Bank of America (“BofA”) recently settled with the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency for deceptive credit-card practices.  BofA is ordered to pay $727 million in refunds to customers and $45 million in penalties.

The allegations were BofA induced customers to purchase certain add-ons, such as identity-theft protection, debt cancellation, credit monitoring and credit reporting services.  Some services were superfluous since they were already mandatory under federal law. Others were never received by the customer.

The allegations included BofA defrauded 1.4 million customers through “deceptive marketing” practices, and about 1.9 million customers were illegally charged for credit monitoring and credit reporting services that were not provided.

Richard Cordray, Director of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, stated, “Bank of America both deceived consumers and unfairly billed consumers for services not performed.  We will not tolerate such practices and will continue to be vigilant in our pursuit of companies who wrong consumers in this market.”

Posted by Sydney J. Kpundeh.

The famous over the counter drug Tylenol was at the center of a case that was brought before a Pennsylvania federal district court in early November. The case involved a lady who had taken Extra Strength Tylenol for many years to treat various conditions. In Mid-August of 2010, she underwent lumbar laminectomy surgery and afterwards she was instructed by her doctor to take Regular Strength Tylenol in conjunction with Lorcet, a prescription drug containing acetaminophen, but not to exceed 4 grams of acetaminophen in a 24-hour period. For approximately two weeks, she used the Regular Strength Tylenol, as instructed, until the bottle ran out, after which she began using Extra Strength Tylenol. At some point, she stopped taking the Lorcet due to its side effects. On August 29, she unfortunately was diagnosed with acute liver failure and died two days later.

After her passing, her sister filed a products liability lawsuit, “including claims for defective design and negligent failure to warn against McNeil, which manufactures the drug, and Johnson & Johnson, McNeil’s parent company.” Her sister insisted that the defendants knew that Tylenol could cause liver damage when taken at or just above the recommended dose. Also, she claimed defendants were liable for the her sister’s death because they had failed to warn her of the “risks of injury and/or death.” The defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that the sister had not offered sufficient evidence to support her failure to warn claim.

Under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer’s Liability Doctrine, there are two factors that must be shown to find the scope of a manufacturer’s legal duty. The first is that there is some potential danger and the second is that there is a possibility of a different design to avert that danger. In this case, sufficient evidence was presented to show that the manufacturers knew or should have known that Extra Strength Tylenol could cause liver damage. The facts also showed that the manufacturers were working to find a substitute. Finally, the evidence also showed that the plaintiff’s sister died of acetaminophen-induced liver failure after taking Extra Strength Tylenol as directed.

Sydney is a political science major with a minor in legal studies at Seton Hall University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Luke Iorio.

It was deemed the trial of the century–a trial with so many twist and turns it has sparked books to be written about it as well as a TV mini series. It is the O.J. trial, and there was a recent discovery that could finally provide all the answers.

The one thing missing from the prosecutor’s case was the murder weapon. There is a chance that the weapon has been discovered 22 years after the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. A retired policeman has handed in a knife that was found by a construction worker in 1998 on Simpson’s property.  The knife is currently being tested for DNA.

There is still skepticism, amongst many people, that this knife will end up having anything to do with the murders. It is a little suspicious that this knife suddenly appears in the middle of the airing of the mini series that is based on the murders and trial.

The main question to be asked is: what happens if the knife is connected to the murder and the DNA comes back connected to OJ? Because of double jeopardy in the Fifth Amendment, OJ will be safe from being back on trial. Unless the trial goes to a federal court, the only problem is that there is a slim chance that a federal issue could possibly arise from a murder case.

The people that have a chance to face legal punishment if the knife is linked to OJ Simpson are the people that helped keep the knife hidden or, if his friends helped conceal any evidence. Those are the people that could end up going to jail not OJ.

It is important to conclude saying that it is very unlikely that the knife has any connection to the murders and it is just one of the hundred “murder weapons” that have been turned in over the years. But it is something to think about.

