John Menzel, J.D.
John Menzel, J.D., and his firm defend people charged with drunk driving and related offenses in New Jersey. He has:
- Appeared in more than 300 municipal courts in all of New Jersey’s 21 counties.
- Tried thousands of 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 260 seminars in New Jersey, Massachusetts, Alabama, Texas, Nevada, Georgia, Louisiana, California, and virtually.
- Received intensive training from the National College for DUI Defense at every summer session since 1998, and winter sessions in 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2012, 2013, 2016, and 2022, among other sessions in spring (Mastering Scientific Evidence) and fall (NACDL/NCDD).
- Board certified in DUI Defense by the National College for DUI Defense in 2013, the first New Jersey attorney to be so recognized.
- Immediate past New Jersey State Delegate to the National College for DUI Defense
- Past chair of the New Jersey State Bar Association Municipal Court Practice Section
- 2015 recipient of the New Jersey State Bar Association Municipal Court Practitioner of the Year
- 2017 recipient of the National College for DUI Defense mentoring award
- Certified to administer National Highway Traffic Safety Administration DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing methods.
- Certified in the operation of the Alcotest 7110 MK-III-C by manufacturer Drager Safety, Inc. in December 2008.
- Represents the New Jersey State Bar Association as amicus in State v. Zingis, 251 N.J. 502 (2022), concerning the validity of prior DWI convictions for future sentence enhancement, and State v. Olenowski involving admissibility of Drug Recognition Evaluator [“DRE”] opinion and Drug Influence Evaluation [“DIE”] as a scientific technique in drugged driving cases.
- Invited by the N.J. Supreme Court as a participating attorney in State v. Cassidy involving allegations of inadequate calibration of the Alcotest 7110 MK-III-C in several counties in New Jersey, leading to the exclusion of breath test results in more than 13,000 cases.
- 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.
- Participated as a lead attorney in State v. Holland and State v. Pizzo dealing with NIST traceability and comparability of the Control Company digital thermometer used during Alcotest recalibrations.
- Argued in the N.J. Supreme Court and petitioned for certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court for the right to a jury trial for those accused of third or subsequent DWI offenses in State v. Denelsbeck.
- State v. Zingis, 251 N.J. 502 (2022), concerning the validity of prior DWI convictions for future sentence enhancement. I appeared as amicus for the New Jersey State Bar Association.
- State v. Coviello, 251 N.J. 22 (2022), concerning whether and where a person convicted of DWI may seek credit against an alcohol ignition interlock sentence. Argument is pending.
- State v. Olenowski, 236 N.J. 622 (2019), concerning the admissibility of the Drug Influence Evaluation technique and Drug Recognition Evaluator opinion in DWI of drug cases, now pending argument before the New Jersey Supreme Court. I appeared as amicus for the New Jersey State Bar Association.
- State v. Cassidy, 235 N.J. 482 (2018), concerning calibration of Alcotest 7110 instruments and post-conviction relief for more than 13,000 people charged with DWI cases based on breath test results. I appeared as a participating attorney invited by the Court.
- State v. Denelsbeck, 225 N.J. 103 (2016), cert.den. ___ U.S. ___, 137 S.Ct. 1063 (2017), denying a jury trial for those facing third offense DWI penalties while defining the limits of punishments.
- State v. Kuropchak, 221 N.J. 368 (2015), holding that the State must present a complete documentary foundation before breath test results obtained with an Alcotest instrument may be admitted into evidence.
- State v. Taylor, 440 N.J.Super. 387 (2015), holding that one sentenced for breath test refusal after two prior DWI convictions more than 10 years in the past are entitled to a step-down and should be considered a second offender for sentencing purposes.
- State v. Silva (unreported), 2015 WL 8186127 (Dkt.No. A-1011-13T2) (March 19, 2015), vacating pleas to DWI and breath test refusal due to inadequate factual bases.
- State v. Robertson, 438 N.J.Super. 47 (App.Div. 2014), clarifying discoverability of electronic data from the Alcotest 7110 breath testing instrument.
- State v. Frye, 217 N.J. 566 (2014), concerning sentencing of those convicted of breath test refusal after prior convictions for DWI.
- State v. Holland and 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. O’Brien, 418 N.J.Super. 428 (App.Div. 2011), clarifying eligibility for admission to pretrial intervention on criminal cases for those with prior conditional discharges for marijuana offenses.
- State v. Enright, 416 N.J.Super. 391 (App.Div. 2010), concerning the effect of non-traditional post-conviction relief after appeals.
- 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. Iskander (unreported), 2010 WL _____ (Dkt.No. A-3134-08T4) (January 13, 2010), Dismissed DWI conviction based on speedy trial violation spanning 1244 days, but focusing on delay following State’s failure to bring case to court for more than eight months following officer’s 12-month tour of military service.
- 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. Knolmayer (unreported), 2007 WL 685493 (Dkt.No. A-5000-05T2) (March 8, 2007), 2006 WL 871067 (Dkt.No. A-4836-04T2) (April 5, 2006), DWI conviction reversed based on the State’s failure to prove motor vehicle operation, breath test refusal conviction vacated and remanded for new trial in light of State v. Cummings.
- State v. Stongvila (unreported), 2007 WL 219752 (Dkt.No. A-3736-05T1) (January 30, 2007), After acquittal of DWI, breath test refusal conviction reversed based on the State’s failure to establish probable cause.
- 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.
To speak with a DUI/DWI Defense Attorney in New Jersey, call the office of Attorney John Menzel at (888) DWI-1-DWI for a consultation session.
John Menzel J.D.
2911 Rt. 88, Suite 12
"Mr. Menzel is a true advocate for his clients. He is highly knowledgeable in the subject matter of DWI defense. I endorse this lawyer."
Michael G. DUI and DWI Attorney
"John is not only an excellent attorney but also a great person. He is highly skilled in DUI Defense. I would recommend him to anyone. I consider him a colleague and a friend."
Nathan D. DUI and DWI Attorney
"John has been in the forefront of DUI defense. He has been an invaluable resource for the best lawyers in the field. It has been my pleasure to hear John speak at numerous high level DUI seminars. Also, I have had the pleasure of engaging in numerous meaningful dialogues with John. Clearly you can't do better than John. Hire him to be there with you."
Manny D. DUI and DWI Attorney