NJSBA Family Law Section

While mid-way through a hearing I had an opportunity to closely inspect the defendant's exhibits marked for identification.  Based on information from my client there is an exhibit of a car repair receipt I believed could not be right.  Upon inspection I could see that the receipt: (a) is a copy; (b) has the significant information boxes (e.g., name, car make and model, part description, costs, description of work, mechanic's signature) whited out; and (c) has over the whited out information the defendant's information in its place in original ink.  There is no mistaking that the receipt has a ton of white outs with new information inserted over it.  The receipt is particularly relevant to a  statutory custody factor in the case.  Yes I can keep it out under the best evidence rule, but what are your recommendations on dealing with, what certainly seems to me, is fraud on the court?

------------------------------
Shelley J. Pedersen, Esq.
241 Fosgate Drive
Suite 106
Jamesburg, NJ
(732) 641-2069
[email protected]
------------------------------

Original Message------

While mid-way through a hearing I had an opportunity to closely inspect the defendant's exhibits marked for identification.  Based on information from my client there is an exhibit of a car repair receipt I believed could not be right.  Upon inspection I could see that the receipt: (a) is a copy; (b) has the significant information boxes (e.g., name, car make and model, part description, costs, description of work, mechanic's signature) whited out; and (c) has over the whited out information the defendant's information in its place in original ink.  There is no mistaking that the receipt has a ton of white outs with new information inserted over it.  The receipt is particularly relevant to a  statutory custody factor in the case.  Yes I can keep it out under the best evidence rule, but what are your recommendations on dealing with, what certainly seems to me, is fraud on the court?

------------------------------
Shelley J. Pedersen, Esq.
241 Fosgate Drive
Suite 106
Jamesburg, NJ
(732) 641-2069
[email protected]
------------------------------

Are we sure we want to be discussing stuff like this online? Just wondering.

------------------------------
Curtis Romanowski Esq.
Senior Attorney - Proprietor
Metuchen NJ
(732)603-8585

Original Message:
Sent: 07-20-2016 17:31
From: Richard Diamond
Subject: Hearing Exhibit Fraud

My concern is the representation that you had the opportunity to closely inspect the other sides documents marked for identification - which means the documents were not marked into evidence and presumably not previously provided to you in advance of the hearing or if copies were provided to you of those documents, you looked at your adversary's set of pre markings without his knowledge and consent and in doing so, saw something suggesting that someone edited the document provided to you for the hearing - am I correct?

Sent from my iPhone

Original Message------

Are we sure we want to be discussing stuff like this online? Just wondering.

------------------------------
Curtis Romanowski Esq.
Senior Attorney - Proprietor
Metuchen NJ
(732)603-8585
------------------------------

Original Message------

I agree. Sounds like you are treading on delicate ice. 

Great reminder, Curtis! This list serve has many members. I only post what I wouldn't mind an adversary or judge seeing. I change up or truncate facts as needed.

I also write to posters individually if something in their post seems like it might be problematic for them. That being said, I have given exhibits marked for identification to adversaries for their review before I attempted to introduce them into evidence and have received the same from adversaries. I can't think of any time when my pre marked exhibits weren't already in the adversary's possession as responses to discovery. I guess summary proceedings like DV cases would be the exception. I see no problem with this exchange and review as the exhibits marked for identification are not being published to the judge or jury before being in evidence.

As to the exhibit with the white out. I would try to talk to the opposing attorney before the exhibit was offered into evidence and ask about the white out even if I had to ask the judge for a five minute recess. It is possible the exhibit, white out and all, is legit or arguably so. Yes, my client has told me otherwise. But, hypothetically speaking, what if this turns out to be the first time ever that I have a client who is being les than candid with me?!?!

If I couldn't talk to opposing counsel beforehand, I would make all the relevant objections when the exhibit was proffered. If it gets in, I would then ask a heck of a lot of questions about the authenticity of the doc on cross with a proffer of my client's contradictory testimony if needed. The judge will be able to examine the exhibit herself at that point and also make credibility determinations regarding the parties' testimony as to same. Hopefully, she will side with my client and toss the exhibit.

Anne

Anne Cralle, Esq.


Sent from my iPad


Original Message------

Are we sure we want to be discussing stuff like this online? Just wondering.

------------------------------
Curtis Romanowski Esq.
Senior Attorney - Proprietor
Metuchen NJ
(732)603-8585
------------------------------

I am not seeking recommendations on how to deal with an opposing counsel, trial procedure, questioning the witness about the document and/or determining if the document has been doctored. (I am trying to avoid details on how it came to be; suffice to say - a pro se
didn't produce it in discovery so he was ordered to produce it before the next hearing date - which is how I ended up having more than a minute to review it.) My question is how do you recommend raising the fraud issue to maximum effect?


Original Message------

Great reminder, Curtis! This list serve has many members. I only post what I wouldn't mind an adversary or judge seeing. I change up or truncate facts as needed.

I also write to posters individually if something in their post seems like it might be problematic for them. That being said, I have given exhibits marked for identification to adversaries for their review before I attempted to introduce them into evidence and have received the same from adversaries. I can't think of any time when my pre marked exhibits weren't already in the adversary's possession as responses to discovery. I guess summary proceedings like DV cases would be the exception. I see no problem with this exchange and review as the exhibits marked for identification are not being published to the judge or jury before being in evidence.

As to the exhibit with the white out. I would try to talk to the opposing attorney before the exhibit was offered into evidence and ask about the white out even if I had to ask the judge for a five minute recess. It is possible the exhibit, white out and all, is legit or arguably so. Yes, my client has told me otherwise. But, hypothetically speaking, what if this turns out to be the first time ever that I have a client who is being les than candid with me?!?!

If I couldn't talk to opposing counsel beforehand, I would make all the relevant objections when the exhibit was proffered. If it gets in, I would then ask a heck of a lot of questions about the authenticity of the doc on cross with a proffer of my client's contradictory testimony if needed. The judge will be able to examine the exhibit herself at that point and also make credibility determinations regarding the parties' testimony as to same. Hopefully, she will side with my client and toss the exhibit.

Anne

Anne Cralle, Esq.


Sent from my iPad