BLOG

During my undergraduate journey at Rutgers University, I underwent significant growth both academically and as a leader. Two key influences for this growth were my role as a paralegal at the Law Offices of Eric B. Morrell and my tenure as President of an IFC Fraternity. These experiences were instrumental in achieving what I consider my proudest accomplishment to date: admission as a full-time student at Rutgers Law School. In March 2023, a fraternity brother offered me the opportunity to cover for him at the Law Offices of Eric B. Morrell during spring break. Seizing this chance, I promptly accepted. Working closely with Eric during that week allowed us to establish a connection, leading to him extending an offer for me to work for him during the 2023-2024 school year. Since the fall, I have worked part-time at the Law Offices of Eric B. Morrell. I learned numerous valuable skills that have helped me in the early stages of my law career. As a paralegal, we perform a crucial role behind the scenes. While Eric represents you in court, our paralegals handle client communication, interact with courts, prosecutors, and judges, and ensure your case file is updated with the essential motions and documents needed for success. Our firm is deeply committed to our clients' welfare, sparing no effort to secure the best possible outcomes. Working at Eric's firm has been immensely fulfilling; investing hours in studying statutes, researching precedents, drafting documents, and corresponding with courts culminates in the enjoyment of witnessing our clients achieve favorable results. My experience was vital in developing professional, leadership, and academic skills crucial for my career. Eric generously offers positions every school year to Rutgers students who want to develop skills in the legal field. This opportunity offers the chance to develop your writing skills as you learn how to professionally convey a concise message to the court and opposing parties. Moreover, it cultivates strong organizational and interpersonal communication skills necessary for a successful legal career. Eric occasionally invites paralegals to his networking group, where he demonstrates outstanding leadership and delivers captivating speeches. Through these events, Eric not only showcases his exceptional leadership skills but also facilitates valuable networking opportunities among fellow business owners. While working at the Law Offices of Eric B. Morrell, I held the position of President at an IFC Fraternity. As stressful and time consuming as it was, being President taught me so much about myself. I grew into a decisive, confident leader—a transformation that will undoubtedly benefit me throughout my lifetime. Eric and I bonded over this experience, as he gave me advice along the way and even performed a seminar in front of my fraternity during a chapter meeting. Amidst juggling fraternity commitments, work, and academic responsibilities, I dedicated a significant portion of my time in the fall to preparing for the October LSAT. It proved to be one of the most demanding and draining periods of my life, requiring substantial sacrifices during my senior year. Throughout this challenging journey, Eric provided unwavering support and understanding, recognizing the stress I was under. I performed well on the LSAT and applied to numerous schools, with Rutgers Law being my target school. Remarkably, Rutgers Law admitted me into their upcoming 1L class. In a personal call from the Dean of Admissions, he specifically cited my role as a paralegal at the Law Offices of Eric B. Morrell as impressive, further affirming the impact of my experiences. As a boss and mentor, Eric B. Morrell embodies professionalism and genuine mentorship. He provides an excellent example for what it takes to be a successful attorney. Eric's support for his paralegals is evident in his readiness to assist with questions and his methods of efficiently delegating responsibilities for each case. Eric cares about his employees, as he prioritizes their academic studies and strives to grow a strong relationship with them. My favorite aspect of working for Eric is his ability to trust his paralegals to navigate the fast-paced learning environment autonomously. He instills a sense of accountability among his team, teaching them to take ownership of their actions—a valuable life lesson that extends beyond the workplace. If you're presented with the chance or have an interest in pursuing law, I strongly encourage you to consider applying at the Law Offices of Eric B. Morrell. I expect to use many of the professional skills and legal skills I learned at the firm everyday in my career. I am confident that this opportunity will further enrich experience in law school and in the professional world overall. I hope this reflective blog post has provided insight into the rewarding journey of working as a paralegal. Thank you Eric, Tyler Norman

