New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney Blog

DYFS v. E.S. and F.D./Matter of E.P.S., unpublished opinion, App. Div. Docket No. 0547-09T4 (June 10, 2010) -

Continue reading "NJ Trial Judge Reversed for Depriving Parent of Counsel in DYFS Case" »

DYFS v. D.R. and C.F./Matter of E.R., unpublished opinion, App. Div. Docket No. A-4239-08T4 (June 2, 2010) - Order terminating D.R.'s parental rights reversed.

Continue reading "Order Terminating Parental Rights Reversed" »

The Office of Parental Representation - Appellate of the State of New Jersey's Public Defender's Office won a major (and rare) victory in this recent DYFS appeal.

DYFS v. C.M., ? N.J. ?, 2010 N.J. LEXIS 500 (June 1, 2010) - Termination of parental rights reversed. "In this case, a father was ordered to forfeit his parental rights to his natural son because he did not rush forward quickly enough, in the trial court's and Appellate Division's view, to take on fully and solely the care and custody of that child. The record demonstrates that the revelation that he had an out-of-wedlock child rocked his stable and successful marriage.

Faced with the nearly impossible choice between attempting to salvage that marriage -- which had served as the center for successfully nurturing four other children, three to adulthood -- or instantly asserting his right to take on the rearing of this new child, he hesitated. In reality, this father was faced with what can be described as a 'Hobson's choice,' that is, no choice at all....

We conclude that defendant did not endanger his child's safety, health or development; that defendant was willing and able to provide a safe and stable home for his child; that DYFS woefully failed to make reasonable efforts to provide services to help defendant correct the circumstances that led to his child's placement
outside the home; that the trial court never considered, in any substantive manner, alternatives to termination of parental rights; and that there is no basis in this record to conclude that termination of defendant's parental rights to his child will not do more harm than good.

We therefore conclude that the trial court 'went so wide of the mark that a mistake must have been made' thereby allowing this Court to dispense with the deference traditionally afforded to a trial court's decision to terminate parental rights.... We also conclude that, in this unique setting, severing this parent's ties to his son constituted a gross and unwarranted abuse of the State's extraordinary power over its citizens. For those reasons, we conclude that a judgment terminating defendant's parental rights cannot be sustained on this record."

DYFS v. K.A., ? N.J. Super. ?, 2010 N.J. Super. LEXIS 92 (June 2, 2010) - Determination that defendant abused or neglected her child reversed.

Continue reading "NJ Neglect Finding Reversed on Administrative Appeal" »

State v. P.S., ? N.J. ?, 2010 N.J. LEXIS ? (June 7, 2010) - Convictions reversed. "The first [issue presented in this appeal] is what standard to apply where a child sex abuse victim's taped statement is lost. In particular, defendant asks us to establish a per se rule of exclusion in such circumstances, a request that we decline.

Continue reading "Police Must Retain Notes of Victim Interviews in NJ Sex Abuse Cases" »

State v. George Calleia, ? N.J. Super. ?, 2010 N.J. Super. LEXIS 107 (June 22, 2010) - Conviction reversed on other grounds. "At trial, defendant challenged the admission of Y-STR DNA evidence, which demonstrated that he could not be excluded as a donor of biological material recovered from under the victim's fingernails.

At oral argument before us, the State urged us to consider and affirm the trial court's decision to admit the Y- STR DNA evidence, even if we were to reverse defendant's conviction on other grounds....

Given the strong likelihood that this evidence will again emerge as a key part of the State's case against defendant, we will address the propriety of its admission by the trial court.... The sole question before us is whether Y-STR DNA analysis has reached a level of development and acceptability within the relevant scientific community that an expert's testimony concerning it can be deemed sufficiently reliable....

Based on the record developed before the trial court, we are satisfied that there is a general acceptance of Y-STR DNA analysis in the scientific community. The State's duly qualified expert in the field explained the theoretical basis of Y-STR DNA analysis, the methodology used by the testing laboratory, the SWGDAM standards that govern DNA testing, and the validation procedures associated with those standards. The State Police Laboratory uses a commercially available testing kit to conduct Y-STR DNA analyses and Y-STR DNA profiles are maintained in a national database....

