, not an easy. I agree. But municipal court is the courtroom that most people in New Jersey experience. Right. No question. If that's, if we're to have one thing represent our justice system, more people are going through that courtroom than any other court. Correct. And you know what?

to slow up and just offer a little kindness. I like... Some judges are weighted that though. Some judges and some prosecutors are truly gifted at that. What you find is the towns that have 300 cases on the docket every day, it's harder in there. Right, right. But that's the trial tax. mean, and I'm gonna tell you with municipal court cases,

 (42:51.439)
I don't know how much you, I know you did do defense work for municipal court. Not as much anymore. But my private clients that want to fight cases, I literally say to them, I am happy to fight the case, but you have to be willing to take the two steps, which means you have to be willing to try it in municipal court and lose and appeal it. Take it up. Because that's going to be your, that's going to be the only fair shake you get.

And people don't like that either people don't like my analysis of municipal court But I just think when everyone's hired by the same people everyone's getting the check from the same organization same town organizations the town police prosecutors even public defenders and Yeah, it's an inherent really it really I recognize probably the only way it works but

It's an inherent comp. It is. And that's why the individual needs to be willing to take it to the two steps. Because if it's a case that's officer involved, I believe the officers are always going to be deemed credible. And they have to be willing to realize that they have to appeal it, which is sort of crazy as well.

So what about, I have a question for you that I think is so important and maybe not analyzed enough from the lawyer's perspective. And that is where you are going to court. So for example, a case may get no billed and not even charged in one County and in another County, they're going to come at you with the hardest charge possible. And you're going all the way on it. That it is incredible. The diversity that you have in that type of.

decision-making process. I think it's a dangerous thing. I think it's very dangerous and I think the power that the prosecutor's office has is a little dangerous as well with the charges. So it's twofold. So with regards to a practicing attorney, I am going to say you need to know the county that you're in and you need to know the prosecutor's office. And if you don't know that, it's okay if you don't know it.

 (45:10.919)
But you need to call someone who practices there more often to get the lay of the land. There are towns in South Jersey. There are counties in South Jersey. I'm not going to name them, but people will know what I'm talking about. There is a particular county that I say prosecutes like they're on steroids. And sometimes, so I'm going to give you

this example and I think you'll know what I'm talking about. If you were in a car in, I'm going to give Camden County for example, and they found three Valiums under your seat. Camden County is that is just so everyone knows that's a third degree felony charge in New Jersey to have. I'm assuming that you don't have a prescription for it. You don't have a valid or legitimate reason to have Xanax or Valium.

And that is a third degree charge, which carries a maximum five years in New Jersey State Prison with a presumption of non-incarceration. So meaning that you most likely get probation or diversionary. In Camden for that case, that is being downgraded if not dismissed. Outright, yeah. Worst case scenario, you're immutable or you're a DP. Worst case scenario. Disorderly persons, failure to turn over or wandering or something like that.

It is going to be downgraded faster than you can say. Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious. mean like... 100 % agree with you. 100%. So, but in other counties, that same case will not be downgraded. It will stay in superior court as a felony. And if you have prior records, if you have prior charges,

They might offer you a prison sentence on that case. And I have literally called like prosecutors in that, that I'm going to use that county as an example without naming it and to say like, what are you doing? And they, they have said, well, that's, that's who we are. Like almost very proud of it. which seems wrong that in one county, which is, you know, less than an hour away from another county, we're supposed to be prosecuting uniform.

 (47:35.567)
in New Jersey, right? shouldn't. That's the whole reason for mandatory minimum sentences is to be consistent in Camden as you are in Morris as you are in Burlington. But that what you just said is the prime example why it's not uniform. It's not well, and also because the prosecutors decide the charge. The prosecutor decides whether to downgrade it or which we call remand back to municipal court or not. So I mean,

That's why when you asked me the question, kind of put it both in at the same time, you know, the power of the prosecutor's office and also the inconsistencies throughout New Jersey, you know, of resolutions of cases, you know, and that's the reality. But a good criminal defense attorney would

make sure that they know what the policies are. And I do all of South Jersey. I handle my home base is Atlanta County and Cape May County. I have a satellite office in Cumberland County. I do handle cases in Salem and Camden and Ocean, Burlington sometimes, and Gloucester. And that's it. I won't go any further north than that. And Ocean is more because Ocean borders Atlantic.

So it's a wide region counting. Sure. Right. like if the courthouse was further north, I probably would be like, no, I'm not going cause it's too far, but because, I do have clients in Atlantic and ocean, but I won't go to North Jersey and I feel like I could try a case anywhere, but I don't have the relationships. don't know the court houses and I think it really is a disservice to a client, going in without.

at least knowing what judges will do in this case, you know, or how they handle things. I mean, I don't know how else to say it. You know, there are cases where you have violations of probation and knowing what a judge is going to do on the violation. Critical. How do you advise a client? Why would a client hire you if you're like, I don't know what this judge does. That goes back to your value analysis. What's the value? And if you don't understand the value, how are you going to advise on it? Correct.

 (50:01.467)
Correct. mean, I think for any attorney, whether it's civil or criminal, the best thing you can do for your client is be honest and direct with them. yeah. You're not doing anybody a favor by pumping them up one way the other. I mean, I don't know how many times and then also not to make promises. Do not make promises to your client. I do not know how many times I say I cannot guarantee. I cannot guarantee the result. I can't guarantee the release. I can't guarantee, you know, and

And when my clients say you said, like, and then I said, I cannot guarantee because that's really where the relationships, you know that if you, if you had a client come in and you were like, my goodness, this is $5 million worth of the keys. And the next line would be, but I can't guarantee which way it's going to go. It is impo. don't have a crystal ball and I've seen both ways. cannot guarantee. Right. And that's what is the hardest thing. Cause there's not certainty.