Background In the realm of DWI , understanding the admissibility of Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) evidence is crucial. Recent legal precedents, such as State vs. Olenowski (Olenowski II) , have highlighted the standards governing the use of DRE testimony in cases involving driving under the influence of drugs. At the Law Offices of Eric B. Morrell , our legal team is well-versed in the intricacies of DRE evidence, offering comprehensive guidance to clients facing DUI drug charges. Our offices practice DWI law for over 25 years and are familiar with both drug and alcohol DWI cases. Admissibility of DRE Evidence The legal landscape surrounding DRE evidence is defined by the landmark case Olenowski II, where the Supreme Court outlined specific guidelines for its admissibility. NJSA 39:4-50 prohibits impaired driving whether through alcohol or drugs. Despite a Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) above 0.08% leads to a per se violation, there is no such equivalent that exists for drugs. Our firm recognizes the significance of this ruling and its implications for both the prosecution and defense in DUI drug cases. Part I: DRE 12-Step Protocol Detecting whether a driver is under the influence of drugs is a challenging process and can be difficult for law enforcement to detect. Thus, law enforcement and researchers developed a 12-Step Protocol to enable such detection. This 12 Step Protocol is as follows: (1) A breath alcohol test; (2) An interview of the arresting officer; (3) A preliminary examination and first pulse check; (4) A series of eye examinations; (5) Four divided attention tests; (6) A second examination and vital signs check; (7) A dark room examination of pupil size and ingestion sites; (8) An assessment of muscle tone; (9) A check for injection sites; (10) An interrogation of the driver by the DRE; 2 (11) A final opinion, based on the totality of the examination, about whether the driver is under the influence of a drug or drugs; and (12) A toxicological analysis. Any violation of 1 or more of these steps invalidates the DRE’s evaluation and can be used as a factor for inadmissibility of DRE evidence. Confirmation Bias Recognizing the inherent risks of confirmation bias in the DRE protocol, our firm acknowledges the subjective nature of certain examinations. Drivers admitting to drug use during evaluations may influence how the DRE evaluates the driver. Resultantly, DRE’s are called to the incident when there is only a suspected drunk driver. When encountering DRE’s, we understand the palpable risks of confirmation bias when a DRE officer administers the protocol. As such, our offices recognize the limitations a DRE’s opinion may have as a result of the Olenowski decision, and are prepared to create defenses to ensure a great result. Our offices recently represented a client that interacted with a DRE during a traffic stop. Once pulled over, our client provided a urine sample , which was sent to the New Jersey State Police and later tested positive for Xanax. While our client’s urine sample provided evidence of prior ingestion, it did not identify whether they were under the influence. The Olenowski decision indicates that the DRE must make a reasonable attempt to obtain a blood sample as a positive toxicology report from a blood sample is a clear indicator of impairment. As a result, our offices were able to recognize the inconsistency in the toxicology report as our client only provided the DRE a urine sample, and were able to have their charge remanded to Reckless Driving instead of a DUI. Future of DWI Plea Bargaining The future of DWI plea bargaining in New Jersey is undergoing a significant transformation, primarily due to the withdrawal of Guideline 4 , which previously prohibited plea agreements in driving while intoxicated (DWI) cases. With the repeal of this guideline, previously restricted plea negotiations in DWI cases can now be conducted, allowing for more flexibility in resolving these cases. The new rules allow for plea deals in DWI cases, but with some conditions. If someone is convicted of driving under the influence of certain drugs, they might lose their driving privileges for at least six months. Additionally, there are strict guidelines in place to ensure that these plea deals are fair and in line with the law. The withdrawal of Guideline 4 also has implications for existing case law and administrative procedures. While some precedents are overruled, others remain unaffected, underscoring the evolving nature of DWI law in New Jersey. This means lawyers need to stay updated to help their clients navigate these changes effectively. Our law offices understand the importance of staying up-to-date with the new Superior Court Order. At the Law Offices of Eric B. Morrell , we prioritize staying informed by regularly attending seminars and engaging with new legal developments. This proactive approach ensures that we are equipped to navigate the complexities of the legal landscape effectively, providing our clients with the most knowledgeable and informed representation possible. With every case we are committed to achieving great outcomes for our clients and advocate to the full exercise of their rights. EBM Law’s Commitment The Law Offices of Eric B. Morrell, located at 142 Livingston Ave, New Brunswick NJ 08901, are committed to helping our clients fight for the appropriate assessment. Eric B. Morrell has over 20 years of experience in defending clients with criminal charges. Some charges that he routinely deals with are: 1. Criminal Defense 2. DUI/DWI 3. Guns and Weapons Crimes 4. Pre-Trial Detention Hearings 5. Expungements for Prior Convictions

