John Menzel, J.D., and his firm defend people charged with drunk driving and related offenses in New Jersey. John Menzel, J.D., has
> appeared in more than 300 municipal courts in all of New Jersey's 21 counties.
> tried more than a thousand drunk driving cases.
> argued more than 100 appeals before the New Jersey Superior Court's Law and Appellate Divisions and New Jersey Supreme Court.
> prepared writs of habeas corpus in Federal District Court for the District of New Jersey and Federal Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
> instructed lawyers and laypersons on drunk driving laws, breath testing instrumentation, and trial techniques at 149 seminars in New Jersey, Massachusetts, Alabama, Texas, Nevada, Georgia, Louisiana, and California.
> participated as a lead attorney in State v. Chun and State v. Foley, the seminal cases on the Alcotest 7110 MK-III-C in New Jersey as well as other significant cases on breath test refusal, motor vehicle operation, probable cause, and speedy trial.
> participating as a lead attorney in State v. Holland and State v. Pizzo dealing with NIST traceability and comparability of the Ertco-Hart digital temperature measuring system and Control Company digital thermometer used during Alcotest recalibrations.
> argued State v. Frye this past January in the New Jersey Supreme Court concerning whether prior DUI convictions should enhance sentencing on later breath test refusal convictions.
> wrote the NJSBA amicus brief to the New Jersey Supreme Court in State v. Koropchak concerning certain police reports should be admissible evidence at trial.
> State v. Pizzo, 422 N.J.Super. 185 (App.Div., April 2011), after remand 309 (App.Div., Dec. 2011), the companion case to State v. Holland, a remand considering the efficacy of substituting the Ertco-Hart digital temperature measuring system used during Alcotest recalibrations with a digital thermometer manufactured by Control Company, Inc.
> State v. Kim, 412 N.J.Super. 260 (App.Div. 2010), a puzzling affirmance of a breath test refusal conviction, following acquittal of DWI after trial, barring the challenge to the refusal conviction on procedural grounds but including a “concurrence” disagreeing with the majority’s determination on the merits.
> State v. Chun, 191 N.J. 308 (2007), 194 N.J. 54 (2008), concerning admissibility of new breath testing technology--the Drager Alcotest 7110 MK-III-C breath testing device using version NJ3.11 firmware
> State v. Cummings, 184 N.J. 84 (2005), declaring unconstitutional the “preponderance of evidence” as the burden of proof for breath test refusal charges
> State v. Foley, Cartegena, et al., 370 N.J.Super. 341 (Law Div. 2003), in Superior Court, Law Division, Camden County, concerning admissibility of new breath testing technology--the Draeger Alcotest 7110 MK III C breath testing device using version 3.8 firmware
> State v. Farrell, 320 N.J.Super. 435 (App.Div. 1999), the leading case involving the rights to speedy trial and fundamental fairness for those charged with drunk driving in New Jersey
> State v. Garthe, 145 N.J. 1 (1996), concerning the admissibility of Breathalyzer results in light of the secrecy surrounding Breathalyzer inspection procedures
|Award name||Grantor||Date Granted|
|Peer Review Rated||Martindale-Hubbell||2018|
|Top Attorney||National Association For DUI Defense||2018|
|Board Certified||National Association For DUI Defense||2013|
|Attorney||John Menzel, J.D.||1993 - Present|
|Association name||Position name||Duration|
|National College of DUI Defense||Board Member||2016 - Present|
|New York Law School||JD - Juris Doctor||1984|
Posted by anonymous
October 26, 2016
Posted by Jim
October 3, 2016
Posted by Taylor
September 6, 2016
Posted by Michael
August 18, 2016
Cash, Check, Credit Card