[W]e also note that the State proved the reliability of the Y-STR DNA technique under the second prong of the test, which allows a proponent to establish general acceptance 'by authoritative scientific and legal writings indicating that the scientific community accepts the premises underlying the proffered testimony....' Here, the State submitted numerous textbooks and scholarly articles concerning the development and use of Y-STR DNA analysis. These materials set forth the theory of Y-STR DNA analysis and explained the various testing techniques....

Here, Y-chromosome DNA with a specific STR profile was found under decedent's fingernails. The coincidence that this profile matches that of defendant is probative of his guilt in the same manner as if he had owned shoes that matched a foot imprint found at the crime scene. It was up to the jury to weigh the probative value of that evidence in light of the fact that a significant number of other individuals may possess the same profile."

State v. George Calleia, unpublished opinion, App. Div. Docket No. A-6266-08T4 (June 22, 2010) - Conviction reversed. "We will first address what we deem to be the dispositive issue in this appeal, namely, the admission by the trial court of hearsay statements attributable to the victim concerning her desire and intention to terminate her marriage with defendant....

This issue was presented to the trial court by way of defendant's in limine motion to suppress. After hearing from counsel on the issue, the court entered an order permitting testimony in the form of statements attributable to decedent pertaining to: (1) her desire to obtain a divorce; (2) her unhappiness in her marriage; (3) contacts she had with and statements she made when seeking advice from matrimonial attorneys related to pursuing a divorce; and (4) her plans to attend a divorce seminar on the night of October 20, 2005....

We are satisfied that the admission of this evidence warrants the reversal of defendant's conviction. The trial court's characterization of these statements as 'state of mind evidence' under N.J.R.E. 803(c)(3) was incorrect. Given both the prosecutor's statements on summation and the self-evident character of the testimony presented, these hearsay statements had the clear propensity of being perceived by the jury as evidence of defendant's motive for allegedly murdering his wife. As such, this evidence should have been excluded as part of the State's case-in-chief....

The trial court's reliance on the "state of mind" exception in N.J.R.E. 803(c)(3) was misplaced because, as the record shows, the prosecutor used these statements as evidence of defendant's motive to kill his wife."

State v. John A. Scalchi, unpublished opinion, App. Div. Docket No. A-4583-08T4 (June 4, 2010) - Conviction for hindering apprehension pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:29-3a reversed. "Following a trial de novo, the Law Division convicted defendant John Scalchi of two counts of the disorderly persons offense of hindering the apprehension of another by harboring or concealing his son Frank Scalchi, for whom a Superior Court warrant for failure to pay child support had been issued....

Here, Frank Scalchi had not been charged with a criminal offense, a motor vehicle offense or a violation of the New Jersey Insurance Fraud Statute. Rather, the warrant the Sheriff's officers were executing was for defendant's son's failure to pay child support, a matter not 'included in the description of the forbidden conduct' proscribed by the hindering apprehension statute. N.J.S.A. 2C:1-14h."

This NJ inmate won on appeal after having been convicted of drug possession. Figueroa v. New Jersey DOC, ? N.J. Super. ?, 2010 N.J. super. LEXIS ? (June 28, 2010) - DOC determination reversed.

Continue reading "NJ Inmate Wins On Criminal Appeal" »

In a hypothetical case, an NJ driver is observed operating their vehicle erratically near the border of Pennsylvania or New York. A NJ State Police Officer follows the vehicle, which turns onto the bridge and proceeds across the state line. The Trooper follows, pulling the vehicle over in the neighboring state and ultimately arresting the driver for an NJ DWI. Is this legal? Does the NJ municipal court have jurisdiction? The answer is not as clear as it may seem.

Because a municipal court has limited jurisdiction, it is obligated to assess whether or not it has the power to act in a particular matter before it; the authority of the court to adjudicate disputes must be found in legislative grants of jurisdiction. State v. Garcia, 297 N.J. Super. 108, (Ch. Div. 1996).

