RECENT APPEAL/APPELLATE NEWS
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY

Jeff Mandel's appearance before the
Supreme Court of New Jersey.
State v. Marquez, 202 N.J. 485 (2010).
Briefed the issue of whether the State is required to notify a motorist of the refusal law in the same language that the State allowed the motorist to take his or her drivers examination.  Stated differently, if the State allows a motorist to take the examination in, for example, Spanish, then the State should offer the recitation of the refusal law in Spanish.

For more on this appeal, see the article "N.J. court to assess DUI-test consent", as reported in the national section of the July 11, 2010 edition of USA Today, at the following link:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-07-11-DUI-language_N.htm


Jeff Mandel's appearance before the
Supreme Court of New Jersey.
Stengart v. Loving Care Agency, Inc., 201 N.J. 300 (2010).
Briefed the issue of whether an employee waives the attorney-client privilege by communicating with counsel through a company-owned computer.


Jeff Mandel's appearance before the
Supreme Court of New Jersey.
State v. Nunez-Valdez, 200 N.J. 129 (2009).
Argued before the Supreme Court of New Jersey the viability of the State's current Plea Form and obligations of counsel to advise non-U.S. citizen clients of the immigration consequences of entering into certain guilty pleas.  The Supreme Court adopted my argument and New Jersey now, as a result of the decision, has a new Plea Form that is used in every court in the State.  News media throughout the United States and even in other countries reported on this case.

For more on this appeal, see the article "Crimes levam a deportacao de imigrantes", as reported in Brazil in the August 10, 2009 edition of Gazeta, at the following link:
http://issuu.com/gazetanews.com/docs/636  
See also, "Imigrantes residentes poderao ser deportados" as reported in Brazil in the July 29, 2009 edition of The Brazilian Times, at the following link
http://www.braziliantimes.com/noticia/2822,imigracao,IMIGRANTES+RESIDENTES+PODERAO+SER+DEPORTADOS.html

Jeff Mandel's appearance before the
Supreme Court of New Jersey.
State v. Spell, 196 N.J. 537 (2008). 
This was an appeal ofState v. Spell, 395 N.J. Super. 337 (App. Div. 2007).  Argued whether the Appellate Division over-stepped its bounds when, without finding a constitutional violation, it ordered the Motor Vehicle Commission (MVC) to modify the standard statement read to those suspected of driving while intoxicated (DWI) under the Implied Consent Law.  To put it mildly, oral argument for me was brutal, as the Supreme Court was correct that an intermediate appellate court lacks the authority to direct the Executive/Legislative Branch to act in the absence of a constitutional/statutory violation.  That said, the Supreme Court's written opinion was professional and gently reversed the Appellate Division.  As a partial victory, the Court referred the issue to the Motor Vehicle Commission for its consideration and to decide if changes in the standard statement should be made.

Jeff Mandel's appearance before the
Supreme Court of New Jersey.
State v. Cottle, 194 N.J. 449(2008)
Argued before the Supreme Court of New Jersey in in which the Court the issue of a conflict of interest with defendant's trial counsel.  The Court agreed, reversed defendant's murder conviction and tossed his life sentence.  Mr. Cottle  had already served approximately 10 years in prison prior to the Supreme Court reversing the conviction on appeal.  To read the case, use the link:
http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/decisions/supreme/a-111-06.doc.html

For more on this appeal, see the article "One Reason to Seek a New Trial: Your Lawyer Is a Stalker", as reported on the national legal website, law.com, at the following link: 
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1193130222540

Jeff Mandel's appearance before the
Supreme Court of New Jersey.
State v. Jimenez, 188 N.J. 390 (2006)
Argued before the Supreme Court of New Jersey the issue of the burden of proof when one facing the death penalty asserts mental retardation.  Oral argument also addressed the stage in which the burden of proof must be met, i.e., pre-trial, during trial, post-trial.  Oral argument also addressed the issue of who decided the issue, i.e., judge versus jury.
http://www.sentencing.nj.gov/downloads/pdf/articles/2006/Nov2006/opinion01.pdf

Jeff Mandel's appearance before the
Supreme Court of New Jersey.
State v. Parks, 192 N.J. 483 (2007)
Successfully argued before the Supreme Court of New Jersey that the Three Strikes Law as applied to this defendant was improper.  The Court reversed his life sentence.
http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/decisions/supreme/a-39-06.doc.html

Jeff Mandel's appearance before the
Supreme Court of New Jersey.
State v. Mahoney, 188 N.J. 359 (2006)
Argued before the Supreme Court of New Jersey in that a jury instruction requested by the State to introduce a code of ethics (here, the Rules of Professional Conduct applicable to lawyers) is improper.
http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/decisions/supreme/a-10-05.opn.html

An article on this case appeared in the April 20, 2006 edition of the Newark Star-Ledger, entitled "Lawyer's theft conviction tossed out."

Jeff Mandel's appearance before the
Supreme Court of New Jersey.
State in the Interest of S.S., 183 N.J. 20 (2005) 
Argued successfully that a judge cannot hold a juvenile in contempt of court for violating an order entered pursuant to a juvenile in crisis petition.
http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/decisions/supreme/a-29-04.opn.html