Read through just some of the positive outcomes we have obtained for our clients.*
State v. A.A.– Attempted Murder dismissed. A.A. was indicted for attempted murder, aggravated assault, possession of a firearm and related offenses in a shooting in Atlantic City. After extensive pre-trial motions, including a motion to dismiss and a severance motion, Ms. Rosenblum successfully negotiated and resolved the matter with the attempted murder charge dismissed and A.A. receiving a time-served sentence.
State v. T.B.– Gun-Point Robbery. “Hung Jury.” T.B. was charged with first-degree gun-point robbery that occurred in the casino parking garage. The State presented DNA evidence on a ski mask that was recovered in the trunk of a car the victim was able to describe. The State’s evidence also included video of T.B. and his codefendant entering and exiting the casino. Ms. Rosenblum successfully argued misidentification with regards to her client.
Specifically, Ms. Rosenblum argued that T.B. went to the casino to gamble, used his players card, never attempted to hide his identification, and even provided DNA sample to police because he was not involved in the robbery. At the end of trial, codefendant was found guilty of all charges EXCEPT conspiracy. Ms. Rosenblum’s client, T.B., was not found guilty of any offense. The jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict.
State v. H.R.– Strong-arm Robbery. “Not Guilty” Verdict. H.R. was charged with strong-arm robbery and related offenses. Ms. Rosenblum successfully litigated numerous pre-trial motions, including a motion to suppress the money recovered from H.R. and a motion to suppress the statements made by H.R. As a result, the State was barred from using the alleged-proceeds of the robbery (i.e., the money) and also was barred from using H.R.’s statement at trial. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found H.R. “not guilty” of robbery, conspiracy and aggravated assault.
DRUGS AND GUNS*
State v. B.M.– Unlawful Possession of Handgun. Motion to Suppress Granted/ Case Dismissed. B.M., a juvenile, was charged with possession of a handgun. Ms. Rosenblum filed a motion to suppress statements, asserting that police officers interrogated B.M. without providing proper Miranda warnings and further argued that the recovery of the gun was a result of the illegal interrogation. The Court granted the motion to suppress. As a result, the case was dismissed in its entirety.
State v. M.N.– Possession of a Handgun for Unlawful Use. Graves Act Waiver Granted. M.N. was charged with possession of a handgun for an unlawful purpose, which carries a mandatory sentence of five years incarceration in the New Jersey State Prison with a three-and-a-half-year period of parole ineligibility pursuant to the Graves Act. Ms. Rosenblum successfully filed an application with the Atlantic County Prosecutor to waive the mandatory state prison sentence. The prosecutor granted the application, and waived the mandatory prison sentence.
State v. B.S.– Drug Distribution and Possession. Motion to Suppress Filed; Indictable Charges Dismissed. Ms. Rosenblum filed a notice of motion to suppress and brief in support of the motion. Due to the strength of the motion, the State dismissed all indictable charges against B.S.
State v. T.G.– Drug Distribution, Conspiracy and Possession. T.G., a firefighter, was charged with drug distribution, conspiracy and related offenses. Ms. Rosenblum successfully negotiated T.G.’s admittance into pre-trial intervention, a diversionary program in New Jersey for first-time offenders. Ms. Rosenblum also ensured T.G. was able to maintain his employment with local fire department.
State v. M.M.– Gun Forfeiture. State’s Application to Forfeit Client’s Guns Denied. The State moved to forfeit M.M’s guns based upon allegations that M.M. assaulted his wife, K.M.. Ms. Rosenblum successfully negotiated a return of M.M.’s hunting rifles after trial dismissing the temporary restraining order.
State v. C.T.– Tier Classification Hearing. Tier 1 Classification Granted. Ms. Rosenblum successfully contested C.T.’s Tier 2 classification. Ms. Rosenblum successfully argued and presented objective evidence to establish C.T. should be classified as a Tier 1 (Low Risk).
State v. E.L.– Motion to Terminate Megan’s Law and Community Supervision for Life (“CSL”). In 2001, E.L. pleaded guilty to a second-degree sexual assault offense for engaging in consensual sexual contact with a fourteen year old he met online. As a result of his guilty plea, he was sentenced to four (4) years New Jersey State Prison, Megan’s Law and CSL. In 2019, Ms. Rosenblum filed a motion to terminate E.L.’s Megan’s Law and CSL requirements. The State objected. Ms. Rosenblum successfully argued that E.L. did not pose a threat to the safety of others and the motion to terminate Megan’s Law and CSL was granted.
Investigation of J.C. Sexual Assault– No Charges Filed. J.C. was a nurse at a local hospital. A patient at the hospital filed a report with the Galloway Police Department J.C. touched him inappropriately, ie., sexually, while at the hospital. Ms. Rosenblum was retained during the investigation, and provided evidence to the police demonstrating that J.C. did not engage in the alleged conduct. No criminal charges were filed.