N.J.S.A. 2B:12-16(a), the basic grant of municipal court territorial jurisdiction, provides that the court has jurisdiction over cases arising within the territory of the municipality in which it sits; it defines that territory, however, as also including property or premises located partly in and partly outside the municipality. Garcia, supra, 297 N.J. Super. at 108.

The power to arrest and prosecute for offenses committed "on the bridges" has been set forth in pertinent legislation adopted by New Jersey and Pennsylvania. N.J.S.A. 32:4-6; Pa. Stat Ann. tit. 36 § 3504.1. Though there are obscurities in the statutory language, the legislative purpose to afford concurrent jurisdiction to New Jersey and Pennsylvania over all offenses committed anywhere on the "bridges" is clear. Garcia, supra, 297 N.J. Super. at 108.

In Garcia, where the defendant was involved in an accident on a bridge over the Delaware River that connected New Jersey and Pennsylvania, the initiation of prosecution of defendant in New Jersey for careless driving and leaving the scene of an accident vested the municipal court "nearest the site of the offenses with jurisdiction over the matter." Ibid.

Calhoun Street Bridge is owned and operated by the Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission. N.J.S.A. 32:4-6 provides, in part, (1) that the Delaware River Port Authority's police force may "make arrests for crimes, misdemeanors, and the offenses of any character committed upon said bridges" and (2) that upon an arrest, the offender may be taken to a proper judicial officer of Pennsylvania or New Jersey "without respect to the portion of the bridge" where the offense may have been committed or the offender may have been arrested. See also State v. Holden, 46 N.J. 361, 363 (1966).

N.J.S.A. 53:2-1 sets forth the powers and jurisdiction of the New Jersey State Police. It provides:

The members of the State Police shall be subject to the call of the Governor. They shall be peace officers of the State, shall primarily be employed in furnishing adequate police protection to the inhabitants of rural sections, shall give first aid to the injured and succor the helpless, and shall have in general the same powers and authority as are conferred by law upon police officers and constables.

They shall have power to prevent crime, to pursue and apprehend offenders and to obtain legal evidence necessary to insure the conviction of such offenders in the courts. They shall have power to execute any lawful warrant or order of arrest issued against any person, and to make arrests without warrant for violations of the law committed in their presence, and for felonies committed the same as are or may be authorized by law for other peace officers.

They may co-operate with any other State department, or any State or local authority in detecting crime, apprehending criminals and preserving law and order; but the State Police shall not be used as a posse in any municipality except upon order of the Governor when requested by the governing body of such municipality; provided, however, that the Superintendent of State Police, or the person in charge thereof, shall, upon request made to him by the superintendent of elections of any county of this State, assign for use on any election day officers and troopers, not to exceed fifteen in number in any one county, to aid such superintendents of elections in the enforcement of the election laws of this State.

They may act as inspectors of motor vehicles and as wardens in the protection of the forests, and the fish and game of the State. With respect to enforcement of the provisions of the "New Jersey Alcoholic Beverage Control Act," Title 33 of the Revised Statutes, they shall have all the powers conferred upon "officers" pursuant to that title. They shall have the authority to investigate any offenses or violations occurring on the waters of this State, as defined in section 1 of P.L. 1986, c. 150 (C. 53:1-11.10), and to stop and board a vessel in the waters of the State to determine whether the vessel complies with State and federal boating safety laws and shall have the power to order a vessel that does not comply with these laws to return immediately to shore. They shall have the authority, in accordance with applicable State and federal laws, rules and regulations, to take appropriate action as authorized by the United States Coast Guard to assist the United States Coast Guard in the enforcement of any safety and security zone established by the United States Coast Guard Captain of the Port for the Port of New York and New Jersey or the Port of Philadelphia. They shall have the authority to perform all of the duties of members of the State Capitol Police Force as defined in section 2 of P.L. 1977, c. 135 (C. 52:17B-9.2).