At the Law Offices of Eric B. Morrell, we always want the best outcome for our clients. The Pretrial Intervention Program (PTI) is a path we advocate for our clients to be enrolled in so they can avoid prosecution and improve their lives. We recommend this program to our clients when they are eligible. The PTI program is targeted towards first time offenders charged with non violent crimes and offers rehabilitative services to deter future criminal activities/behavior. It is a great result if your matter is resolved through the PTI program as one can avoid having a criminal record. When it pertains to more serious crimes such as those that carry a presumption of incarceration or those who have prior third or fourth degree indictable offenses but were not sentenced to state prison, we put in the effort to write a Compelling Reasons letter brief to the PTI Unit. The purpose of this letter brief is to convince the Prosecutor to allow our client into the program and prove how it will benefit them and society. The letter consists of 17 points as to why our client should be admitted and informs the prosecutor that our client is a great candidate for the program. We collect important and positive information regarding our clients and their contributions to society such as resume, community service hours, awards, proof of employment and character letters from employers, relatives and friends. Depending on the clients and the circumstances of their case, we have them enroll in an anger management program, attend AA meetings or be evaluated by a forensic psychologist. These reports and letters from forensic psychologists are added to the Compelling Reasons letter to show that they are making headway in improving their lives and that prosecution would not be beneficial as they are not a danger to society. Additionally we ask clients to come into the office to let us know more about their positive attributes and to contribute to this process. These supporting documents are submitted along with the PTI application and the Compelling Reasons letter. If the client is accepted into the PTI program, the next step is the PTI interview. The prosecutor’s office in some counties are backlogged and the interview is not completed before the client is indicted. We ensure that our clients are interviewed by the PTI unit before their next court appearance. As a result the judges and the prosecutors feel more comfortable as they see a competent lawyer advocating for their client. We understand that there is a language barrier at times and some of our clients do not speak English fluently. Fortunately there is a Spanish version of the PTI application which translates everything from the English version so that our Spanish speaking clients understand better what we are applying them to and how beneficial it will be to their lives. If the prosecutor rejects the client for PTI, we appeal their rejection by writing a PTI Appeal Brief. This brief is an extensive argument that we submit to the Judge which counteracts each point that the prosecutor has made in their rejection brief and includes more positive information on our client. The Pretrial Intervention Program (PTI) application and process can be stressful for our clients without counsel. Hiring a professional and experienced lawyer at the Law Offices of Eric B. Morrell is essential especially when a client is eligible for a program but faces potential objection by the prosecutor for PTI admission. We know what to include that will improve our clients’ chances of getting enrolled into the PTI program. If you or someone you know has questions about the Pretrial Intervention Program (PTI) or is considering applying to the program without counsel, do not hesitate to contact our offices. EBM Law’s Commitment The Law Offices of Eric B. Morrell, located at 142 Livingston Ave, New Brunswick NJ 08901, are committed to helping our clients fight for the appropriate assessment. Eric B. Morrell has over 20 years of experience in defending clients with criminal charges. Some charges that he routinely deals with are: 1. Criminal Defense 2. DUI/DWI 3. Guns and Weapons Crimes 4. Pre-Trial Detention Hearings 5. Expungements for Prior Convictions

Asset forfeiture can be a complicated process and represents a challenging aspect of the legal system. It involves significant stakes for clients whose property has been seized. At the Law Offices of Eric B. Morrell, we recently dealt with an asset forfeiture case where we contested the seizure of money and valuables by the DEA. Challenging the DEA asset forfeiture can seem like an overbearing legal obstacle but at our firm we were able to tackle these kinds of cases for our clients. Law Offices of Eric B. Morrell’s DEA Asset Forfeiture Procedures A DEA asset forfeiture is a legal process where the government seizes assets possibly connected to criminal activities. Assets can include money, vehicles, real estate and other valuable property. The purpose of an asset forfeiture is to deprive an individual engaging in criminal activities of their resources. However, an asset forfeiture is not always completely justified, and it is possible to have the government return all if not some of an individual’s assets. The forfeiture process begins by law enforcement seizing. When our client receives a notice of seizure, it details what has been seized and how to challenge the forfeiture. Our client did not comprehend fully how to challenge the forfeiture as it is a lengthy and overwhelming process for someone that has little to no legal knowledge. Challenging a DEA asset forfeiture meant that we had to navigate through intricate procedures and strict requirements. It is also more complicated when a lot of assets have been seized as there is more