This is the transcript from Fitzgerald’s first criminal hearing after he was first arrested June 30.
MIDDLETOWN, NJ — Middletown school board member Joe Fitzgerald — arrested June 30 and charged with five counts of unlawful possession of a weapon and one count of possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose — had a court date Monday in Monmouth County criminal court.
However, Monday was just a status update in his case. There was no new date provided for when he is next due in court.
Provided by the Monmouth County criminal court, here is the full transcript of Fitzgerald’s detention hearing on July 9. This is the transcript from his first criminal hearing after he was first arrested June 30.
This was the hearing where an assistant Monmouth County Prosecutor argued he should be kept in jail as his case proceeds. However, Judge Vincent Falcetano decided to let Fitzgerald out on Level III pretrial monitoring, conditions just below having to wear an ankle bracelet. He was barred from possessing any weapons, and was ordered to surrender his firearms purchaser ID card to police.
A judge reached this decision, as you will read below, after letters were provided from Fitzgerald’s sister and an employee of his business. His standing as an elected Middletown school board member, a U.S. Marine and president of a veterans’ organization were also noted by the judge.
Fitzgerald maintains he was headed home the evening he was arrested and not — as prosecutors allege — to the home of a woman he is accused of having an affair with, with the intent of having a confrontation with her husband.
Jessica Layton, assistant prosecutor, (Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office), Attorney for the State of New Jersey
Lisa Maglone, assistant deputy public defender, (Office of the Public Defender) attorney for the defendant, Fitzgerald
The court: All right. This is in the matter of State v. Joseph J. Fitzgerald. Can I have the appearances of counsel, please?
Layton: Good morning, Your Honor. Assistant Prosecutor Jessica Layton on behalf of the State.
Maglone: Good morning, Your Honor. Lisa Maglone on behalf of Joseph Fitzgerald, who sits to my left.
The court (the judge): Good morning. Prosecutor, can we move the initial appearance, please.
Layton: Yes, Your Honor. Under warrant, the defendant is charged with unlawful possession of a weapon in the second degree, unlawful possession of a weapon in the third degree, unlawful possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, possession of a weapon for unlawful purpose in the second degree, and two counts of unlawful possession of a weapon in the third degree.
The court: Ms. Maglone?
Maglone: Thank you, Your Honor. We waive formal reading of the complaint and ask you enter a not-guilty plea regarding my client.
The court: Thank you. I will waive a formal reading of the complaint warrant and enter an initial plea of not guilty to each count contained in the complaint. The defendant is here for a detention hearing as a result of a motion for pretrial detention filed by the prosecutor on July 1, 2025. The defendant is eligible for detention in that he is charged with a Graves offense, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6c, as well as any other crime in which the prosecutor believes that there’s a serious risk that the defendant will not appear in court, poses a danger to another person or the community, or will obstruct or attempt to obstruct justice or threaten, injure, intimidate, or attempt to threaten, injure or intimidate a prospective witness or juror.
The State is seeking detention on the following grounds, that there’s a risk of failure to appear in court, that he poses a danger to or for the protection of the safety of any other person or the community, and that there’s a risk that the defendant will obstruct or attempt to obstruct the criminal justice process.
Mr. Fitzgerald, stand up, if you would. I’m going to advise you of your rights. You have the right to be present at this hearing, which you obviously are; and you have the right to be represented by counsel. You’re represented by Ms. Maglone. Do you understand those rights so far?
Fitzgerald: I do, Your Honor.
(The next part has been redacted as it is the judge telling Fitzgerald his rights during the detention hearing and that he has the right to speak at the hearing, to which Fitzgerald said he understands.)
Layton: Thank you, Your Honor. S-1 is the complaint warrant, affidavit of probable cause, and PLEIR for warrant (redacted for privacy). S-2 is the PSA. S-3 is the Middletown investigation report. S-4 is the Atlantic Highlands police investigation report. S-5 is the written victim impact — victim statement by (Fitzgerald’s wife)., and S-6 is the temporary restraining order, dated 6/30/25.The documents previously marked for evidence reveal that, on June 30, 2025, that the Middletown Police were dispatched to (redacted for privacy) Lakeside Drive for a report of a domestic dispute. Upon arrival, officers spoke with (redacted for privacy), who indicated that she is the defendant’s wife; and she and the defendant were currently going through a separation, and there was allegations of an affair.