Nowhere in the State Police's jurisdictional grant is there any authority whatsoever for a member of that force to make an arrest inside the State of Pennsylvania. In that, there does not appear to be any statutory authority of any kind for an officer of the New Jersey State Police to follow and subsequently arrest a defendant outside the State of New Jersey, whether in Pennsylvania or any other state. Simply put, State Police Officers of the State of New Jersey become mere private citizens after crossing into Pennsylvania. An NJ officer would therefore be without probable cause to arrest a defendant in the State of Pennsylvania.

While N.J.S.A. 32:4-6 provides authority to members of the Delaware River Port Authority to make such arrest, the statute is completely inapplicable to the case at bar. The statute does not mention the Delaware Joint River Toll Bridge Commission, of which the Calhoun Street Bridge is owned and operated by. Moreover the statute gives absolutely no authority to members of the New Jersey State Police to make such arrests.

In order for our hypothetical Court to hear the instant matter, two elements must be satisfied: 1) The arresting officer must have been authorized to make an arrest inside the State of Pennsylvania; and 2) The court must have jurisdiction. Neither element is satisfied in our case. This court should therefore dismiss the summons against defendant.

Under NJSA 39:3-10, all motorists on any New Jersey road or highway must be properly licensed to drive. The penalties for violating this statute are severe, and include a fine of up to $500, a six-month driver's license suspension, and the possibility of jail. I routinely defend those accused of driving without a license in Monmouth, Ocean, Middlesex, and Mercer counties.

NJSA 39:3-10 provides:

No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a public highway in this State unless the person is under supervision while participating in a behind-the-wheel driving course pursuant to section 6 of P.L.1977, c.25 (C.39:3-13.2a) or is in possession of a validated permit, or a provisional or basic driver's license issued to him in accordance with this article.

No person under 18 years of age shall be issued a basic license to drive motor vehicles, nor shall a person be issued a validated permit, including a validated examination permit, until he has passed a satisfactory examination and other requirements as to his ability as an operator. The examination shall include a test of the applicant's vision, his ability to understand traffic control devices, his knowledge of safe driving practices and of the effects that ingestion of alcohol or drugs has on a person's ability to operate a motor vehicle, his knowledge of such portions of the mechanism of motor vehicles as is necessary to insure the safe operation of a vehicle of the kind or kinds indicated by the applicant and of the laws and ordinary usages of the road. No person shall sit for an examination for any permit without exhibiting photo identification deemed acceptable by the commission, unless that person is a high school student participating in a course of driving education approved by the State Department of Education and conducted in a public, parochial or private school of this State, pursuant to section 1 of P.L.1950, c.127 (C.39:3-13.1). The commission may waive the written law knowledge examination for any person 18 years of age or older possessing a valid driver's license issued by any other state, the District of Columbia or the United States Territories of American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands. The commission shall be required to provide that person with a booklet that highlights those motor vehicle laws unique to New Jersey. A road test shall be required for a provisional license and serve as a demonstration of the applicant's ability to operate a vehicle of the class designated. No person shall sit for a road test unless that person exhibits photo identification deemed acceptable by the commission. A high school student who has completed a course of behind-the-wheel automobile driving education approved by the State Department of Education and conducted in a public, parochial or private school of this State, who has been issued a special learner's permit pursuant to section 1 of P.L.1950, c.127 (C.39:3-13.1) prior to January 1, 2003, shall not be required to exhibit photo identification in order to sit for a road test. The commission may waive the road test for any person 18 years of age or older possessing a valid driver's license issued by any other state, the District of Columbia or the United States Territories of American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands. The road test shall be given on public streets, where practicable and feasible, but may be preceded by an off-street screening process to assess basic skills. The commission shall approve locations for the road test which pose no more than a minimal risk of injury to the applicant, the examiner and other motorists. No new locations for the road test shall be approved unless the test can be given on public streets.

The commission shall issue a basic driver's license to operate a motor vehicle other than a motorcycle to a person over 18 years of age who previously has not been licensed to drive a motor vehicle in this State or another jurisdiction only if that person has: (1) operated a passenger automobile in compliance with the requirements of this title for not less than one year, not including any period of suspension or postponement, from the date of issuance of a provisional license pursuant to section 4 of P.L.1950, c.127 (C.39:3-13.4); (2) not been assessed more than two motor vehicle points; (3) not been convicted in the previous year for a violation of R.S.39:4-50, section 2 of P.L.1981, c.512 (C.39:4-50.4a), P.L.1992, c.189 (C.39:4-50.14), R.S.39:4-129, N.J.S.2C:11-5, subsection c. of N.J.S.2C:12-1, or any other motor vehicle-related violation the commission determines to be significant and applicable pursuant to regulation; and (4) passed an examination of his ability to operate a motor vehicle pursuant to this section.