at stake. To successfully handle an asset forfeiture, we have to prove that the belongings our client had were not a result of money obtained from criminal activities but rather through legal means. We gathered evidence showing that the property was not involved in illegal activities and that our client was an innocent owner. The evidence included letters from those who gave money to our client and letters from those who have purchased items from our client. If it pertains to material assets such as real estate or valuables, showing evidence of the purchase date and how our client was able to purchase the item is vital. Our offices were able to obtain our clients’ bank statements and show how they received this money whether it was through employment or family and friends. Law Offices of Eric B. Morrell’s DEA Asset Forfeiture Preparation At the Law Offices of Eric B. Morrell, we conducted an in-depth investigation and made sure to gather all the information needed to demonstrate the legal acquisition of our client’s assets. We are willing to engage in negotiations with state and federal authorities. Along with providing our client’s bank statements, we prepared a brief and crafted a strong legal argument challenging the DEA’s seizure. We were able to file our challenge and provide the government with the documentation they needed before the deadlines. At the Law Offices of Eric B. Morrell, we understand that dealing with asset forfeiture can be complex and stressful. It requires prompt action, a solid understanding of legal rights and the help of knowledgeable legal counsel. This is why it is important to have skilled legal representation, especially when a lot is at stake. We were able to successfully obtain a large portion of the assets seized from our client. Each DEA asset forfeiture case is unique as it may involve different types of assets, but we are able to tailor our approach to fit the specifics of your situation. With every case we are committed to achieving great outcomes for our clients and advocate to the full exercise of their rights. If you or someone you know has received a notice regarding a DEA asset forfeiture, please contact our offices. EBM Law’s Commitment The Law Offices of Eric B. Morrell, located at 142 Livingston Ave, New Brunswick NJ 08901, are committed to helping our clients fight for the appropriate assessment. Eric B. Morrell has over 20 years of experience in defending clients with criminal charges. Some charges that he routinely deals with are: 1. Criminal Defense 2. DUI/DWI 3. Guns and Weapons Crimes 4. Pre-Trial Detention Hearings 5. Expungements for Prior Convictions

Background Have you or your organization ever received a letter from the Office of Student Conduct (OSC) at Rutgers University? Without the proper understanding of a Student Conduct case procedure, you may put yourself or your organization at risk for sanctions that exceed the true severity of your matter. At the Law Offices of Eric B. Morrell , our firm is knowledgeable of the Conduct Process and Appeal Process at Rutgers University. Student Organization Policy It is critical to be aware of the policies that your organization must comply with during your time as a student at Rutgers University. In the Rutgers Standards of Conduct for Student Organizations , it states that, “Student organizations that choose to be recognized by the University, accept the rights and responsibilities outlined in this policy and in their organization’s governing department.” Therefore, when your organization or an individual in the name of the organization violates the Code of Student Conduct, the organization will be held responsible for the incident(s). This often results in the OSC opening an investigation on the matter. The Office of Student Conduct has the authority to oversee the process for addressing cases of Student Organization misconduct and reserves the right to permit an organization’s sponsoring University department to address the matter. So, for example, the OSC can permit the OFSA (Office of Fraternity and Sorority Affairs) to address Greek life organizations that violate written University policies. Residence Life Policy In addition to the student organization policies, students also must abide by Residence Life Policies. Rutgers University lists all residence life policies, which is present in the resources section of this article. Although not all policies carry the same weight as others (e.g. Mural Painting Policy vs. Drug Policy), a violation may nonetheless result in intervention from the OSC. Therefore, it is imperative to be aware of all residence life policies. The Conduct Process Step 1: The Complaint Allegations of misconduct are collected in a variety of ways, but most commonly through: the corresponding campus’ reporting tool (this commonly occurs with instances of Student Organization misconduct), a reference from an RA or campus authority, and the RUPD. Evidence may be submitted in the forms of a police report, text messages, photographs, etc. This OSC will conduct a personal interview with the individual(s) making the allegations to answer any questions about the report and to gather information about possible witnesses. The person making the complaint will have the choice of disclosing their name or remaining anonymous. At the conclusion of verifying the information, the OSC will determine the validity of the allegation(s). This is the stage where Student Conduct will determine