Courts in New Jersey have rules that are documented and are supposed to govern the courts within the state which can be found here njcourts.gov/attorneys/rules-of-court/dismissal. One particular rule states that: The State of New Jersey CANNOT hold an inmate in custody for more than 180 days after an inmate is formally charged, also known as indicted. The 180th day is known as the Post Indictment Release Date. NJ adopted additional rules that provide reasons as to why the court did not meet the expectations set forth by the 180 day rule when missing the deadline stated in the rule. These reasons for not meeting the deadline falls under what is called Excludable Time.  There is an Excludable Time Order put in place whenever the scheduled court appearance results in a reschedule or postponement. The Order is than attributed to either the defendant or the prosecutor. When attributed to the Prosecutor, a new court date is scheduled based on the amount of time the prosecutor states is needed. If the Excludable Time order is attributed to the defendant, the court date is rescheduled and the post indictment release date is now pushed out the same number of days to cover the time leading up to the new court date.

Excludable Time directly effects the post indictment release date for ALL DEFENDANTS THAT ARE DETAINED. There have been errors made when the Excludable Time Orders were placed into the court's system either by human error, the presiding judge's error, or possible system error that resulted in the Excludable Time orders being attributed to the wrong party. Correcting an Excludable Time Order that should not have been attributed to the defendant means that the post indictment release date would need to be adjusted as well.  This now creates a bigger issue. For many inmates, a few days or 2 weeks being corrected would mean that the Post Indictment Release date is now in the past however, the judges do not appear likely to make any changes to their initial decision of which party the order is attributed to.

Justifiable Reasons to have ALL Excludable Time Orders Reviewed: 

1 - There are cases that show there have been instances where a judge has placed an Excludable Time Order and attributed to the defendant erroneously. On July 11th, 2021, I personally witnessed a case during the afternoon zoom court via NJ Public Court Channels, where a private attorney challenged the judge regarding several Excludable Time orders placed on his client.  During the review of the dates in question, the judge attempted to provide some scenarios explaining when you can and cannot attribute an Excludable Time Order to the defendant. One of those scenarios contradict what it states in the rule and one of the judges that most speak highly of and has been around for quite some time. That leads me to believe that Excludable Time attribution might be a topic that isn't easily determined and judges may differ in opinion, which raises concern. This case in particular resulted in the judge having to adjust the post release date by 23 days! The why isn't what's important. What's important is the fact that errors were made when the initial Excludable Time Order was placed and the defendant's Post Indictment Release Date was incorrect up until the judge decided to acknowledge the error and allowed the changes to be made.

• The 1st issue here is that the judge explained excludable time that day to all that were listening and he was incorrect on one of his scenarios regarding what is done when the delay is on both the defendant and the prosecutor. How many other times did he get it wrong?  How about other judges getting it wrong as well? Also, how many other Excludable Time issues are unclear to the judges and result in the order being attributed differently?
• The 2nd issue here is that it's proven that there can be errors made regarding excludable time orders. 23 days is alot. For a large amount of inmates, reversing 23 days could result in their post release date now being in the past. Actually, there are some inmates where 7 days or less could make their Post Indictment Release Date be in the past after adjusting. It is my understanding that if it happened one time, that is justifiable reason to have concerns that it could have happened more than once. The subject of a person's freedom is not something that should be taken lightly nor left to assumptions or concerns that could be cleared. We should all be assured and left with no reasonable doubt that the judges are adhering to the excludable rules and inmates are not being detained longer than allowed. 

2 - The Public Defenders office does not have the resources needed to defend all of the cases that require their assistance. They are overworked, underpaid, and aren't under sufficient supervision to ensure their success. Many times the Public Defender is switched during the pretrial process for reasons unknown to the defendant.  The defendant is not given a choice when the Court Appointed Attorney is assigned to their case. When a new Public Defender is assigned, the defendant isn't given the option to keep the one that has been handling their case thus far. The defendant isn't even given notice of a change being made. The defendant is likely to not be made aware of a change in their defense attorney until they are waiting in the back on their scheduled court date and the new Public Defender introduces themselves and advises that they will ask for a postponement so that they will have time to review the case. they had when. And now we have at least 2 more postponed court dates with excludable time orders attributed to the defendant- the 1st being the need for the new Public Defender to review the case and the 2nd being the need for that Public Defender to review the case since they were just assigned to it. If the defendant has no input or options regarding the Court Appointing of Attorneys and the reassignment of Attorneys, how are we to now state that this delay of the pretrial process is because of the defendant? The Public Defenders are employed by the State. It is the State's responsibility to ensure there are adequate and sufficient resources in place to maintain the processes in which they are held accountable for. 