The commission shall expand the driver's license examination by 20%. The additional questions to be added shall consist solely of questions developed in conjunction with the State Department of Health and Senior Services concerning the use of alcohol or drugs as related to highway safety. The commission shall develop in conjunction with the State Department of Health and Senior Services supplements to the driver's manual which shall include information necessary to answer any question on the driver's license examination concerning alcohol or drugs as related to highway safety.

Up to 20 questions may be added to the examination on subjects to be determined by the commission that are of particular relevance to youthful drivers, after consultation with the Director of the Office of Highway Traffic Safety.

The commission shall expand the driver's license examination to include a question asking whether the applicant is aware of the provisions of the "Revised Uniform Anatomical Gift Act," P.L.2008, c.50 (C.26:6-77 et al.) and the procedure for indicating on the driver's license the intention to make a donation of body organs or tissues pursuant to P.L.1978, c.181 (C.39:3-12.2).

Any person applying for a driver's license to operate a motor vehicle or motorized bicycle in this State shall surrender to the commission any current driver's license issued to him by another state or jurisdiction upon his receipt of a driver's license for this State. The commission shall refuse to issue a driver's license if the applicant fails to comply with this provision. An applicant for a permit or license who is less than 18 years of age, and who holds a permit or license for a passenger automobile issued by another state or country that is valid or has expired within a time period designated by the commission, shall be subject to the permit and license requirements and penalties applicable to State permit and license applicants who are of the same age; except that if the other state or country has permit or license standards substantially similar to those of this State, the credentials of the other state or country shall be acceptable.

The commission shall create classified licensing of drivers covering the following classifications:

a. Motorcycles, except that for the purposes of this section, motorcycle shall not include any three-wheeled motor vehicle equipped with a single cab with glazing enclosing the occupant, seats similar to those of a passenger vehicle or truck, seat belts and automotive steering.

b. Omnibuses as classified by R.S.39:3-10.1 and school buses classified under N.J.S.18A:39-1 et seq.

c. (Deleted by amendment, P.L.1999, c.28).

d. All motor vehicles not included in classifications a. and b. A license issued pursuant to this classification d. shall be referred to as the "basic driver's license."

Every applicant for a license under classification b. shall be a holder of a basic driver's license. Any issuance of a license under classification b. shall be by endorsement on the basic driver's license.

A driver's license for motorcycles may be issued separately, but if issued to the holder of a basic driver's license, it shall be by endorsement on the basic driver's license.

The commission, upon payment of the lawful fee and after it or a person authorized by it has examined the applicant and is satisfied of the applicant's ability as an operator, may, in its discretion, issue a license to the applicant to drive a motor vehicle. The license shall authorize him to drive any registered vehicle, of the kind or kinds indicated, and shall expire, except as otherwise provided, on the last day of the 48th calendar month following the calendar month in which such license was issued.

The commission may, at its discretion and for good cause shown, issue licenses which shall expire on a date fixed by it. If the commission issues a license to a person who has demonstrated authorization to be present in the United States for a period of time shorter than the standard period of the license, the commission shall fix the expiration date of the license at a date based on the period in which the person is authorized to be present in the United States under federal immigration laws. The commission may renew such a license only if it is demonstrated that the person's continued presence in the United States is authorized under federal law. The fee for licenses with expiration dates fixed by the commission shall be fixed by the commission in amounts proportionately less or greater than the fee herein established.

The required fee for a license for the 48-month period shall be as follows:

Motorcycle license or endorsement: $ 18.

Omnibus or school bus endorsement: $ 18.

Basic driver's license: $ 18.

