A man has been arrested for stealing over half a million dollars worth of jewelry from properties along the Navesink, among them, Jon Bon Jovi's wife's jewelry! Police have reported that the Beachwood man, only 21 years old, robbed a large handful of mansions and estates on Navesink River Road, and ultimately was caught by tripping an alarm in one of them. Also among the burglary victims is former head of American Eagle Outfitters, George Kolber, and a Middletown ophthalmologist.

The Defendant, Nicholas Tracy, is charged with three counts of second-degree theft and four counts of third-degree burglary. He is in jail with a hefty bail set at $100,000.00, and he was not given the option to post 10% as an alternative. This young man is in very deep, hot water and some would say gutsy, in foolish, wrongheaded, stupid sort of way for a 21 year old. It is unknown as to whether or not he was aware of the fact that he was stealing from the home of one of New Jersey's all time most beloved celebrities. The details of the reports don't seem to suggest that this inconvenient coincidence contributed to his getting caught.

Celebrity status of a victim aside, the Defendant stole a significant amount of worth of valuables in this case. Burglary, in its simplest definition, means breaking into the dwelling of another with the intent to commit a crime. Here, breaking into another's home to "steal" items fits the definition. One factor weighing in the Defendant's favor would be if he did not yet unload or sell the jewelry. If he still had the stolen property in his possession, then making restitution to the victims would be easier. Restitution is basically where the defendant makes a payment or returns stolen items to the victims or true owners. Many times, restitution is the key to resolving the case in a more favorable manner for the defendant. If a defendant is able to return an expensive item, such as jewelry, he is more likely to receive a lesser sentence. If he has already pawned the times, usually for less than they are worth, if the items were pawned for cash, and if he spent the cash with no way to repay it, the legal penalty will tend to be more severe.

His defense attorney should do whatever he can to sway the Court, and the victims, that he is a young man who has lost his way, and that with some support, he can alter his path, (hopefully) repay the members of the wealthy community he targeted, learn his lesson without posing any further threat to society. The details would have to support this position in some way, but any attorney would consider using his relative youth as a legal strategy. Of course, he is not a minor, and this young adult would have to be extremely remorseful for his crime.

In a case that will likely appear on a Law and Order episode, a jeweler, whose clients have included Donald Trump and Yoko Ono, has reportedly been sentenced to 25 years in prison for killing his wife, despite the fact that her remains have not been conclusively identified. During his trial, it was determined that he knocked his wife unconscious with a piece of wood and incinerated her body in an oil drum. The theory that he used his scientific knowledge of acids to destroy forensic evidence such as bones and teeth that could be used to identify her has been accepted by the Court. It should be noted that she was in the process of divorcing him, and he stood to lose more than $1.5 million.

The Defendant, representing himself, made the argument that his confessions were inadmissible, but the Court doesn't accept it. For a confession to be considered by the Court to have been involuntary, the defense must show that the police overbore the defendant's will and he was forced to confess. In this case, that doesn't seem to have been shown. First, the Defendant claimed he confessed due to pressure from a friend, even though he didn't seem to indicate how that pressure occurred. He told the friend that his wife "doesn't exist anymore" and that "they can't find her" while that friend was wearing a wire. There appears to be little other evidence offered by Defendant to show how law enforcement did anything improper so as to coerce a confession.

The prosecution leveraged testimony from five witnesses, including the victim and defendant's teenage son, the victim's cousin and sister. His accusations that the judge is prejudiced and the prosecutor incompetent, and that his wife's family and friends formed a lynch mob, did little to strengthen his legal strategy. His statement that "it is impossible to burn a human body and leave no evidence" seems to highlight his terrible and horrific accomplishment. What ever an expert, experienced criminal defense attorney may have done for him in Court will never be known. What is known, however, is that an attorney would have been a better choice.

One pound of most things is not a lot. A person can lose a pound in a day fairly easily, and gain one as well. But 585 grams, just over ½ of a kilogram or approximately one pound, when it comes to a controlled substance, is all it takes to get yourself in very, very hot water. Two nineteen year old men are certainly in some trouble for allegedly being found with an open container of alcohol, underage drinking, and interestingly, exactly 585 grams of marijuana while in their car in Brick, New Jersey.