Luke is a sports management and finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2018.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington D.C. is the first federal office to set up a unit to identify anyone wrongfully convicted of a crime.  The Conviction Integrity Unit will review cases where defendants offer new evidence that was not available at the original trial, such as DNA evidence, to prove their innocence.  Ronald Machen, Jr., the U.S. Attorney of the Washington office said in a statement, “As prosecutors, our goal is not to win convictions, but to do justice.”  Machen further said, “This new unit will work to uncover historical injustices and to make sure that we are doing everything in our power to prevent such tragedies in the future.”

The Conviction Integrity Unit follows similar ones established in state offices.  The modus for the creation of a separate unit to review these cases arises from five convictions that were vacated by the court, including that of Donald Gates, who was convicted in 1982 of rape and murder based on hair evidence.  DNA testing made available in 2009 proved that he was innocent.

The office is working with defense lawyers and the Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project, a non-profit organization which fights wrongful convictions.  Over the last four-years, more than 2,000 files involving hair or fiber evidence have been reviewed by the FBI.

Posted by Bridget Uribe.

During the summer of 2015, one of the world’s most known Japanese companies broke headlines as a top accounting scandal. Investigators found the company was overstating operating profits by at least 151.8 billion yen ($1.2 billion in U.S. dollars) between the years of 2008 and 2014. Their accounting problems primarily began from company employees understating costs on long-term projects, according to an investigation by a former top prosecutor in Japan.

The investigation also cited issues with improperly valued inventory also as the cause for the enormous overstatement of operating profits. Details of the scandal emerged when an independent investigative panel released a report describing, “Toshiba CEOs put intense pressure on subordinates to meet sales targets after the 2008 global recession.” The investigative report revealed that the CEOs did not directly instruct anyone to cook the books but rather placed immense pressure on subordinates and waited for the corporate culture to turn out the results they wanted. The investigative panel also pointed out that the weak corporate governance and a poorly functioning system of internal controls at every level of the Toshiba conglomerate didn’t mitigate or stop the inappropriate behaviors. Internal controls in the finance division, the corporate auditing division, the risk management division, and in the securities disclosure committee were not functioning properly. The accounting misconduct began under CEO Atsutoshi Nishida in 2008 due to the global financial crisis that immensely lowered Toshiba’s profitability. It continued unabated under the next CEO, Norio Sasaki, and eventually ended in scandal under Tanaka. Toshiba CEO Hisao Tanaka announced his resignation, in light of the scandal.

It has been four months since the scandal broke headlines and much new information has come to light. Since then, Toshiba has amended and restated those losses as to being more than $1.9 billion. As a consequence of the scandal, the Tokyo Stock Exchange has already designated Toshiba’s shares as “securities on alert” and fined the company $760,000 for “undermining the confidence of shareholders and investors.” In addition, Toshiba also faces the possibility of lawsuits from angry shareholders in Japan who have seen the company’s share price tumble.

Such action is already being taken in the United States, where an investor has filed a class-action lawsuit against Toshiba in June. The Rosen Law Firm representing the plaintiff has called for other Toshiba shareholders to join the suit. Despite the consequences Toshiba is facing, the one burning question has yet to be solved. Who did this? How did all this came about? How could their fraud be maintained for so long, and who should take direct responsibility?

Bridget is a graduate forensic accounting student at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Joseph Papandrea.

All different opinions are being thrown around in this case between Apple and the Federal Government. Syed Farook’s phone is what the Federal Government wants to access, due to his previous activity. Farrook killed 14 people during the San Bernardino attack. His relations to ISIS is why the government wants to access his phone. The judge decided to side with Apple in not letting the Fed’s access Farrok’s phone. Apple’s argument not to unlock this phone is because it affects everyone who owns iPhones. “Apple’s lawyers argue that the government’s demands would ultimately make iPhones less safe”(Riley). Apple being able to unlock this phone would make it less safe because phones could fall into the wrong hands. Apple in the past has helped the law enforcement in a drug dealer case. In this case it is much more serious and dangerous for society. Judge James Orenstein says there is no way he can force Apple to hack and access the phone.

The Federal Government holding this phone and stressing about this case does not make sense. There has to be a way the government can hack into the phone themselves, but do not want to reveal that power. If they are able to do that without the help of Apple that could also put a lot of people in danger.