The commission shall waive the payment of fees for issuance of omnibus endorsements whenever an applicant establishes to the commission's satisfaction that said applicant will use the omnibus endorsement exclusively for operating omnibuses owned by a nonprofit organization duly incorporated under Title 15 or 16 of the Revised Statutes or Title 15A of the New Jersey Statutes.

The commission shall issue licenses for the following license period on and after the first day of the calendar month immediately preceding the commencement of such period, such licenses to be effective immediately.

All applications for renewals of licenses shall be made in a manner prescribed by the commission and in accordance with procedures established by it.

The commission in its discretion may refuse to grant a permit or license to drive motor vehicles to a person who is, in its estimation, not a proper person to be granted such a permit or license, but no defect of the applicant shall debar him from receiving a permit or license unless it can be shown by tests approved by the commission that the defect incapacitates him from safely operating a motor vehicle.

In addition to requiring an applicant for a driver's license to submit satisfactory proof of identity and age, the commission also shall require the applicant to provide, as a condition for obtaining a permit and license, satisfactory proof that the applicant's presence in the United States is authorized under federal law.

If the commission has reasonable cause to suspect that any document presented by an applicant as proof of identity, age or legal residency is altered, false or otherwise invalid, the commission shall refuse to grant the permit or license until such time as the document may be verified by the issuing agency to the commission's satisfaction.

A person violating this section shall be subject to a fine not exceeding $ 500 or imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 60 days, but if that person has never been licensed to drive in this State or any other jurisdiction, he shall be subject to a fine of not less than $ 200 and, in addition, the court shall issue an order to the commission requiring the commission to refuse to issue a license to operate a motor vehicle to the person for a period of not less than 180 days. The penalties provided for by this paragraph shall not be applicable in cases where failure to have actual possession of the operator's license is due to an administrative or technical error by the commission.

Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter or extend the expiration of any license issued prior to the date this amendatory and supplementary act becomes operative.

Continue reading "Penalties of Driving without a License in NJ - NJSA 39:3-10" »

New Jersey Municipal Court Judge's are authorized under statute to suspend the license of a driver for any "willful" violation. This week, the New Jersey Supreme Court set forth new guidelines for Municipal Court Judges to follow in imposing such sentences for reckless driving.

In State v. Moran, A-55-09, put forth certain factors that should be met by Municipal Court Judges that aim to guarantee that license suspensions are imposed fairly. The new rule is that municipal court judges must make a finding that the defendant's intent was "willful" and also that the driver acted in a "deliberate" manner in driving recklessly.
These findings must be made on the record to assist review by higher courts on appeal.

In Moran, who was represented by Freehold's Donald Lomurro, was convicted in Aberdeen Township of reckless driving in violation of N.J.S.A. 39:4-96. Moran was accused of improperly passing another vehicle in a left-turn lane. After being convicted, the municipal court judge suspended the defendant's license for 45 days under N.J.S.A. 39:5-31 for driving in a "willful and wanton [manner] in violation of the rights and safety of others and [her]self" and also due to her emotional, obstreperous, and disruptive demeanor in court.

The judge's ruling was affirmed in the Law Division and in the Appellate Division. The New Jersey Supreme Court granted certification and subsequently reversed the defendant's license suspension. Judge Albin wrote the opinion for the court. He noted that that the license-suspension provision of N.J.S.A. 39:5-31 was not "hidden" and that all drivers are presumed to know the law.

However, the Supreme Court ultimately held that there should be clear guidelines to ensure uniformity and fairness. Specifically, the guidelines are:

• The nature and circumstances of the defendant's conduct, including whether the conduct posed a high risk of danger to the public or whether it caused physical or property damage.

• The defendant's driving record, including his or her age and how long the defendant has had a license and the frequency of prior infractions.

• Whether the defendant has been free of infractions for a substantial period of time.

• Whether the defendant's character and attitude indicates that he or she is likely or unlikely to commit another offense.

• Whether a license suspension would impose an excessive hardship.
• The need for personal deterrence.

"No one would suggest that a court can take away one's driving privileges on a whim or capriciously," Albin said. ""Random and unpredictable sentencing is anathema to notions of due process."