if there is enough information to charge the organization or person, if a formal investigation takes place, or if the matter should be handled informally. You will be notified of the next steps of the case, possibly with a synopsis of the incident, applicable charges, and recommended sanctions. Step 2: The Investigation Administrative Conference: Those involved in the allegations are often asked to have an Administrative Conference, which is an official meeting between an accused student and a Conduct Officer to determine whether the student has violated University policy. The Conduct Officer considers information and testimony from the accused student, the complainant, and any witnesses. Any student that provides false information is subject to additional charges. Both the complainant and the accused student may bring a Campus Advisor (A member of the RU community to help one navigate the disciplinary system) and a support person to the conference. Any individual that attends the conference with the accused student cannot speak or interact. If the accused student fails to appear to the agreed upon date/time, the Conduct Officer will proceed and make a decision based on the available information. The accused student is deemed not responsible unless the “preponderance of information” is adequate to persuade the Conduct Officer that it is more likely than not that the allegations are true. We recommend that all accused students attend their Administrative Conference, comply with the OSC, and answer all questions with true information. We also recommend for accused students to bring a campus advisor or a support person. It is important to gather as much information as possible about an accusation and to understand how much knowledge the OSC has of an incident. The extent of information that an accused student discloses during their Administrative Conference is under their own discretion. Step 3: Sanctions, Violations, and Restorative Measures Following an investigation, the OSC will provide the student (or Student Organization) with a verdict of alleged violations, along with possible sanctions and restorative measures. This letter will state if one is found responsible or not responsible for the initial applicable violations. If found not responsible for all charges, the case will most likely be dismissed. If found responsible for one or more charges, the OSC often puts sanctions or restorative measures in place. Examples of such include but are not limited to: Conduct Probation (possibly with conditions) Plan of Action Fines Class/Workshop attendance Conditional/Term Suspension Temporary/Permanent Removal We suggest that if you are recommended to attend workshops or treatment, that you enroll in them immediately. This also goes for paying fines. Step 4: The Appeal Process If you are unsatisfied with the result of your conduct case, you have the right to appeal the verdict. Be aware that appealing any disciplinary findings and/or sanctions does not guarantee change or a better result ; it is possible that it can result in harsher penalties. You are given ten days to submit their letter of appeal to the Senior Student Affairs Officer from the day of notice. Appealing an outcome falls under the grounds of the following: Unsupported Conclusion The decision is not supported by facts of the case. Procedural Error The disciplinary process was conducted unfairly and not in conformity with prescribed procedures that affected the outcome of the case. New Information There is new information available that was not available at the time of the original Investigation, Organizational Conference or Organizational Hearing and that it is sufficient to alter the original decision. Disproportionate sanctions The sanction imposed was not appropriate for the offense committed. While considering/preparing an Appeal, we encourage you to consult a Campus Advisor or a third party. Information for how to Appeal will be included in the rationale for the finding and sanctions. After submitting an Appeal, the Campus Appeals Committee will consider your appeal on the criteria that was provided in the appeal– from there, it will be determined whether the appeal should move forward. If the Appeal is accepted, a new hearing will be scheduled. If denied, the original sanctions, violations, and restorative measures will be enforced. Student Organizations have a similar Appeal process. Before appealing, determine which criteria best suits the Appeal. Explain in detail why it applies and develop arguments to support your claims. Communicate new information under your own discretion, as what you can say may be used against you to determine a new outcome. Hence, it is important to consult with a Campus Advisor or a third party to help you prepare your appeal. Student Organizations: The student organization conduct process is nearly identical to the standard process. Student Conduct has two procedures of investigating Student Organizations. Level 1 Investigation The OSC conducts an Investigation and/or an Administrative Conference The synopsis of the incident, applicable charges, and recommended sanctions may be sent to the organization’s president and advisor(s) of record. These matters typically involve, but are not limited to alcohol, financial misconduct, physical misconduct, and other health and safety matters. 