Both Apple and the Federal Government are making a lot of things difficult. Apple was faced with a big decision about whether they were going to help access Farrok’s phone. If Apple accesses the phone, it can help the government in many ways. Their view on it though is that it affects every iPhone owner. Apple’s power to access one phone will give the government access all. A lot of people would side with Apple for fear of their own privacy, but others will argue and say that it will benefit the government because there can be evidence leading to ISIS. Apple decision is probably what is best for the company. Apple wants to stay loyal to its customers and do not want to lose income. People knowing that Apple is able to unlock a phone so easy is where customers lose trust with the company.

In conclusion, both Apple and the Federal Government are stuck between what is morally right. Apple is doing what is best for the company, because if the technology falls into the wrong hands it will bring the company down. I believe the Federal Government must have someone who can find a way to access this phone., because they have the technology already and are looking for a means to protect that secret. They can listen in on anything. In my opinion Apple is not wrong for not wanting to unlock the phone, because they are only protecting the company.

Joseph is a sports management major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Research project posted by Rafael Gabrieli.

Eminent Domain

Part I:

Eminent domain is the power to take private property for public use by a state or national government. There would be just compensation for the private property seized, however, many problems arise from this act. The way that eminent domain works is that it is backed by the Fifth Amendment to the US.  Constitution, which is that your state government has power over all property in the State, even private land. The land can be taken without the consent of the owner, as long as he or she is justly compensated. The purposes for which eminent domain vary, however, it has to be used for a public good somehow. This means that roads, courthouses, schools, or any other infrastructure that can benefit the public will come into place of the land that the government took using eminent domain. The state government or national government is able to use eminent domain for large-scale public works operations or even growing freeway systems.

Part II:

Pros:

In Houston, Texas, land was obtained by the use of eminent domain in order to create the Minute Maid Park baseball stadium, which has benefitted the surrounding community immensely. The baseball stadium brings millions of people each year to downtown Houston. What is amazing to see is to compare it with the Houston community before the stadium was built, which was very barren and unsocial.

The I-85 widening project in Concord, North Carolina will reshape the way inhabitants travel around Concord. The inhabitants are being justly compensated, and some are even getting 5%-10% more than the initial appraisal value. This new freeway widening will allow traffic to be lessened during rush hours, which posed a big problem for the city during the past couple of years. It is a necessary and responsible use of eminent domain.

Cons:

Private property could have sentimental value, like a house that has been in the family for generations. This is the case with the Keeler family from Claverack, New York, who lived in their house for four generations and were being forced out due to the state’s plan to expand power lines. Another problem with eminent domain is that the price that the owner feels he deserves is more than what is being offered to him. This happened to Rich Quam, owner of a house in Fargo, North Dakota since 1997. The town stated that his backyard could become structurally unstable, so the city offered him an amount to buy the property from him. Rich Quam declared it an insult however, because the amount did not reflect the years of hard work he put into renovating the house, adding a second level and a garage. A third problem is the simple desire to not want to abandon a profitable business, which almost occurred a couple years back to Perry Beaton, property co-owner of a Burger King that the city of North Kansas City was attempting to seize from him.

Part III:

In Economic Justice for All, it is stated that the common good may sometimes demand that the right to own be limited by public involvement in the planning or ownership of certain sectors of the economy, which is essentially the basis for eminent domain. Catholic support of private ownership does not mean that anyone has the right to unlimited accumulation of wealth, rather, it states that “no one is justified in keeping for his exclusive use what he does not need, when others lack necessities.” Thus being the Catholic Social Teaching stance on Eminent Domain: if it is for the public good, an individual should be more than willing to give up his property that is not essential to his well-being in order to further the development of society and his surroundings.

Works Cited

Clayton, Adam. “Family Rallies to save Farmland from Eminent Domain.” Columbia-Greene Media. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Mar. 2016.

“Economic Justice for All.” Wall Common Good Selected Texts. N.p., n.d. Book. 10 Mar. 2016.

Lewis, David. “Eminent Domain: Still A Useful Tool Despite Its Recent Thrashing.” Planetizen. Planetizen, 5 Sept. 2006. Web. 10 Mar. 2016.