Let's be clear: when it comes to pot, there are really only two options. The first is possession of under 50 grams, in which the charge is a disorderly persons offense (non-indictable, although you will be arrested, booked, and arraigned). The second is possession of over 50 grams. This one, considered intent to distribute, is, according to N.J.S.A 2C:35-10, a crime of the fourth degree, and can carry with it a fine of up to $25,000.00. It gets even better: possess drugs within 1,000 feet of a school zone, and if you're not imprisoned (as defined by the penal code), you'll have a mandatory 100 hours of community service you'll have to complete.

When it comes to determining whether or not there was intent to distribute, the factor most largely examined by the court is the amount of the drug that was seized by police. Someone caught with 30 grams of pot is more likely to convince a judge that it was for personal use than say, someone caught with 585 grams (about one pound). Some even try to argue that their 200+ grams of marijuana in the freezer bag in their desk drawer is for personal use, and that they just prefer to "stock up". Your personal preference of keeping a full stash is simply not persuasive or relevant for legal purposes.

In a Court of law, even with an attorney, that approach will not work. In fact, the New Jersey law allows an individual to possess a relatively large amount of marijuana, 50 grams. It's extremely unlikely that someone who possesses over two ounces of pot would have it and keep it to avoid the inconvenience of seeing their distributor or dealer once a week.

The bottom line? Possession of pot in excess of 50 grams will get someone in a whole lot more trouble than an amount under 50. So if police find you in possession of any pot/marijuana or any controlled substance, call a lawyer, obtain legal counsel, retain an attorney immediately. A good attorney will examine the details of your case, including method of arrest, search, seizure, and measured amount of controlled substance, among other aspects that might affect your welfare and determine the most appropriate legal strategy for your defense.

Think of a child shooting a machine gun and your mind is flooded with potential legal issues, not to mention the initial gut impression that there is just something wrong with that. The worst possible scenario imaginable happened in Massachusetts in 2008, when an 8 year-old boy held a machine gun, fired it and accidentally killed himself. This tragic loss is of course followed by civil and criminal charges. The gun club where the gun fair was hosted, the two men who supplied the Uzi and the local ex-police chief-owner of the sponsoring company of the show were all charged with manslaughter. The former police chief had hired those two men to run the shooting range portion of the gun show. The boy's father and 11 year-old brother watched as the little, lightweight "mini" machine gun backfired and shot him in the head. In case anyone doubts the sequence of events, his father recorded the entire event on video.

With the charges including involuntary manslaughter, and multiple counts of supplying a minor with an automatic weapon, the defendants could face 10 to 20 years in prison, depending upon whether or not it can be proven that they should have reasonably anticipated that there was an appreciable risk of death to the child. The father relied on the "expert" guidance of the staff at the show, and considered that other children had fired weapons then as well. How a jury resolves the legal questions associated with the criminal charges may hinge upon whether or not they are permitted to see the horrible imagery in the video recording of the event. Rules of evidence provide that the video must be relevant, authentic and not overly prejudicial.

In order to subject the jury to the sight of the boy shooting the weapon, shooting himself, going down, and the responsive screams of horror, the judge must determine whether the video will reveal facts that demonstrate criminal negligence and wrongdoing on behalf of those charged. The graphic nature of the video might urge the jurors/viewers to punish someone for the tragedy, and consciously or subconsciously, disregard other relevant facts, for example, that other children have fired automatic weapons without accident. It may show that the safety instructor failed to take a precaution he should have, or that while all required safety steps were taken, a reasonable person would have determined that death could likely result. Of course, the defense attorney surely wants the video kept out of the trial.

With technology making photographic and video recordings so prevalent, navigating such tricky evidentiary questions will be more and more crucial to a legal strategy than ever before. Whether or not the court, or jury, sees a photo or video could determine years in prison, or millions of dollars in civil liability. Further, assuming the picture or video is authenticated, meaning the source and integrity of the recording can be verified, such evidence could be used in small legal matters involving lesser charges. You may not even know that a picture or video recording of an incident exists following an accident or incident, which one more reason highly skilled attorneys are critical to protecting your legal rights and your welfare.