State v. R.B.– Aggravated Arson. “Not Guilty” Verdict. R.B. and co-defendants were arrested after trying to enter a residential home without permission and in search of money. When the juveniles were unable to enter the house, one of the boys took a gasoline can out of a shed and lit the gas can. The State dismissed the arson charge against R.B.’s codefendant, but refused to dismiss the arson charge against R.B. At trial, Ms. Rosenblum successfully argued that the physical evidence, ie., gasoline and soot on co-defendant’s clothes, exonerated R.B. After a two-day bench trial, the Court found R.B. not guilty of arson.
State v. T.B.– Criminal Mischief (4th Degree Indictable). Case Dismissed. While at a casino, T.B. was seen on video damaging the elevator mechanism. Due to the amount of damage caused to the elevator mechanism, T.B. was charged with fourth degree indictable (felony) criminal mischief. Ms. Rosenblum negotiated with the State and casino to ensure T.B. was not indicted and all charges were dismissed.
State v. E.A.– Simple Assault. Case Dismissed. While visiting Atlantic City, E.A. was charged with simple assault in a casino. Ms. Rosenblum obtained video of the alleged conduct which proved client was not guilty of simple assault and wrongly accused. On the date of trial, Ms. Rosenblum successfully procured a dismissal of all charges.
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: TEMPORARY AND FINAL RESTRAINING ORDER HEARINGS*
E.K. v. G.B.– Domestic Violence. Application for Final Restraining Order Denied. E.K. alleged that G.B., a retired police officer, physically assaulted her. After a full hearing, Ms. Rosenblum successfully argued G.B. did not engage in domestic violence, nor did he assault E.K. and therefore, the request for a Final Restraining Order be denied. The Court denied the request of a Restraining Order and dismissed the matter.
M.T. v. D.S.R.– Domestic Violence. Application for Final Restraining Order Denied. M.T. alleged that D.S.M., her mother, was harassing her, even though M.T. did not want a relationship. At the hearing, Ms. Rosenblum successfully argued that D.S.M.’s conduct, even if true, was not harassment. Ms. Rosenblum also successfully argued that M.T. was not in need of protection under the Domestic Violence Act. As a result, the Court denied the request for a Final Restraining Order and dismissed the matter.
A.C. v. P.K.– Domestic Violence. Final Restraining Order Granted. After a lengthy history of abuse, A.C. filed for a Final Restraining Order against P.K. After a full hearing, Ms. Rosenblum secured a Final Restraining Order for A.C., thereby protecting her from further abuse.
K.W. v. M.M.– Domestic Violence. Motion to Dismiss Final Restraining Order Granted. In 2002, K.W. filed a temporary restraining order against M.M. At the hearing, M.M. consented to have a final restraining order imposed against him not fully understanding the implications. In 2019, Ms. Rosenblum filed a motion to dismiss the final restraining order. Although M.M had not contact with K.W. over the seventeen year period, she objected to the motion. After a full hearing, Ms. Rosenblum successfully argued that there was good cause shown to dismiss the final restraining order. The Court agreed and granted M.M.’s motion to dismiss the final restraining order.
DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED* (DWI)
State v. M.G.– Driving While Intoxicated and Refusal Dismissed. M.G. was charged with DWI and refusal dismissed. Ms. Rosenblum hired a medical expert establishing that M.G. was unable to generate the forceful expiratory flow necessary to complete the breath alcohol analysis. Ms. Rosenblum successfully presented the reports, as well as other evidence, to the prosecutor and Court. DWI and refusal charges were dismissed.
MUNICIPAL COURT & DISORDERLY PERSONS OFFENSE*
State v. C.R.– Harassment Disorderly Persons Offense Dismissed. J.B filed harassment complaint against C.R. alleging he was harassing him. Ms. Rosenblum argued and the Court granted a dismissal of the charge. Client was able to file for an immediate expungement.
State v. K.H., J.F. and M.P– Simple Assault Disorderly Persons Offense Dismissed. K.H., J.F. and M.P. were security officers at a local hospital. W.G. filed simple assault charges against the three security officers. Ms. Rosenblum, along with her investigator, conducted extensive investigation and interviews. Ms. Rosenblum argues successfully that K.H., J.F. and M.P. acted appropriately, did not assault W.G., and the simple assault charges were dismissed.
State v. A.T. Ms. Rosenblum filed an appeal of A.T.’s consecutive sentence for driving while intoxicated and reckless driving after he was found not guilty of vehicular homicide.
State v. H.R. During the trial, the State filed an emergent application for leave to appeal for a Clawans instruction, ie., adverse inference, to the jury. Ms. Rosenblum successfully argued that the trial court correctly permitted the Clawans jury instruction, since the State failed to call a witness who was in the State’s control. The Appellate Court agreed and denied the State’s appeal.