Zingis Effect: DWI Cases after the Court’s Recent Holding
Category: On Demand
Member Price: $140
Non-Member Price: $175
Areas of Law: Municipal Court Practice
| NJ CLE: | NJ CLE information: This program has been approved by the Board on Continuing Legal Education of the Supreme Court of New Jersey for 2 hours of total CLE credit (Full Credits Available: NJ General: 2.0). |
| NY CLE (t&nt): | NY Professional Practice Non-Transitional: 2.0 |
| PA CLE: | PA Substantive Credit: 1.5
New: No PACLE fee is required for this program. To earn PA CLE credits, a valid PA Bar ID number must be entered into the CLE form provided after attending the program. |
Keynote
Moderator
Presenters
- Jeffrey Evan Gold, Esq.
- Helmer Conley & Kasselman, PC, Dillon
- Michael Troso, Esq.
- Helmer Conley & Kasselman, PC, Haddon Heights
Presented in cooperation with the NJSBA Municipal Court Practice Section
A must attend update for all DWI practitioners!
In August, the New Jersey Supreme Court announced a decision in State v. Zingis that will undoubtedly impact how DWI matters involving defendants with prior convictions are addressed.
Hear the latest updates from this outstanding panel:
Jeffrey Evan Gold, Esq., a NJICLE Distinguished Service Award winner, former Asst. Burlington County Prosecutor and DWI defense attorney. After representing the NJSBA as an amicus curae party in State v. Zingis and advocating for the position which the Court ultimately adopted, Mr. Gold will provide the latest information on what is required on affected DWI cases going forward.
Michael Troso, Esq., Former Deputy Attorney General with the NJ Division of Criminal Justice and DWI defense attorney. Certified by the Supreme Court of New Jersey as a Certified Municipal Court Trial Attorney and certified by Draeger as an Alcotest Operator, Mr. Troso was on the NJSBA team that litigated State v. Zingis along with Mr. Gold.
Discussion will include:
- New Zingis procedures
- The new online procedures step by step, including what to look for as a defense attorney
- What should be expected from the State in the newly required Dennis-affected discovery (prior convictions circa 2008-2016) - Legal issues left open by Zingis
- The Court treated this as a discovery issue, rather than proof issue (Erlinger) and did not discuss remedy for a failure, so is a Holup motion the proper remedy?
- Will identification of prior record to the finder of fact before conviction be the problem it seems?
- The difference between the State's obligation of discovery and the defense obligation to client as to PCR advice
Don’t miss this valuable update!