Zingis Case and its Effects on Your DWI Case in NJ

Background:

The New Jersey Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in State V. Thomas Zingis was a means of combating the unresolved issues resulting from the 2018 State V. Cassidy's decision. This case called into question the validity of over 20,000 Alcotest results due to improper tampering done by Sergeant Marc Dennis, a member of the New Jersey State Police. In State V. Thomas Zingis the court identified improper communication processes required to rectify the semi-Annual Calibrations impacted by Marc Dennis. This case has made way for recent procedural enhancements regarding future DWI’s, setting a new defining precedent. 

On August 18th Thomas Zingis was charged with a DWI under N.J.S.A 39:4-50 in Camden county following his first conviction in 2012. At trial, Thomas Zingis asks that his previous charge not be taken into account as a second time offender. This is because the state failed to establish that Zingis’s  2012 conviction was not affected by Marc Dennis and his improper calibration of the Alcotest. The state responded, clarifying that Camden county was not among the identified counties affected by the corrupt Alcotests, therefore his conviction stood. 

New Jersey has begun to take stronger regulatory measures in light of the 2024 Zingis decision. This ruling has highlighted the importance of Alcotest reliability and regular calibration checks. If you are a client facing a DWI charge with prior convictions, it is important that you understand the implications of the Zingis case and what necessary steps you must take to ensure a fair outcome. 

State’s Responsibility:

If your case has been impacted by Marc Dennis and faulty Alcotests the state must officially notify the defendant. The state is required to provide the necessary Alcotest data records and have it accessible to the public. Once the defendant has been notified, the attorney must review the key documents that list the Alcotest machines utilized during that specific time period. If a prior conviction is found to be invalid clients have the ability to challenge the state through a Pre-Conviction Relief Process (PCR). Clients who are able to pursue this avenue can reduce previous charges and enhancements.



If the State decides to enhance your sentencing through a prior conviction, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the previous conviction was not based on flawed Alcotest Data. 

Defense Responsibilities:

Defense lawyers should thoroughly review the flawed Alcotest data in order to verify the procedural accuracy of the conviction. This includes review of the updated Exhibit S-152 which details the calibration data/ Alcotests and their associated county. This information will be used when arguing for admission to the Pre-Conviction Relief Process. If you have a prior conviction that is facing enhancements it is important that your DWI lawyer requests a hearing to prove that this conviction was negatively impacted by the inaccurate Alcotests. 

Here at the Law Offices of Eric B. Morrell we understand the complexity of DWI’s and  subsequent charges.  Our law offices are well-versed in handling matters such as these and are well-prepared to argue against prior convictions affected by faulty Alcotests. With a focus on thorough case preparation and a strong defense our offices stay committed to helping you achieve a fair and just outcome. If you or someone you know is facing DWI charges or a prior conviction that may be deemed questionable or improper pursuant to the Zingis decision, please contact our offices.

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 25 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