2. Level 2 Investigation Level 2 investigations are initiated when a report alleging serious matters of misconduct such as hazing occur. The organization representative (typically the President) will receive written communication with directives informing the organization of any limitations or interim action the OSC has placed on the organization during the investigation process– such as Cease and Desist or Suspension of Organization Activity . Investigators will determine the necessary individuals to privately interview for the matter. Sexual Misconduct and Title IX: Rutgers Title IX policy prohibits actions such as sexual assault, dating violence, domestic violence and stalking, that occurs in a University education program or activity against a person in the United States, and is committed by a current Rutgers student, employee, or third party. A Title IX Conduct Case will proceed in two ways, in which are different from the standard process: Formal Resolution : (Roughly 90 business days, excluding all appeals processes) The Title IX Office conducts an investigation and separate disciplinary hearings and investigative interviews for the complaint party and responding party (Very similar to an Administrative Conference.) If the Responding Party is found responsible, consequences may include active sanctions (i.e. educational workshops, apology letter, reflection paper) and/or inactive sanctions (i.e. probation, suspension, expulsion). If the Responding Party is found not responsible, no sanctions are given. Informal Resolution: (Generally quicker than the Formal Process) There is no determination made about whether the Responding Party violated university policy; the focus is on repairing the harm through a remedies-based, structured interaction (independent of any actual or potential criminal, civil, or other court proceeding). The university proposes resolution option(s) and the parties voluntarily agree or decline. The goal is for both parties to voluntarily agree on such options. Resolution options include, but are not limited to: Mediation, Workshops (e.g. Consent Workshop), Individual Support (e.g. one-on-one counseling), and reading/listening to an impact statement. The complaint party decides their level of participation in the matter, while the responding party voluntarily agrees to the terms of a resolution agreement. If no resolutions are reached or terminated by any party (including the Title IX Office), the case may be resolved through the formal process Throughout both processes, you are permitted to have a support person of your choosing (such as a friend, parent, advocate or attorney) during any meeting throughout the process. In the event that a matter proceeds to a disciplinary hearing in the formal process, you have the right to have an advisor of your choice to conduct a cross-examination at the hearing. The advisor can be but is not required to be an attorney (costs incurred for having an attorney is your responsibility). If you do not want to hire an attorney, the university can provide you an advisor, for free, for the purpose of conducting a cross-examination within the hearing process. Our offices recommend complying with the Title IX Office throughout the entirety of the process. So, if the Title IX Office asks you to extensively participate throughout an investigation, abide by its requests; if you decline, the process will continue and it will most likely damage your chances for the best outcome possible. If you agree to a resolution in an informal process, fulfill all terms of the agreement. If you fail to complete the terms of a resolution agreement, you can be held accountable under the Code of Student Conduct. Contingent upon you needing an advisor for a cross-examination, Eric B. Morrell is committed to fight for you. He will take any steps necessary for the best possible outcome for your matter. Resources Standards of Conduct- Student Organization Policies and Procedures: https://studentconduct.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/STANDARDS-OF-CONDUCT_aug11.pdf Rutgers Residence Life Policies: https://ruoncampus.rutgers.edu/policies#:~:text=Every%20student%20living%20within%20a,the%20uninvited%20intrusion%20of%20noise . Student Conduct Resources: https://studentconduct.rutgers.edu/resources Title IX and Grievance Procedures: https://policies.rutgers.edu/B.aspx?BookId=12105&PageId=459473&Search=Title%20IX%20Policy%20and%20Grievance%20Procedures Code of Student Conduct: https://policies.rutgers.edu/B.aspx?BookId=11912&PageId=459229&Search=university%20code%20of%20student%20conduct EBM Law’s Commitment The Law Offices of Eric B. Morrell , located at 142 Livingston Ave, New Brunswick NJ 08901 , is committed to helping our clients fight for the appropriate assessment. Eric B. Morrell has over 20 years of experience in defending clients with criminal charges. Some charges that he routinely deals with are: Criminal Defense DUI/DWI Guns & Weapons Crimes Pre-Trial Detention Hearings Expungements for Prior Convictions In reference to Rutgers Student Conduct cases, our offices have come across students in need of support for their matters. Our communications with the OSC have prepared us to address any issues that may arise in the assessment to represent you the best that we can. We will provide you with prestige advice and contest with the OSC to produce the best outcome possible. With proper review and a knowledgeable team, the Law Offices of Eric B. Morrell is prepared to guide you through a Rutgers Student Conduct case in a quick and effective manner.

