Whether it is New Jersey or California, a Municipal Court judge may order a person to serve jail time. In New Jersey, the longest a person can be sentenced to serve in jail is 180 days in Municipal Court. Naturally, jail time is not common for municipal offenses, outside of a mandatory sentence for a third DUI offense. The key word in all of this is "may," because the law does give a judge the authority to order jail time for things such as disorderly persons offenses. The statute puts a cap on the amount of time, but as anyone would imagine, most people do have an aversion to any prison time.

Lindsay Lohan makes the news by being sentenced to 90 days jail time because, despite her exquisite display of tears and remorse, she has blatantly disregarded the prior court orders. She has missed court dates and failed to comply with terms of her probation, and further, she has erred more than once. Lets hope the jail time is a wake up call to Ms. Lohan, even if she is released after serving a fraction of her jail sentence. If the wake-up call hits, perhaps her mandatory in-house substance abuse rehabilitation following jail might have a shot at being effective.

A developing story as Jeremy Green of ESPN has been arrested in Connecticut on charges of first-degree possession of child pornography, possession of narcotics and possession of drug paraphernalia. As of the date of the story, Green was in custody on $750,000 cash bail. Green worked as an NFL analyst for ESPN, and is the son of former NFL Coach Dennis Green.

The amount and nature of the bail set indicates that Green is facing serious charges of child pornography. Criminal charges are organized according to degree, and the first degree means that alleged crime is the most serious offense under the applicable statute. In New Jersey, the relevant law also places the burden on the defendant, or the person charged with these illicit materials, to provide the defense. This does not mean that he is presumed guilty unless he can prove otherwise, but it makes it very difficult to exploit gray areas of the law. For example, any person that presents the appearance of being under the age of 16 is assumed to be under 16 and it is not a defense for one to claim that he "thought" the person in question was older than 16. Therefore, it is a strict liability offense with limited defenses available. Unlike many other media personalities, Mr. Green's offense is not merely embarrassing but disturbing. It is a crime that has cost him his ESPN job. Even with an excellent defense attorney, he will likely face significant prison time unless new facts emerge.

Ever wonder if the jury on a criminal trial is aware of the potential punishment the defendant faces if they convict? Here's some interesting case law on the subject.
1. State v. Carswell, 303 N.J.Super. 462 (App. Div. 1997) - It is well established that "jurors decide the facts in accordance with the law as instructed by the court, and the court determines the punishment to be imposed upon the finding of guilt." It is also well established that because a jury has no sentencing function, "it should be admonished to 'reach its verdict without regard to what sentence might be imposed.'" "Trial by jury in criminal cases in NJ and other states traditionally requires separation of the functions of a jury and the court in non-capital cases." Thus, a general rule has emerged that jurors are not to be informed as to the possible sentence of a defendant. [citations omitted]
This traditional rule is based upon the rationale that informing the jury would: (1) draw attention away from their chief function - to judge facts; (2) open the door to compromise verdicts; and (3) confuse the issue or issues to be decided. Another suggested reason is that the instruction is simply of no aid to the jury in determining one's guilt or innocence. [citations omitted]
2. State v. Cooper, 151 N.J. 326 (1997) - overruled State v. Brown, 138 N.J. 481 (1994) in that a guilt phase jury does not have to be instructed on potential sentences for non-capital offense. The Court refers to this as the "Ultimate Outcome Charge in Guilt Phase." The only time it appears permissible to inform the jury of the potential penalties is during voir dire.
3. 23A C.J.S. Criminal Law, Sec. 1868 - Even in the event that a jury asks questions concerning the punishment that will be imposed if the defendant is convicted, the court should remind the jury that it should reach its verdict without regard to what sentence will be imposed. If the jury makes a recommendation for mercy, the court should remind the jury that the recommendation is not binding, the jury has no sentencing function, and the jury should reach its verdict without regard to the sentence.
4. Stein, Closing Arguments 2d, Sec 1:87 - If the disposition of the sentence is for the court, and the jury has no concern in meting out punishment, discussion of that matter is not proper during argument. Neither the prosecution not defense can refer to sentencing possibilities of the court should certain verdicts be found, or of the court's ability to place the defendant on probation, and the defense is also prohibited from informing the jury of possible sentences that the defendant would face if convicted.
A skilled defense attorney is aware of this fact and will incorporate this factor into his or her litigation strategy.

An arrest has reportedly been made of a high school senior, who is charged with third-degree aggravated criminal sexual contact and third-degree criminal sexual contact, which allegedly occurred in Seaside Heights, following his prom in northern New Jersey. It is said that the 18 year old woman was incapacitated when she was victimized in a hotel, meaning she was indisputably unable to or did not give consent and anything that may have transpired was not consentual. The young man, who is in the U.S. on a student visa from Zimbabwe, is being held on $125,000.00 bail in Toms River and has been relieved of his passport.

The fact that Mr. Kabete is on a visa makes his potential trouble even more severe for him since he can be deported if he is convicted with a crime. If he cannot make bail, Mr. Kabete will be sitting in jail for a while, since this matter will have to present for indictment with the grand jury. If the grand jury returns an indictment, he will then have to be arraigned, which means he must plead guilty or not guilty. This is the stage at which a public defender would enter the proceedings, unless Mr. Kabete can afford to hire a private attorney. After an indictment and at the arraignment, the law requires someone to be represented by a lawyer, assuming he hasn't chosen to represent himself. Mr. Kabete has no such right at this time and will have a long process to get there if the reports prove to be true. It is clear, however, that his interests would be best served by the counsel of a skilled attorney who has experience with these types of charges.

Details have yet to be provided, and the victim's identity continues to be protected due to age and the nature of the crimes. These charges can include a wide array of conduct involved with an act of sexual penetration such as use of a weapon, physical force, threats, the aid of another person, severe personal injury, or it coincides with assault on another. The severity of the charges remains to be seen, but the occurrence of this sort of crime is a huge fear often associated with risky behavior surrounding proms. It should serve as a warning, with weeks left in the prom season. If you find yourself in any way related to a similar occurrence, it is in your best interest to contact an attorney.