Actress Amy Locane, best known for her role on Melrose Place, is facing charges of DWI, vehicular homicide and assault by auto in Somerset County, New Jersey. This follows her arrest last week after allegedly colliding with another vehicle carrying a husband and wife while drunk driving. The driver of the vehicle was critically injured and the passenger was killed.

Police say that Locane was driving while intoxicated on July 4th when she drover her SUV into the passenger side of a sedan. The accident occurred in Montgomery Township.

Officers who arrived and noticed that Locane's breath smelled like alcohol and her eyes were red and watery. Her speech was apparently slurred. Police then arrested Locane and transported her to a nearby hospital for a blood test. Police say she later admitted to drinking wine before driving. She faces up to 10 years in New Jersey State Prison if convicted of all the charges she faces.

Two former employees of a family murdered in their Freehold, NJ home were arrested last week in connection with the crime. The victims, a brother and sister who owned a local Chinese restaurant, were slain in an apparent robbery attempt in their South Street home in the borough.

The two suspects were apprehended within minutes of the first report of the crime. This occurred when a driver observed one of the victims laying in the street with his hands tied and bleeding.

A second female victim was located in a bedroom, who had been stabbed to death. Freehold police and the Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office have charged Dong Biao Lin, 24 of New York along with Zeng Liang Chen, 20 also of New York with the crimes. The are accused of armed robbery, burglary, possession of a weapon, and felony murder.

The two were located on the outskirts of the borough and arrested by Freehold Township Police. This was after a second motorist saw the two and reported their whereabouts to police. The two are now lodged in the Monmouth County Jail in Freehold. Bail has been set at $3 Million.

Plainsboro Township Municipal Court - Cranbury Township Municipal Court

Location: Plainsboro Municipal Court
641 Plainsboro Road
Plainsboro, NJ 08536

Phone: (609) 799-0909

A lot of traffic and speeding tickets are given out by Plainsboro and Cranbury police. Some DWI and criminal / drug possession cases are also heard in Plainsboro court. Plainsboro and Cranbury Townships share a court, which is located in Plainsboro next to the library. Court sessions are held every Wednesday at 9:00 a.m. and at 6 p.m. on every other Thursday. The judge in Plainsboro Municipal Court is the Honorable Edward H. Herman, P.J.M.C.

Plainsboro is comprised mostly of residences. The town is unique in that it contains pristine farmland but is also in close proximity to both New York and Philadelphia. It is also minutes away from Princeton and New Brunswick. Plainsboro is also only a one hour drive to the beach. Plainsboro spans roughly 12 square miles and its population is approximately 20,000. While technically in Middlesex County, Plainsboro borders the Townships of Princeton, West Windsor and East Windsor, all of which are situated in Mercer County. Several significant corporations and research facilities are located in the Township of Plainsboro.

The oldest part of the Township is located around the crossing of Plainsboro and Dey Roads. Originally, an 18th century tavern named "Plane Tavern" was at this spot. Some Some believe it was this tavern after which the township would be later named.

The first known inhabitants of Plainsboro were the Unami indians. The Unami were an offshoot of the larger Lenni Lenape tribe, which in turn was a subtribe of the Delaware. The township was desirable because of its abundant fertile land and water supply.

The Dutch later settled in Plainsboro in the 17th century, followed by English settlers. Economic activity prospered in early Plainsboro. The Walker-Gordon Laboratory Company adopted the township for its dairy farm. The First Presbyterian Church of Plainsboro was founded in 1879. The current building went up in 1932 on the site of the original church.

In the 1970s, large planned residential neighborhoods were constructed in Plainsboro by Lincoln properties. Beginning in the late 1970s, Princeton University constructed is office park, the Princeton Forrestal Center.

A young Monmouth County man was found shot and killed outside of a Long Branch apartment complex last week. The discovery came after reports of gun shots were made in the area.

Shar-Ron Marquese Mackson, only 22, was found to be the victim.

Lamont Williams, 25, of Long Branch was later arrested and charged with Jackson's murder along with weapons charges. Williams surrendered to police Wednesday without incident.