Background The purpose of a pre-detention hearing is to assess whether a defendant should be incarcerated before their trial. Detention hearings in New Jersey have shifted from a system that sets monetary bail as a form of release to a risk-based assessment as a result of New Jersey’s Criminal Justice Reform Act (CJRA) , enacted in January 2017. At the Law Offices of Eric B. Morrell our staff is well informed on the CJRA and is prepared to guide those going through the pre-detention process step-by-step. Before the Detention Hearing To be eligible for a pre-detention hearing, a person must be arrested on specific charge and issued a complaint warrant once detained. This is different from a complaint summons, as a complaint warrant gives law enforcement the ability to detain a person at their local county for 48 hours to be held before their trial. Typical crimes that are categorized with a complaint warrant in New Jersey include but are not limited to: Robbery (2C:15-1) Murder (2C:11-3) Domestic Violence (2C:25-19) Aggravated Assault or Sexual Assault (2C:12-1, 2C:14-2) Escape (2C:29-5) Graves Act Crimes (2C:43-6) Public Service Risk Assessment (PSA) After January 2017, the state of New Jersey moved from a cash bail system to a Public Service Risk Assessment (PSA ) to avoid holding innocent people in jail for a prolonged period of time. All defendants issued a complaint warrant in New Jersey must undergo a PSA. A PSA outlines a criminal defendant's risk of failure to appear , risk of new criminal activity , and risk of new violent criminal activity . These factors are broken down on a 6 point scale. Then each factor is assessed and given a raw score, to correspond to a number on the 6-point scale (See Chart on the Top). While this assessment aims to give a holistic view of a client’s pretrial release, at the Law Offices of Eric B. Morrell , we have challenged the pretrial unit on its calculations numerous times and the pretrial unit has agreed to make changes. The 9 factors that the assessment considers is listed in the following: Age when arrested Current Violent Offense Pending charge at the time of the offense Prior Disorderly Persons Conviction (Excludes ordinance violations or petty disorderly persons offenses) Prior Indictable Convictions Prior Violent Conviction Prior failure to appear at a pre-disposition court date in the last 2 years (Excludes ordinance violations, traffic offenses, or petty disorderly persons offenses) Prior failure to appear at a pre-disposition court date more than 2 years ago (Excludes ordinance violations, traffic offenses, or petty disorderly persons offenses) Prior Sentence to incarceration (Sentences of 14 days or more) EBM Law’s Commitment The Law Offices of Eric B. Morrell, located at 142 Livingston Ave, New Brunswick NJ 08901, is committed to helping our clients fight for the appropriate assessment. Eric B. Morrell has over 20 years of experience in defending clients with criminal charges. Some charges that he routinely deals with are: Criminal Defense DUI/DWI Guns & Weapons Crimes Pre-Trial Detention Hearings Expungements for Prior Convictions In reference to Pre-Trial detention hearings, our offices have come across miscalculations by the PSA unit and challenge their assessment to ensure that each factor is evaluated properly. Our communications with the courts have prepared us to address any issues that may arise in the assessment to represent you the best that we can. We will draft a detailed opposition to detention motion with the appropriate supporting documents to help ensure your release. Our firm will swiftly react as soon as a detention motion is filed to aggressively fight for the justice you deserve. With proper review and a knowledgeable team, the Law Offices of Eric B. Morrell is prepared to help you through New Jersey’s detention hearing process in a rapid and effective manner.

Our Offices EBM Law fights for clients that are diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Asperger Syndrome frequently. In our more than 25 years of experience we have come across many cases in which clients were incorrectly charged by law enforcement as a result of their disorders. As such, we understand how to work with a number of medical experts and neurologists to assist our clients in their defenses. Recently, we have represented a client that was diagnosed with Autism and was incorrectly charged with serious charges. We can mitigate these charges by communicating our defenses to the prosecutor. “The Blue Envelope” initiative? Being stopped by law enforcement can make anyone anxious, especially to those with ASD due to flashing lights, radio sounds, and the situation they face. The “Blue Envelope” was created to help law enforcement safely communicate with those that are diagnosed with Autism, and to maintain a safer environment for one another. Although the Bill is yet to pass in NJ, our offices feel that this should be implemented statewide. The “Blue Envelope” can benefit law enforcement and residents statewide. What does “The Blue Envelope” contain? Those with Autism in certain NJ counties are given a “Blue Envelope'', which contains a list of guidelines to understand before a motor vehicle stop or a car accident. These envelopes also contain the individual's emergency contact information, photocopies of their drivers license, registration, insurance cards, and instuctions to alert and educate law enforcement about behaviors that the driver may be expressing. Sometimes law enforcement members are not familiar with the behaviors exhibited by ASD individuals. The “Blue Envelope” is key to bridge the gap between these unfamiliarities. The information in the envelope gives guidance to law enforcement to effectively interact and communicate with members of the ASD community. Development & Background: The idea for this program was first introduced in January 2020 by the Connecticuit legislation and has since been incorporated in various counties within New Jersey. These counties include Hunterdon, Warren, Monmouth, and Morris which recently enacted this program in April 2023 as a result of Autism Awareness Month. If you have a child or family member that is diagnosed with Autism, we advise you to obtain the envelope from your county police department. Our Committment: Our offices take pride in representing clients with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Our slogan, “A Fighter, Not a Handshaker'' demonstrates our office's commitment to fulfill our clients' needs. With patience, trust, and knowledgeable staff, the Law Offices of Eric B. Morrell we’ll handle your case in a sympathetic manner.

