Top Family Lawyers Near Me in Asbury Park Area

John Menzel, J.D., and his firm defend people charged with drunk driving and related offenses in New Jersey.  John Menzel, J.D., has. > appeared in more than 300 municipal courts in all of New Jersey's 21 counties.. > tried more than a thousand drunk driving cases.. > argued more than 100 appeals before the New Jersey Superior Court's Law and Appellate Divisions and New Jersey Supreme Court.. > prepared writs of habeas corpus in Federal District Court for the District of New Jersey and Federal Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.. > instructed lawyers and laypersons on drunk driving laws, breath testing instrumentation, and trial techniques at 149 seminars in New Jersey, Massachusetts, Alabama, Texas, Nevada, Georgia, Louisiana, and California.. > participated as a lead attorney in State v. Chun and State v. Foley, the seminal cases on the Alcotest 7110 MK-III-C in New Jersey as well as other significant cases on breath test refusal, motor vehicle operation, probable cause, and speedy trial.. > participating as a lead attorney in State v. Holland and State v. Pizzo dealing with NIST traceability and comparability of the Ertco-Hart digital temperature measuring system and Control Company digital thermometer used during Alcotest recalibrations.. > argued State v. Frye this past January in the New Jersey Supreme Court concerning whether prior DUI convictions should enhance sentencing on later breath test refusal convictions.. > wrote the NJSBA amicus brief to the New Jersey Supreme Court in State v. Koropchak concerning certain police reports should be admissible evidence at trial.. SIGNIFICANT CASES. > State v. Pizzo, 422 N.J.Super. 185 (., April 2011), after remand 309 (., Dec. 2011), the companion case to State v. Holland, a remand considering the efficacy of substituting the Ertco-Hart digital temperature measuring system used during Alcotest recalibrations with a digital thermometer manufactured by Control Company, Inc.. > State v. Kim, 412 N.J.Super. 260 (. 2010), a puzzling affirmance of a breath test refusal conviction, following acquittal of DWI after trial, barring the challenge to the refusal conviction on procedural grounds but including a “concurrence” disagreeing with the majority’s determination on the merits.. > State v. Chun, 191 N.J. 308 (2007), 194 N.J. 54 (2008), concerning admissibility of new breath testing technology--the Drager Alcotest 7110 MK-III-C breath testing device using version firmware. > State v. Cummings, 184 N.J. 84 (2005), declaring unconstitutional the “preponderance of evidence” as the burden of proof for breath test refusal charges. > State v. Foley, Cartegena, et al., 370 N.J.Super. 341 (Law Div. 2003), in Superior Court, Law Division, Camden County, concerning admissibility of new breath testing technology--the Draeger Alcotest 7110 MK III C breath testing device using version 3.8 firmware. > State v. Farrell, 320 N.J.Super. 435 (. 1999), the leading case involving the rights to speedy trial and fundamental fairness for those charged with drunk driving in New Jersey. > State v. Garthe, 145 N.J. 1 (1996), concerning the admissibility of Breathalyzer results in light of the secrecy surrounding Breathalyzer inspection procedures