Messina, Ignazio. “City Threatens Eminent Domain.” Toledo Blade. N.p., 26 Jan. 2014. Web. 10 Mar. 2016.

Reaves, Tim. “Making Way for the Freeway: Eminent Domain Claims Homes.” Independent Tribune. Independent Tribune, 7 June 2015. Web. 10 Mar. 2016.

Ross, John. “Hands Off! North Kansas City Loses Eminent Domain Case « Watchdog.org.” Watchdogorg RSS. N.p., 23 Jan. 2014. Web. 26 Jan. 2014.

Posted by Bridget Uribe.

During the month of March of 2014, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charged three executives: Chairman Steven Davis, Executive Director Stephen DiCarmine, and Chief Financial Officer Joel Sanders of Dewey & LeBoeuf, the international law firm, with facilitating a $150 million fraudulent bond offerings. The SEC alleged that the three charged turned to accounting fraud when the firm needed money during the economic recession and steep costs from a recent merger.  They were afraid that their declining revenues might cause the bank lenders to cut off access to the firm’s credit lines. Thus, leading Dewey & LeBoeuf’s financial professionals came up with ways to artificially inflate income and distort financial performance.

The fraud didn’t stop there. Dewey & LeBoeuf then resorted to the bond markets to raise significant amounts of cash through a private offering that seized on fake financial numbers. Dewey & LeBoeuf since have officially went out of business, and the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office charged criminal charges against Davis, DiCarmine, and Sanders. According to the SEC’s complaint, the roots of the fraud dated back to late 2008 when senior financial officers began to come up with fake revenues by manipulating various entries in Dewey & LeBoeuf’s internal accounting system. The firm’s profitability was inflated by approximately $36 million (15%) at the end of the 2008 financial results. “The improper accounting also reversed millions of dollars of uncollectible disbursements, mischaracterized millions of dollars of credit card debt owed by the firm as bogus disbursements owed by clients, and inaccurately accounted for significant lease obligations held by the firm”(SEC Press Release).

Fast forward to the present, a New York judge declared a mistrial Monday bringing an end to the trial for the biggest law firm failure in U.S. history! The decision comes on the 22nd day of deliberations by a 12-member jury, which acquitted the ex-law firm leaders on several dozen counts of falsifying business records. The jury couldn’t reach a verdict on grand larceny and remained deadlocked on more than 90 counts charges facing Steven Davis, Joel Sanders, and Stephen DiCarmine. The three could have faced up to 25 years in prison if convicted of grand larceny, the most serious of the roughly 50 counts each brought against them. The defendants also faced related civil charges brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission and a private lawsuit brought by former Dewey investors who say, “They were duped into buying debt in a 2010 bond offering.” Both of those proceedings had been on hold pending the outcome of the criminal trial. Some highlights of the trial are: prosecutors had likened Mr. Davis to a drug kingpin, overseeing a criminal enterprise. Also, the defense side thought prosecutors didn’t present enough evidence to prove their case, thus choosing not to call any witnesses. Instead, the lawyers relied on the cross-examination of government witnesses to try to distance their clients from the actions taking place in the accounting department. At times, such questioning also prompted praise for the defendants from those on the stand. Where does this lead us now? How the Department of Justice completely lost the case or can a retrial give a favorable outcome in the future? It’s too early to tell, but what I do know is that the long deliberations and mistrial will raise questions about whether the case was too complex.

Bridget is a graduate forensic accounting student at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Research proposal posted by Brian Kane.

In the digital age, the rights and laws regarding privacy are being contested now more than ever. Today personal privacy, both digital and physical, is being discussed. One of the earliest examples of privacy laws in the United States is the 4^th amendment. Under this amendment gives “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” (Fourth Amendment, U.S. Constitution). This and other laws, including the Federal Wiretap Law of 1968, are designed to protect the individual against unlawful searches of personal property by an unfair government. The individual right to privacy is held sacred in this country.

However, the laws of privacy protection are not absolute. Communications and interactions in general areas, such as online chatrooms, and digital communication used for work. Surveillance monitoring by employers has been contested by employees in courts in multiple cases. In City of Ontario, California v. Quon, for example, a search was justified because there were “reasonable grounds” and done “for a non-investigatory work-related purpose” (Ontario v. Quon).

