|
A. “Chun” Litigation
As A Landmark of New Jersey Law
This Supreme
Court litigation is titled “State v. Chun, et al.”, Docket Number
58,879. Attorneys who highly concentrate their practice in the
area of drunk-driving defense were selected to litigate a consolidated
case in September 2005 and they appeared in front of the Special
Master, Hon. Michael P. King, P.J.A.D. Many people in New Jersey
refer to this case as the “Chun case”. This case
is a so-called “Frye hearing”, in which scientific
issues are the focus of the argument. Seven defense attorneys
in the entire state who practice DWI defense are challenging
State of New Jersey to prove the scientific reliability of a
new breath alcohol machine, the Alcotest 7110 MK-III. Because
these defense attorneys are fighting so well for such a long
time, they have created and know issues about this new machine
that have not yet become generally known by most attorneys in
the state. I am honored to have created the defense strategy
for the seven defense attorneys fighting for all New Jersey drivers.
Click here to see the newspaper article by New Jersey Law Journal
about my contribution in this litigation .
Since this litigation is so influential, “Chun” will
probably be the landmark New Jersey DWI case for many years.
I am honored to have had this responsibility in such an important
case.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1The figure is as
of May 29, 2007. Win rate is defined as the number of clients
not convicted for DWI divided by the total number of clients
who were charged with DWI. The clients are those who retained
this office after 2005. Each case varies. Under any circumstance,
we do NOT guarantee a successful outcome in any individual case.
2The
figure is as of May 29, 2007. Win rate is defined as the number
of clients not convicted for No Automobile Liability Insurance
divided by the total number of clients who were charged with
said charge. The clients are those who retained this office after
2000. Each case varies. Under any circumstance, we do NOT guarantee
a successful outcome in any individual case.
|