On that day, (Fitzgerald’s wife) was contacted by (the other woman’s) husband, who asked what vehicle the defendant drove. (The husband) indicated that he was being followed by a blue truck with an American flag, and then observed the male follow him into the ACME in Lincroft. (Fitzgerald’s wife) confronted the defendant about same, and the two began to argue. The defendant responded by saying, “I’m going to take care of this right now,” and left the residence. (Fitzgerald’s wife) texted (the husband) to warn him that the defendant was on his way and that he had a gun in his car. (She) then contacted the police. Atlantic Highlands Police then found and located that vehicle, conducted a motor vehicle stop. Middletown Police arrived on the scene. The defendant had confirmed that he did, in fact, have a pistol in the car and that he did not have a permit to carry that pistol. The defendant gave consent to search the vehicle, and the Middletown Police thereafter recovered a Ruger pistol with six rounds located in the magazine, a knife, brass knuckle style impact stun gun, a homemade dart gun.
And therefore, in the review of the foregoing, the State submits that there is a well-grounded suspicion that the crimes charged here occurred and that the defendant committed them, establishing probable cause.
The court: Thank you. Ms. Maglone?
Maglone: Thank you, Honor. Your Honor, with regard to the charges, my client’s version of what occurred —
The court: Speak up a little, if you would.
Maglone: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor. With regard to my client’s position with probable cause, the charges that — for which he was charged with stem from something that was going on, specifically, with himself and his wife (name redacted). There — there was an allegation that there was some type of — of an affair between my client and somebody with the initials of (redacted) and that, upon finding that out, there had been, over a number of days, confrontations back and forth, with my client denying that — that there was an affair, and also (the woman) denying there was an affair. (Fitzgerald’s wife) contacted to confront (the woman) about alleged affair where, again, (the woman) denied that that — that was the case. (Fitzgerald’s wife) then went so far as to, days later, then reach out to (redacted), who is (the woman’s) husband, to let him know that there was an affair going on. I understand that, from my client’s perspective, hearing all of this, he had reached out prior to this alleged incident on the 30th and had a conversation with (the husband) wherein there — everything was — was calmed down, that there — there is no — “There is no affair going on between myself and your wife,” wife being (redacted). And what transpired on this date was my client was at his house on the 30th. He was at — at the house. He was in the back with his child in the pool. I understand, from the victim’s statement that — this is how I got this information — is that, after she — when I say the alleged victim, I’m talking about –
The court:(Fitzgerald’s wife)
Maglone: (Fitzgerald’s wife) that she had spoken to (the husband) at work. So, (the husband) had contacted her while she was at work. So, she comes home from work; she’s upset. He — he, being my client, recognizes that she’s upset, doesn’t know what’s going on, goes in to try to see what — what is going on. And — and she is, according to my client, spiraling. She’s talking about all these things that this happened and this, that, and that happened, and this happened. And again, his position was that that is — this did not happen. And his concern, at that point, was that, all right, I’m going to go try to find out what’s going on. But he had heard her go into their safe, and he was nervous, because he knows that there are certain weapons in that safe. So, he went into the bedroom. He got those weapons out of the safe because e was concerned because she was acting so erratic that she might do something to herself, and took them. Prior to him leaving, he contacted (the other woman) before he even left the driveway; and (she) advised him (her husband) was not home. He was at work, so he knew this.
He said, well, I’m just going to pull out of my driveway and go down the street; and that’s all he did.
He pulled down, went to — went to the bottom of the street, made a right, and parked. In fact, when you look at the discovery, they find him parked. And he was speaking to (the other woman) to find out what happened because, this way, he could go back and calm down (his wife), and then put everything back in — into the safe.
So, that — that’s what happened. And so, when he was able to speak to (the other woman), (she) was able to give him this information, he — when I say turned around, he was parked — he just turned around to go right back. And before he could get there, he was stopped by the police. So, there was never any intention to take these weapons and use them against anybody.
There was — his — his idea or the reasoning behind it was that and — and, you know, this information was given to the police during his one-hour statement later — that there — there has been a time in the past where the — where (his wife) has threatened to harm herself. And so, when she was acting this erratic after days of this going on, he was concerned; and that’s why he took those. And specifically, why he took those was because, one, they were in the safe; he knows that she knows how to use those.
