"The Robing Room: NJ State Judges

Add your own rating

E-Mail Address ()

Confirm E-mail Address

Zip

Occupation

Add a comment only

Only items marked with (*) are averaged into the displayed overall rating.

General Rating Criteria

* Temperament		(1=Awful,10=Excellent)
* Scholarship		(1=Awful,10=Excellent)
* Industriousness		(1=Not at all industrious,10=Highly industrious)
* Ability to Handle Complex Litigation		(1=Awful,10=Excellent)
* Punctuality		(1=Chronically Late,10=Always on Time)
* General Ability to Handle Pre-Trial Matters		(1=Not all Able, 10=Extremely Able)
* General Ability as a Trial Judge		(1=Not all Able, 10=Extremely Able)
Flexibility In Scheduling		(1=Completely Inflexible,10=Very Flexible)

Criminal Rating Criteria (if applicable)

* Evenhandedness in Criminal Litigation		(1=Demonstrates Bias,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
General Inclination Regarding Bail		(1=Pro-Defense,10=Pro-Government)
Involvement in Plea Discussions		(1=Not at all Involved, 10=Very Involved)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Pretrial Stage		(1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Trial Stage		(1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Sentencing Stage		(1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)

Civil Rating Criteria (if applicable)

* Evenhandedness in Civil Litigation		(1=Not at all Evenhanded,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
Involvement in Settlement Discussions		(1=Not at all Involved,10=Very Involved)
General Inclination		(1=Pro-defendant, 10=Pro-plaintiff)

Comments

What others have said about Hon. Nicholas J. Stroumtsos, Jr.

Comments

Litigant

Comment #: NJ80
Rating:3.0

Comments:
Favors the government lawyers to protect lying police officers. Does not respect the law of the forum in so far as a "disorderly conduct" conviction from a municipal court has solidly been held to be inadmissible in a connecting state constitution tort retaliatory prosecution and false arrest civil action, e.g., Trisuzzi v. Tabatchnik, 285 N.J.Super. 15, 25, 666 A.2d 543 (App. Div. 1995)(And citing cases), Cf. Davis v. Town Of Paulsboro, 421 F.Supp.2d 835, 853-854, footnote 38 (D.N.J. Irenas 2006)("Summary judgment, of course, looks only to admissible evidence.")(Citing 3rd Cir. case); Instead invokes Heck v. Humphrey to require the municipal court conviction to be thrown out as a prerequisite to filing lawsuit against the police, arguably inapposite to a plaintiff who is no longer eligible for habeas corpus relief. He does not respect the state constitution. The case is Richard Paul Zuckerman, Plaintiff vs. Borough Of Highland Park, et al., Defendants, Docket number MID-L-3743-00, dismissed April 18, 2008, affirmed on appeal by disrespectful Appellate Division judges; trial court motion for relief from the dismissal orders denied on August 29, 2008. A paradigm example of a judge who co-opts the criminal justice profession.