Some argue that the privacy laws are for the best interests of individuals. Individuals and consumers are protected when the monitoring parties have clearly defined limits and barriers. When the government requires search warrants and the corporations are required to obtain consent, the best interests of those being monitored are kept in mind. The constant surveillance by powerful entities removes the right for individuals to act freely and live their own lifestyle. Gratuitous monitoring dehumanizes the employee and implies guilt without any evidence.

Privacy law is not completely virtuous, however. Like all laws, some may seek to exploit privacy law and use it to shield unproductive, immoral, and unethical behavior. When employees use corporate email accounts for personal business, they often claim a right to privacy when investigation begins. Many act recklessly online in this digital age, assuming that the right to privacy is absolute and unbreakable. There are instances where there is legitimate reasons to investigate an individual. When there is probable cause, public good supersedes individual privacy.

The issue of privacy and surveillance laws raises many ethical questions. The rights of individuals and the definition of individualism is put into question when anyone is monitored by a third party. There is concern for the maintenance of human dignity, as some see these searches dehumanizing and distressing on private lives. Pope Leo XIII spoke out against increased surveillance, saying that it intruded and lead to control over individuals. In Catholicism, the holy sacrament of confession revolves around the private recounting of sins and transgressions. When discussing privacy, the matter common good is raised. Aquinas believes that law is created for the common good, “made by him who has the care of the community and promulgated” (2 Bix).

Privacy and Surveillance Law is a widely contested issue in the catholic faith and general ethics. It has its advantages and disadvantages, as any other issue in law, but it will continue to be contested as new innovations shape the information age.

Works Cited

Bix, Brian H. “Secrecy and the Nature of Law.” October 2013. University of Pennsylvania School, Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law. Web. 3/3/2016. Avaliable: https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/2418-bixsecrecy-and-the-nature-of-law-full

City of Ontario v. Quon. 560 U.S. 746. Accessed 3/3/2016.

Posted by Stephen D’Angelo.

Friday morning, two days after the judge presiding the Uber class action lawsuit decided that drivers attempting to arbitrate can be included in the law suit, Uber sent drivers a new agreement. The document undermined the judge’s ruling by revising the arbitration clause.

Liss-Riordan and her team are filing an emergency motion that will be heard in front of Judge Edward Chen next Thursday; it asks the court to block Uber from enforcing this new driver agreement. “Uber has tried to fix the problem that Judge Chen ruled made the agreement unenforceable,” Liss Riordan told TechCrunch in an email.. The Private Attorney General Act gives “a private citizen the right to pursue fines that would normally only be available to the State of California. It also allows that private citizen to “seek civil penalties not only for violations that he personally suffered” but also for violations of “other current or former employees.”

According to Chen’s Wednesday ruling, the Uber driver agreement of 2014 and 2015 illegally waived drivers’ rights under PAGA, which informed Judge Chen’s decision that the arbitration clause could not be honored because it contained an illegal provision. This was the reason for the provision of the agreement, to quickly remove the illegality and include new provisions to the agreement.

The Private Attorney General Act protects uber drivers from what uber has tried to prevent, a large action against the company. Uber has agreed to resolve any claim against the company but only on an individual basis. Uber’s driver agreement provision also attempts to prevent workers from participating in any class collective or representative action against the company. Uber also rewrote the agreement to remove a requirement that arbitration between a driver and the company remain confidential. The language makes it clear that the agreement goes into effect only when a driver accepts it  not when a revision is published, therefore, protecting drivers who previously signed the agreement.

Stephen is an accounting major at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Chris Widuta.

Did you ever stop to notice how busy life can be? Either you’re on your way to your parents, maybe going to class that meets twice a week during rush hour, or off to the gym to see your friends. Life got busy really quickly for me and I am still managing to handle the responsibilities that come with it, which includes bills, an apartment, a relationship, and most importantly my future.

