Current Cases

The following cases are those for which Mitchell Ignatoff is currently defending clients

CHILD PORNOGRAPHY. Client is charged in Federal Court with distributing child pornography by looking at it over Lime Wire. Science says that these people – viewers of child pornography- if they have not attempted to have sex with minors are very unlikely to commit another offense. This means they are not dangerous. I am arguing for pretrial diversion in Federal Court. In state court I would argue for pretrial intervention PTI. The science says that these type of sex offenders can be helped. This includes those that have tried to have a hands-on offense, but went into treatment. I also argue that the statute as applied to these people violates due process because the punishment does not fit the crime.

POST CONVICTION RELIEF. I have filed a number of petitions asking for post conviction relief-asking to have the conviction vacated. There are many ways to do this, including whether the client was advised to apply for PTI, whether the client pleaded guilty properly, whether prior counsel properly represented them. Immigrants, whether illegal or LPR’s can benefit greatly from this since if the conviction is vacated they are generally not deportable. Citizens can benefit as well since a vacated prior conviction permits them to apply for PTI.

INSURANCE AGENTS. I am defending several licensed insurance professionals. The state department of banking and insurance seems convinced that people who merely make mistakes should be prosecuted for crimes, rather than being given the chance to correct their mistakes. In one of these matters I am moving to have the judge recuse himself because he is biased.

CIVIL RIGHTS- 1983 ACTIONS. Client was arrested and assaulted by state police because she talked back to him, under her breath. We are awaiting the investigative report of the agency. After taking depositions we can show that what the officer said was not true. And all of this was caught on videotape. I recommend videotaping because the police are given the benefit of the doubt unless you can show the jury what happened.

BIAS. I seem to be detecting a pattern of bias toward Hispanic immigrants, whether legal or not, on the part of some prosecutor’s offices. At least one client seems to be charged with a very serious crime because he obtained a driver’s license which was in someone else’s name when he bought it. He never held himself out as that person, yet was charged with impersonation.

CONFRONTATION. This is the right to have the state put all it’s witnesses on the stand in court so that you can ask them questions. New Jersey has resisted this, letting the state prove it’s case by using documents or having other’s testify, particularly in the case of DWI (the former) or charges of sexual contact with a child (the latter). I am giving a lecture on this before the New Jersey Association for Justice on November 8.