And with regard to the other weapons in — that were found in the house, they were weapons that he – his position is she does not know how to use them. They’re — they’re more mechanical, the way in which they have to be loaded, the way in which they have to be set. And he thought that he was just going to get the information and come right back. So, he wasn’t thinking he was going to be gone long. He explained all of this to the police.
He explained some of that at the scene. He also explained that information in, like I said, an hour statement. He advised them, when asked, if there was a weapon, “Yes, there is,” gave it to them. Advised them he doesn’t have a permit: “I have them legally, but I do not have a permit. But I took them because I thought I was protecting her, (his wife), from herself. I didn’t take them to harm anybody.”
Additionally, once he — and — and again, it is confirmed that where he was parked was right around the corner from his house. He wasn’t anywhere near the — the other place, which is in keeping with his scenario of, “I spoke to (the other woman). I already knew, before I even left the house, that (her husband) wasn’t around and that I just wanted to find out from her what did (her husband) say, so I could calm down (my wife).”
Additionally, when he went to the police station, he willingly spoke to the police, gave them his side of the story, this is what happened, and included some of the information about what had happened in the past and why he felt the way that he felt and why he had to — why he had to take these out of the safe. With regard to — and — and when looking in the case law, there is case law that talks about that, if you are — if you do — if you are in possession of something that you’re not supposed to be in possession of, like you don’t have a — you don’t have a right to carry, you don’t have a permit to carry, but you took it because you were concerned of the danger, then — then that is something that could be a defense later on. It may be something that would, certainly, be presented to a jury. There’s case law on point. Like an example of, “I — I had a gun in my — in my gun cabinet, but my gun cabinet was broken, and I didn’t want leave the gun home because I have young kids there, so I took the gun with me.” An example of, you know, protecting the other person, even though they didn’t have an opportunity or — or a right to have that weapon on them without a — a permit.
So, for all those reasons, Your Honor — oh, and I did want to point out, there was some issues with regard — and I understand the probable cause standard is so low, and I explained this to my client. Even if Your Honor finds probable cause for all of these counts, that it doesn’t mean he’s guilty. It just means that there was enough there to find probable cause.
But with regard to the — the stun gun, it’s my understanding, in New Jersey, that there is no reason – that you can have a stun — a stun gun, as long as it’s not being used for, you know, inappropriate purposes and as long as you’re over the age of 18. I understand my client bought that over the internet, and he — when looking at it, it said it was legal in New Jersey. You know, again, that may be something for later, but just wanted to place that on the record.
And with regard to the other gun, the — I think it was described as a handmade pistol or something along those lines, I understand, again, my client got this off of Facebook, that it was supposed to be for, like, target-shooting, like target — you know, shooting cans off — off of a ledge. And unfortunately, when he got it in the mail, it was — looked dangerous. He didn’t think that this was, like, an actual toy, and that was why that was also in the safe at the time he took these — these things from there.
So, with that being said, Your Honor, those would be our objections to probable cause.
The court: Thank you.
Maglone: Thank you.
Layton: If I may, just briefly.
The court: Sure.
Layton: The State would submit that he was going — this unlawful purpose is that he was going — and I quote, “I’m going to take care of this right now.” He was leaving the residence. He had a gun in his car. He was just in an argument with his wife about a potential affair, and he was going to this residence to confront (the husband). The State submits on that.
Additionally, with regards to defense’s argument about him taking the weapons out of the home for the protection of (his wife), as she just indicated that (the wife) had access to this safe. There are numerous weapons that were taken after the fact that do not require mechanical needs, just as an example, a hatchet or a knife that was in there. So, to say that he was taking these three specific weapons out, I think is belied by the fact that there are weapons in that safe that do not require more knowledge to possess.
Additionally, as to the stun gun, the State’s same position is that the unlawful purpose is that he had it in his car, and he “was going to take care of this right now.” And the State would submit on that.
The court: Sure.
All right. Well, we’ll begin with the premise that probable cause is the lowest threshold of proof in our criminal justice system. It is not a finding of guilt or innocence. It is not the defendant’s final day in court. It is merely a determination as to whether or not there’s a well-grounded suspicion that an offense was committed and that the defendant committed it. And probable cause cannot be defined with any scientific precision.