Our Law Office's Involvement with Rutgers University and Resources/Advice for Students

Video discovery is very essential to clients’ cases. At the Law Offices of Eric B. Morrell, when we receive discovery, we take the time to carefully review it and take detailed notes. Video discovery which may include body camera footage allows us to take a more in depth look of a client’s case. We always look out for anything out of the ordinary or something we can use that will benefit our client and allow us to obtain a better result. We also do this in the event that we may have to show the Judge what occurred in the video. In a recent case, State v. Dante C. Allen (A-55-21) (086699) the NJ Supreme Court considered whether the defendant was denied a fair trial due to the trial court admitting a detective’s testimony where he narrated a video. Our offices have guidance from the NJ courts when this inappropriate narration occurs. On November 4, 2015, defendant Dante Allen was speaking to a friend outside while carrying a firearm. Mr. Allen had recently obtained the handgun after a confrontation with a gang member that made him fear for his safety. Officer Terrence McGhee drove by the defendant while on duty and suspected that Mr. Allen was armed based on his behavior. Officer McGhee asked to speak to Mr. Allen and McGhee stated that he ran into a vacant lot, turned around and fired his gun at McGhee. In return, Office McGhee fired his weapon and wounded the defendant. Mr. Allen testified that he ran towards the back of an abandoned building to throw the gun onto the roof and when he saw the officer in his peripheral view, he wanted to bring the gun back in but it was too late and it accidently misfired. Mr. Allen stated that he never pointed the gun at Officer McGhee. Detective Michael Campanella arrived at the scene as the lead forensic detective in the case. He inspected the gun and reviewed the two surveillance videos from nearby buildings that recorded the incident. At Mr. Allen's trial, Officer McGhee testified and narrated the videos of the incident as they were played for the jury. Detective Campanella testified and described the steps taken in the investigation later on. The State indicated its intent to replay the video for the jury but Mr. Allen objected. The State argued Detective Campanella would explain how the video “led him to find evidence such as shell casings and bullets.” The trial court overruled Mr. Allen’s objection and played the video again. When the videos were replayed, Detective Campanella made references to Mr. Allen firing or discharging the gun and turning toward Office McGhee. The State brought Randolph Toth of the State Police Laboratory Ballistics Unit who testified that the weapon had not discharged accidentally during the incident. Mr. Allen appealed to the Appellate Court but they concluded that allowing Officer Campanella to narrate the replay of the surveillance video was an error; however such error was harmless. Mr. Allen was convicted of attempted murder and other offenses. The Appellate Division found that the trial court had abused its discretion when they allowed for Detective Campanella to narrate the surveillance video but they held that the error was harmless and affirmed. The Court disagreed with the Appellate Division’s decision that the trial court should have excluded all of Detective Campanella’s narration of the surveillance video. The State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Allen intended to cause Officer McGhee’s death but it is the jury’s responsibility to decide this. Detective Campanella’s testimony explained how he used the video to identify areas he considered likely to contain evidence relevant to the investigation. He testified about his view of the defendant’s actions instead of commenting that the surveillance video showed the discharge of a weapon at a particular location. His comments about what transpired during the encounter between Officer McGhee and Mr. Allen did not constitute proper fact testimony or admissible lay opinion testimony and it was an error to admit them. Detective Campanella was not present on the scene and had no personal knowledge of the incident. Detective Campanella’s comments were in support of the State’s position and it invaded the jury’s fact finding function. However the Court found that the error was harmless given the strength of the State’s other evidence. By allowing Detective Campanella to narrate critical portions of the surveillance video that the jurors should have been left to interpret for themselves, the court denied the defendant a fair trial. The Court held that Detective Campanella’s testimony opining that the video showed Mr. Allen turning and firing his weapon should have been excluded from evidence but it was a harmless error. We are familiar with video evidence and how it is used in the court. It is important to understand the limitations of what can be said in regards to a video being played for a jury. Although in this case the Court admitted the error was not harmful due to all the evidence stacked up against the defendant, that is not always the case. We always make sure our clients receive a fair trial and if we deem a narration of a video is harmful to the defendant’s case, we will fight to have the narration excluded. We stay up to date and review the latest case law and use our superior knowledge to obtain the best possible results for you. Our offices know how to handle the overzealousness by prosecutors. We know when the State abuses their discretion in showing video evidence and narrating the video. If you have a case where an officer narrates a video and you are unsure whether it's constitutional, contact our law offices.