Available 24/7. Handling cases throughout all of New Jersey.
FREE consultations via zoom, in person, or by phone.
Jury Trials
*NOTE: The below should not be construed as a promise or guarantee of similar results. Results will vary depending on the particular facts and legal circumstances of each individual case.
State v. D.W. - D.W. was charged with Unlawful Possession of a Handgun (2nd degree), Certain Persons Not to Have Weapons (2nd degree), Hindering Apprehension (3rd degree), Certain Persons Not to Have a Weapon (3rd degree), Unlawful Possession of a Prohibited Weapon (4th degree), and Obstruction (4th degree). The State alleged that D.W. had an active bench warrant, ran from the police, and tossed a handgun into a dumpster. He was detained in jail pending resolution of his case. He was facing 43 years in prison. His plea offer was to serve 5 years in New Jersey State Prison with a 5 year parole disqualifier, pursuant to the Graves Act. This case was heavily litigated pre-trial to weaken the amount of evidence the State could try to use against D.W at trial. Ms. Denholtz successfully sought to suppress evidence of an anonymous tip by a "concerned citizen" which identified D.W. as the person who threw the gun into the dumpster. Ms. Denholtz successfully sought to preclude any of the State's law enforcement witnesses discussing that they were familiar with D.W. due to prior interactions. Ms. Denholtz then filed a successful motion to compel redaction of certain prejudicial statements from D.W.'s stationhouse interview.
At trial, Ms. Denholtz systematically dismantled the State’s case. She showed the jury that the State’s whole case was based on a theory, with no proof to back up that theory. No witnesses who saw D.W. with or throwing a gun. The surveillance video also did not show D.W. with a gun. The detectives lied to D.W. during his stationhouse interview. The lead detective lied to the jury, claiming he had watched all of the surveillance footage in this case which Ms. Denholtz established was not true. The lead detective also failed to investigate multiple people who placed unknown items into the dumpster prior to D.W. Ms. Denholtz also showed the jury there were major problems with the surveillance footage, which had chunks of missing footage. Because of that, the State could not say who approached the dumpster or placed anything inside of the dumpster during that missing time. Ms. Denholtz showed the jury that the lead detective’s reports were inaccurate because he claimed no one else approached the dumpster before D.W. ran by—we showed that unequivocally was not true. Ms. Denholtz showed that the detective claimed to have searched the dumpster for the marijuana D.W. claimed he threw into the dumpster—but even that was not true. All he did was take everything out of the dumpster, but he didn’t actually search the contents of any of the items he removed. Ms. Denholtz also attacked the credentials and findings (or lack thereof) of the State’s fingerprint expert. Put simply: the State provided no evidence showing that D.W. ever touched the gun found in the dumpster. After delivering scathing cross-examinations of the State's witnesses, and presenting a detailed PowerPoint presentation to the jury during closing arguments, the jury acquitted D.W. of all of the weapons offenses, and D.W. was released from jail that same day.
State v. V.R. - Client was charged with Sexual Assault (2nd degree) for events that allegedly occurred 5 years prior. The alleged victim claimed that after a night of drinking, V.R. attempted to anally rape her in the bathroom of the client's mother's apartment. V.R. claimed that this never happened and instead the alleged victim voluntarily initiated oral sex upon him in the bathroom of the apartment. The State waited 5 years to even charge the client with this offense, and it took another 3 years of litigation to get the case prepared for a jury trial. This case was heavily litigated and investigated pre-trial. Ms. Denholtz hired two experts to help consult on the trial, one of whom testified at trial strongly for the defense.
At trial, Ms. Denholtz systematically dismantled the State's case. She established that the alleged victim had a motives to lie. Ms. Denholtz showed that the alleged victim kept changing her story about what happened that night in very important ways. Ms. Denholtz also showed that the alleged victim repeatedly lied to the jury on the stand, and that the alleged victim had a criminal history involving crimes of dishonesty. Ms. Denholtz showed that V.R. voluntarily spoke to the police about the alleged incident. Ms. Denholtz showed that the lead detective repeatedly failed to properly investigate the case in very significant ways: he waited months to interview a key witness, he failed to reconcile the alleged victim and defendant’s diverging stories, he failed to pull surveillance footage which would have shown what happened on the date of the alleged incident, he failed to interview collateral witnesses to learn about the nature of the relationship between the defendant and alleged victim, and he never went to the alleged crime scene to process it for evidence. Ms. Denholtz attacked the State’s nurse expert witness in both her findings and her biases. Ms. Denholtz showed that, unlike the State’s expert, our expert had much more training and experience, that he reviewed the entire case file when forming his opinions, not just a small portion like the State's expert. Ms. Denholtz attacked the findings (or lack of findings) of the State’s serology and DNA experts. Ms. Denholtz also put on the stand two witnesses who testified that the alleged victim had a longstanding history of pursuing V.R., even while she was in another relationship. After delivering scathing cross-examinations of the State's witnesses, and presenting a detailed PowerPoint presentation to the jury during closing arguments, the jury acquitted V.R. of sexual assault. After trial, Ms. Denholtz had V.R.'s entire record expunged.