I have reviewed the State’s exhibits. By the way, I have reviewed the exhibits provided by defense counsel as well. Prosecutor’s concise summary of the facts underlying probable cause accurately reflects what’s contained in the police reports, as well as the statements and other documents. I’m not going to repeat everything that’s already been placed on the record. But essentially, there was a — an ongoing dispute between the defendant and his wife regarding an alleged affair.
On this particular day, June 30th, the defendant became aware that (redacted), who is the husband of the person that he was having the alleged affair with, was concerned and had reached out to (redacted), the defendant’s wife. The defendant had a — a further discussion with — with his wife, which culminated with him indicating that he was going to see (the husband) and — and — and deal with this. What concerns the Court is that, when the defendant left with the — with the weapons in the vehicle, he told his wife, “I’m going to take care of this right now.”
It — to go and have a — a conversation with the husband of a person that you’re alleged — alleged to have had an affair — have an affair with does not require one to bring one’s weapons along for the ride.
Clearly, there were high emotions at a fever pitch, and the last thing that one wanted — needed to do was to bring weapons along to have a confrontation with the — he husband of an alleged paramour. Nevertheless, for our purposes today, as to probable cause, the possessory offenses are clear on their face in counts one, two, and three.
With respect to the possessions of those weapons for an unlawful purpose, again, acknowledging that probable cause is the lowest threshold of proof and merely a suspicion that an offense was committed, based upon the totality of the circumstances, the high emotions, and the statement by the defendant before he got in the car — or the vehicle with the weapons, “I’m going to take care of this right now,” it — for purposes of probable cause only here today, I do find that there was probable cause for counts three, four, and five that allege possession of that — those weapons for an unlawful purpose. So, I do find that there was probable cause for each count of complaint warrant (number redacted).
With that, Prosecutor, I’ll hear you as to detention.
Prosecutor Layton: Thank you, Your Honor. The State would just note that there are three, out-of-state unclassified charges. I know Your Honor has the benefit of that PSA. However, the State’s primary concern here is the safety of the community, based on the nature and circumstances of this offense. The defendant had a loaded firearm in his car, in addition to a stun gun with a — it was brass knuckles with a stun gun component, and a spring gun. That handgun was not secured. It was in the center console. The defendant admitted not to having a permit for that gun. The defendant and (his wife) are clearly going through a situation that tends to elicit high emotions. Bringing any weapon, let alone a loaded handgun, into the situation is never the answer. He not only put himself in risk, but he put (his wife) in risk and (the other woman and her husband).
Thankfully, you know, we don’t know what would have happened if the police did not stop the motor vehicle, especially in light if (the husband) was actually home. We can’t say what would have happened in those circumstances. The State submits that, based on the nature and circumstances of this offense, considering that there was a loaded firearm in the — in the car and the fact that he was going to be “taking care of this right now,” the State submits that the defendant should be detained and that you should deviate from the PSA recommendation.
The court: Thank you. One second, Ms. Maglone. I’ll hear you.
Maglone: Thank you, Your Honor. Your Honor, again, obviously, I’m not going to place again my client’s version of what occurred.
The court: Thank you.
Maglone: But obviously, if considering that …. he was not taking weapons to go harm anybody. With regard to the factors that the Court has to review as to whether or not a person should be detained or released, I submit a — a number of things with regard to my client. The first thing I submitted to Your Honor was a number of letters from people in the community and one including his sister, and I wanted to show the ties to the community. This is a person who is an elected official on the board of education in Middletown. He has ties to the community that way. He is born and raised in — in New Jersey. His family lives here. He has three children that all live here. Ties to the community, he’s going to come to court. He’s going to fight this because his position is that what has been alleged by (his wife) is not accurate.
Additionally, with regard to any concern that he would, you know, bother — make sure — (the husband), you know, there — there are things that could be fashioned, conditions that could be fashioned by Your Honor to protect, no victim contact, no — no weapons. They were — the weapons he did have, which were legally obtained, were seized. So, there — he does not have access to those.
He can live — right now, my understanding is he could live with his sister, who is here today — as well as one of his employees — and at (address redacted) in Whiting, New Jersey. I understand that that is in Whiting, however, because he is an elected official, he needs to reside in the — in Middletown, plus that is where his children are. So, he is going to get an apartment as soon as he’s — gets this — you know, gets — gets out, if Your Honor releases him, stays with his sister, and then is going to try to lease an apartment, so he can not only be still in the community but also have access to his children.
He is a combat veteran, eight years, Marine. (Redacted for privacy.)