On a Wednesday at nine o’clock in the morning, I was headed down the highway doing a steady 20-mile per hour in light traffic. I was headed to meet with my college professor to discuss statistics before the final examination. The entire drive was very smooth with no one cutting me off. At the same time, I thought the slow moving traffic would make for a great time to multitask. Isn’t it true that more and more people getting more done by doing two things at the same time? Walking and talking is more than simply talking, obviously. For me, that Wednesday morning I was working with my television provider to opt-out of the TV service I thought I didn’t need. Cable is expensive and those types of calls are stages of perpetual holds. I was multitasking.

I was just a few feet away from my exit, blinker on, driving with both hands on the wheel, using my cell phone by holding it with my shoulder. The state trooper was already conducting his business that morning in the emergency lane, when he turned and saw me, communicating. I thought nothing of it as I knew I was within the law. I continued to proceed off my exit, slowly accelerating since traffic was clearing up and all of a sudden, red and blue lights jumped right into my rear-view mirror. This trooper was able to do two things at once, too! The amount of time it took him to leave that scene and open another had to be less than 30 seconds, and quite frankly I was impressed.

He pulled me over and asked for all the necessary documents. I always ask why I was pulled over, because I know that by most tickets are written by the discretion of the officer. He stated that I was on my phone and quite frankly I agreed. I was on my phone, and I stated to him that I was not holding it in my hand. I stated that I had both hands on the wheel, and I asked the officer if he saw me holding the wheel with both hands, at the 10 and 2 position. I believed that if he was able to see my head and phone, he must have been able to see both hands, which would be unmistakable, being about chin level from his vantage point.

At this point, the officer started to look like a State Trooper. He had the hat and was very serious, more serious than a local police officer. I knew that he had to be in a bit of a hurry when he gave me my insurance and registration back immediately and held my license. The trooper then stated that it didn’t matter how I was holding the phone, but the fact that I was on my phone was worthy of a ticket and illegal. I didn’t make a fuss of it and proceeded to my stats lesson.

It took me only a few minutes to research the most recent statue description for 39:4-97.3, or “Operation of a motor vehicle while using cell phone.” The statue number was right on the ticket, and a quick Google search pulled up some results. I proceeded to the 215th Legislature because that lead to the most recent additions to the law. I know how important it is to know current law rather than outdated information from the Internet. After reading through the entire statute, I came up for air and formed a judgment. The statute clearly stated in Article 2 Section 1: “The use of wireless telephone . . . device by an operator of a moving vehicle on a public road or highway shall be unlawful except when the telephone is hands-free wireless telephone or the electronic communication device is used hands-free.” That line right there gave me great hope that I was within the law, and hope that my day in court I could prove that. I was mentally preparing for a trial, pro se.

My first appearance in Municipal Court came 11 days later. Due to the fact that the situation was minor, and really only a monetary fine, I knew that the “ball was in my court.” You see, most municipal courts just love these kinds of evenings. People who are “money right and time poor” just plead guilty, pay the fine, and go on with life. The municipal court makes hundreds of thousands of dollars on these court nights, especially since the average fine that night was around $290 a person. These fines are like a tax on a poor decision.

This situation is the exact opposite. I am a student with a part time job, 15 credits, and financially responsible, who has some extra time to save some money. The fine was $200, a pretty large amount, and something I couldn’t lose. I was charged to go in with the prosecutor and plead my case. The first step I took was to sit down with the prosecutor and told him I plead, not guilty. He told me that by pleading not guilty I would request to have a trial, acting pro se. The prosecutor aggressively asked me if I was ready for “trial” as if it was a big and scary event. Of course, I knew this meant a trial so I was prepared. I also told him that I would be sending an “order” for discovery, which was my Constitutional right. He repeated what I said in a joking manner as if I was doing something wrong, but I confirmed that was what I wanted and thanked him for his time. I proceeded to sit down in the court room, second row from the font. I chose the second row because I wanted the judge to see my face and I wanted to be in the right position to hear the lawyers around me and the cases being presented that night. It was important to hear everything that was said because I was going to eventually head to the bench.

