Richard F. Klineburger III is a co-founder of Klineburger & Nussey in Haddonfield and a New Jersey State Bar Association trustee. He has tried numerous complex felony and homicide trials and has served as president of the Salem County Bar Association. He spoke recently about his work, including an ongoing case of first impression he is pursuing. This conversation has been edited for clarity and brevity.
In an era of vanishing trials, you have tried over 50 cases. What lessons have you learned?
The experience you get in a courtroom can have applications in many areas. Cross-examination skills translate to nearly every type of practice. I concentrate on complex litigation, but I have handled a wide range of matters, from criminal defense to civil and domestic relations.
What is a case that stands out as a highlight?
-T.jpeg)
One case I am really proud of is defending an indigent client who was charged with murdering his infant son by allegedly hitting his head into a bathtub. After two other attorneys gave up on the case, I became involved and began to dig apart at the mounds of discovery in preparation for trial. We pursued independent forensic testing that showed the child had actually died from a failure to diagnose a concussion that happened a few days earlier and was not detected in a prior hospital visit the day before the child died. After three years of being wrongfully jailed, my client was released from custody and regained his former employment.
Earlier this year, you filed a first-of-its-kind lawsuit, along with Brady United Against Gun Violence and other law firms, targeting gun violence. What is unique about it?
I represent the parents of a young man who was killed in a 2019 mass shooting in Dayton, Ohio. He was a remarkable young man. He was about to complete his master’s degree and had just accepted a job at a cancer center as a physical therapist. He was out celebrating with friends at a bar when someone started shooting. My client jumped on two of his co-workers and saved their lives. Our suit targets the company that manufactured and marketed the high-capacity magazine used in the shooting. The lawsuit is considered unique because it is the first lawsuit focused solely on the marketing, manufacture and sale of high-capacity magazines, the accessories used to store and feed ammunition in semi-automatic and automatic guns. This is not a Second Amendment attack nor an attack on guns. A central idea is high-capacity magazines are dangerous products to begin with and are unreasonably dangerous firearm accessories that have no civilian use other than in unlawful mass shootings.
What happens next?
Oral arguments are expected to begin this month.