Which is why coming again, figuring out the best resolution for the case, you know, is the guarantee. And that's really the, you know, the truth of handling cases. I did want to, I'm going to jump back to something you said earlier though, when you were talking, we were talking about, and I think I raised it about trying to compare cases, like the value of cases and everyone is different.

I had someone, think in Ocean County, maybe Monmouth, call me on a domestic violence case and they said, my client saw your resolution and wanted to know how you got to it because I have a case that's a similar backpack. Okay. And I said, okay, tell me your facts. And other than that, the two individuals had no prior record.

and they were both victims of domestic violence. The fact patterns were not the same at all. when I say that, the person who killed their paramour, their boyfriend at the time, hid the body, you know, didn't call police, didn't, you know, and so when we ended up talking about the kids, I was like, no, these are not the same cases at all. Other than,

 (52:31.445)
They were both charged with murder. They were both victims of domestic violence. And, what was the third, the both victims that do and no prior record. Those are three pieces at an enormous puzzle. It is an enormous puzzle. And that's what I try. Do you, you understand this too, as trial attorneys, it's putting the puzzle pieces together. And when we're in front of a jury,

we're putting the puzzle pieces together so that in the end, our defense or theory of the keys is there in a beautiful picture. Then you've done your job and that's about as good as you can do. Because either they're gonna get your puzzle or they're gonna get the other puzzle. Right, but you know the worst part about a jury trial, what do you think the worst part about the jury trial is? That is an incredible question.

The worst part about a jury trial for me is not being able to question the jurors as to why they came to the conclusion they came to. And we can't do that in New Jersey. You can do it in other states. But you're talking about, you think that opting into the decision to have a jury trial? I know I mean like in the jury trial, like in a jury trial, there comes a point for me, like in the middle of, there's a point in the jury trial where I'm like, this is the worst part.

Why? It's not a view when they're presenting their side. No. What? What is it for you? When it goes to the jury. the moment, the moment. Not when they give us a verdict. I mean, when I rest and the state rests. And everything's going back. And everything goes back into a jury room. that's the most nerve wracking moment because you it's all been you get no more shots. That's Right. And you can't control anything anymore.

And I'm not saying you can control everything in a jury trial, but you at least believe that you can control a lot of things in the jury trial. You can control your objections and what might come in or what might come out. You're percent right. The way I've, I've, and the way I feel, the only other way I can explain this that makes sense to me is when you have, and you're not a gambler, but when you have a blackjack can with money on the table that you're not comfortable with more than you're comfortable with on the table.

 (54:57.377)
You have what you believe is a strong hand, a very, very strong hand, and the dealer is showing a good hand too. That moment before they flip your cards over is when you're with a stranger. And it's such an, yeah, that's the most uncomfortable thing. Right, because you don't have control and you could do everything. mean, the case that I gave the example of my client who hasn't been sentenced yet, was offered a 7-

He was thrilled with my representation. He was, you know, he couldn't believe that the jury came back with guilty verdicts, know, you'll never know. don't know. Yeah. So, I mean, the truth is though, it goes back to the jury and then, what their conversations are. It's terrifying. So I, the case that I told you about where my,

my working client, my working girl client was found guilty of the theft and a simple assault, which is the definition of a robbery, like first year law school definition. Years and years later, it is funny, years and years later, I was at an event and I was talking to someone and I said, how do I know you? you, do you live in the...

Do you live in Linwood? Are you a parent? Blah, blah, Are kids the same age? And he said, yes, I do live in the same town as you, but that's not how you know me. And I was like, how do I know you? And he said, I was the foreperson on the jury. my goodness. And I said, because you can't ask, I said, what happened? That's it. Just tee it And he looked. like, I talk? I said, everything's done.

Like it's never like, they can tell you, you just can't ask them specific. And I said, I'm just curious because you know, theft in a simple assault is actually a robbery. So I, I'm confused. And he said, we could not come to an anonymous verdict. We couldn't get past that first question, which was the robbery charge. And it was contentious and fighting. And he said, and it was, they were out for a long.

 (57:19.489)
It was more than a day if not two. He said we decided to go from the lowest charge up. Then they could do it that way. And I said, you know you were instructed not to do it that way. yeah, they violated the rule, but that's how they needed to do that to get it done. They split the baby. Yeah, and they split the baby. And that's probably a fair and just result in the end. Wow, what a full circle. On that note, have to wrap this up. We have so much more to talk about and we're gonna do this again, but...

Where I'm going and the reason I have to stop is important because, Monmouth County's public defender Van Lane passed away a few weeks ago. I'm going to his memorial service and you, knowing public defenders, he was such an honorable and stoic and patient man. That's where I'm headed. so I know you'll appreciate that. So I wanted to say that. Yeah. Well, thank you. And we will pick this up again and you need to ask why I don't gamble anymore.

Well that'll be my first next question.

 (58:25.515)
We hope you enjoyed this episode of the Mighty Murph Podcast. This podcast is not a source of legal advice. No two legal cases are the same. Contact an attorney if you require legal assistance.