I took notes, studied, and remembered what the judge and prosecutor said for over 4 hours before I had the chance to speak. They called my case. The judge read the statute, told me the fine, and asked how I plead. After a moment or two of silence, I clearly stated “not guilty.” I may have been trembling a little on the inside, but it was important that he heard no wavering in my voice. The judge stated that I should prepare for a trial, but included a certain lead that gave me great hopes; the judge said, “If that phone was in your hand, you’re breaking the law.” I thanked him, and listened to him say that I would be getting a trial date. I walked out of the court room almost 5 hours later.

I quickly wrote up an request for the prosecutor. This official letter included my summons number, the date and who I was. In the order, I reminded him that it was my constitutional right for this discovery. I asked for all recordations of the interaction, including but not limited to, officers notes, audio, and dash cam video.

Preparing for the case was a matter of determining what facts were going to be most important to getting the charges dismissed. It was imperative that I used the officer’s comments against statute and the judge’s interpretation of the law. I truly believed that I was within the law, so it was relatively easy to find good reasons to throw this charge out. It was also clear to me that I would be making decisions based on political decisions; to be exact, I realized that the courthouse was making a bet that the State Trooper would be a witness and testify, but more on that later.

Weeks went by and a discovery packet was never sent. It was the day before the trial date and I called the courthouse to speak with the court clerk. I had told her I have not received discovery and asked for a new date. She said that she could not give one and trial will still go on tomorrow. This was actually good news. Because it is my Constitutional right to have discovery, I knew that the court would not judge against me, and at this point, the worst that could happen would be a new trial date. I could live with that.

I appeared to the court house dressed well. I went to the prosecutor’s office to speak with him, mainly on the fact that I have not received discovery. He was surprised to hear that I sent an request and he never received it. I reminded him of his words and what address to use. He also included a very important hint of what was to come. The prosecutor told me that the witness, the trooper, was not at the trial. This means that the only witness that the State has did not show up! I knew my rights under the Confrontation Clause of the 6th Amendment that, “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witness against him.” These new facts greatly swayed my emotions to believe that I had a chance to get this dismissed that night. I was excited to sit in the court room.

Surrounded by lawyers, I was attentive and engaged. Every poor soul that stood up there took the charge and paid the fine. I prepared and thought of a response for what I would say for every one of the questions that the judge asked. Many other people had trials that day, and most if not all led the accused to lose their case. I did not give up hope, as I knew I had a different tactic. Instead of arguing the law, I planned to argue why the rules of the court should sway the judge to dismiss this case. They called my name and I felt much more confident this time around. All the possible scenarios played through my head already and I was ready.

The judge read the charge as I laid my papers on the table. Before I looked up, the judge quickly and effortlessly offered to cut the fine in half. This was completely arguable, I thought to myself. I said was that I was not granted my Constitutional right because I did not receive discovery. Before he said anything, I handed the officer a copy of the letter I sent to the prosecutor. He read it and asked a few questions about what I was requesting. The judge specifically asked how I knew that the interaction with the officer was recorded. Quite frankly, I assumed that it was recorded, I didn’t know for a fact, but I didn’t let him know that. I answered his question by referring to the fact that this was a state trooper and I believed the State installed video long ago, and how important it is to have video for more important interactions. He proceeded to ask about recordations, which I also requested.

The prosecutor followed up with a statement that the officer, who was their sole witness, was not present. He asked if it would be okay to reschedule for another date. I quickly returned his comment by asking for a dismissal. The judge rebutted with some guilt tripping remarks, including that ever since 9/11, State Troopers are very busy, and that certain arrangements for special occasions are required. I wasn’t going to fall for this guilt trip. It is important for the witness to be present at any trial, especially this one. I responded with the fact that this was a trial and asked if a trial is important enough to request their witness to be present. I also stated that he should have been subpoenaed for the trial. The judge did not respond. I asked to kindly accept my motion for a dismissal.

After what seemed to be an eternity, the judge looked up and said, “Case dismissed.” His words were truly the most relieving and gratifying two words I could have possibly heard. All of the hard work and time I put in to this exercise, not only saved me the $200 fine, but I confirmed to myself that I could stand up to my opponents and be victorious. The best part of this was, I didn’t even have to argue the law, I used the law in my favor and the judge nor could the prosecutor do anything to stop me.

Chris is a business administration major with a concentration in management of information technology at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.