Action to be taken:

The two items above are JUSTIFIABLE REASONS TO HAVE EVERY SINGLE CASE IN NJ THAT HAS HAD AN EXCLUDABLE TIME ORDER PLACED, PAST OR PRESENT, TO BE REVIEWED IMMEDIATELY TO ENSURE THAT THERE ARE NO MORE ERRORS THAT COULD CAUSE THE STATE TO HAVE ILLEGALLY HELD AN INMATE PAST THE ALLOWABLE TIME PER THE RULES THAT GOVERN THE COURTS IN THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY. 

• The review of the Excludable Time Orders should be completed by a 3rd party group that has no connection to any NJ court officials whatsoever.  
• Training for the reviewers should be provided by a person whom is considered to be a professional in the area of law and has extensive knowledge of court rules, procedures, and documents surrounding post indictment/ pretrial proceedings. 
• All findings should be fully documented and a procedure put in place to correct any errors found during the review process. Any defendant in which an error has been found should be notified and the overall findings of the case should be made public.  Case type, presiding judge name, reason for initial excludable time order, total amount of days considered excludable time prior to review vs post review, and any information that could be used to establish trends. 

This type of review should be considered a "Compliance Check" to ensure that things are going as they should. I have spoken with quite a few private attorneys that have stated that Excludable Time is something that is a common issue in the Camden County Hall of Justice. If an attorney feels the need to challenge the judge regarding the Excludable Time Order placed on his client, it would be because the attorney finds that attributing the delay to his client does not match up with the rules surrounding Excludable Time. How often are the judges challenged on their decisions on attributing Excludable Time Orders? Why are the judges getting it wrong? 

Checks and balances are always necessary. Routine maintenance is necessary. This very exercise will reveal much that is wrong with this system. I have documented many of the issues that I have witnessed on my blog and I will be adding more.  I have also come up some ways to help bring about change in the way system operates and perhaps I will get to share them with the people that have the power to make changes. I've come with not only the intension of exposing what is wrong, but with solutions to improve the process that causes the issue that leads to injustice. The plan that I have come up with will also provide new career opportunities for NJ residents and provides inmates with better opportunities upon re-entering society and remaining out of jail. 

I am fully aware that the findings of this review may show an alarming amount of errors that were made when the Excludable Times Orders were placed. That may even lead to an alarming amount of Post Trial Indictment Release Dates that are now in the past. Will NJ release the inmates in which they are now detaining illegally? I doubt it and that brings us to another issue and another petition. After bail was no longer allowed and the Point System that was put in place, the inmates that are not allowed pretrial release are those that the judge or prosecutor feels may impose a risk to society, may obstruct justice, or perhaps won't show up to court. In Addition to the 180 day Rule, there is a similar 2 year rule.  How was NJ able to add additional context to the 2 rules that are put in place to limit the amount of time a defendant can be detained prior to signing trial documents or taking a plea deal? The additional context state that the judge may refuse to release a defendant if there is reason to believe that the defendant is a danger, won't report, or may obstruct justice.  Isn't that the same reason that the inmate was not given pretrial release? How is the Judge or Prosecutor determining this assumption? The defendant is Innocent until proven guilty. The alleged crimes hold how much weight on these assumptions? Is the time that the defendant been detained and has had good behavior account for anything when making the assumption?  And most importantly, how was there a rule that was approved that basically gives the court permission to not adhere to the rule that was put in place to limit the amount of pretrial detention allowed?  It appears that NJ is purposely trying to prevent pretrial release and could very well be keeping inmates in jail longer than the law allows. I would like to know what would be the reason for this type of blatant injustice? These types of malicious acts could only lead to additional questions such as... what is the benefit of trying so hard to prevent pretrial release and who is it benefitting? 

In conclusion, sometimes we as people, feel broken and we forget that being in a broken state can actually be the best place if you are really looking to make major changes in your life. Why? It is because you are then able to truly rebuild yourself far better than before. You know exactly what led you there and how it felt being there, what didn't work, and what could have been done differently. This should allow you to prevent making the same mistakes and to be able to make necessary adjustments should you see similar things happening that lead to the broken place. This system is not doing what a justice system is supposed to do. We need to break it, completely.  Then we can rebuild it, far better than it was before. 

For more context regarding this petition and other injustices within this system, please visit www.purpose2hope.blog https://purpose2hope.blog/the-factual-assumptions/