He, as a result of being a veteran through Afghanistan, I believe was the war, he’s also the president of the America First Veterans Organization in New Jersey. This — this is a person who has ties to the community. This is a person that, after eight years as– as a — a veteran, I’ll say eight years as a Marine — in combat, comes back, no trouble. He hasn’t been in any trouble. We’re talking about stuff from California that were DWIs, I believe, and that is in the past. But other than that, there’s nothing else — there’s nothing else. He’s 1-1, and the recommendation from the PSA is release.
I understand Your Honor does not have to follow that. But I would suggest Your Honor could look at that as this is a person of character. This is something that, even if you believe this occurred, it’s not something that’s going to occur — occur again. It’s aberrant behavior. He has a — a job. He owns his own company, and that company is called (company name redacted) and that address is an address in Red Bank, New Jersey. So, he has all ties to the community. He’s going to come back and forth to court to make sure that this is — this case is taken care of because his position is this is not accurate, what is being displayed and what is being put out — put out there.
And lastly, Your Honor, with regard to safety in the community, if there is — he has no access to any weapons and if there are no victim contacts in place, I think that will protect the community. As– regarding obstruction, I know that there is a temporary restraining order hearing that is going to be coming up at the end of the month. I know that he wants, obviously, to address that. I understand he has already hired private counsel to — to start to address that. So, that, hopefully, will be taken care of because he wants to be able to see his children if he is released.
So, I understand, normally, through the temporary restraining order, there will be some type of arrangements for how he would have visitation with his child or his children and, hopefully, that can be taken care of there. And I imagine, if they’re going to go fforward with that, in a route where they are going to separate, then perhaps the Family Court will be involved, figuring out how that — how that arrangement for visitation would occur.
The court: All right. Well, we begin with the principle that the defendant currently is not charged with the commission of a crime that would create a presumption of detention under N.J.S.A. 2A:162-19(b). Therefore, the — there is a rebuttable presumption that some manner of monetary bail, non-monetary conditions, or a combination of monetary bail and non-monetary conditions would reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance in court, reasonably assure the protection and safety of any other person or the community, and that the defendant will not obstruct or attempt to obstruct the criminal justice process. And the standard of proof for rebuttal of that presumption is by clear and convincing evidence.
In making the determination as to whether to detain or release, the Court may consider a number of factors. Those include the nature and circumstances of the offense, the weight of the evidence, the history and characteristics of the eligible defendant, including his — his age, physical and mental condition, family ties, employment, financial resources, length of residence in the community, community ties, past conduct, drug or alcohol abuse history, history of failure to appear, also whether or not the defendant was on probation, parole, or pretrial release or pending sentence or had been sentenced recently, the nature and seriousness of the danger to any other person or the community should the defendant be released, the risk of obstruction should the defendant be released and then, lastly, the release recommendation of pretrial services.
With respect to the nature and circumstances of this offense — and again, I’m not going to repeat myself or everything that’s already been placed on the record. But this was a — a situation that occurred in an atmosphere of high emotion, and giving the — the defendant the benefit of the doubt, he was going to have a conversation with (the husband). The last thing one needs to do under those circumstances is to go and have that conversation with a vehicle loaded with weapons. This defendant was — told his wife he was going to “take care of this right now.” But the vehicle had a handgun, a knife, brass knuckles — a stun gun in the shape of brass knuckles and a — a dart gun.
Given the — the — and — and the fact of whether or not there was an affair, whether that allegation is even true, is of minimal relevance to the charges in front of us and to why we’re here today.
The — the — what’s more relevant is the fact that this defendant had these weapons outside of the home in his vehicle, and he had them for, allegedly, an unlawful purpose. So, to that extent — to that extent, the nature and circumstances of this offense are disturbing. As far as the weight of the evidence is concerned, the police found the — the evidence, found the — the weapons at the scene. There is a statement by the — by (the wife), as well as accompanying information, which could support the allegation that those weapons were, not only illegally possessed, but possessed with the unlawful purpose of — to be used against another.
I’ll note that, at the — well, strike that. So, the weight of the evidence here is — is strong, especially with respect to the mere possessory offenses, one of which is the second degree, which carries a sentence exposure of — of ten years with significant parole ineligibility.
As far as the history and characteristics of the defendant, he’s 46 years old. He has no criminal history in New Jersey. There are entries in the PSA regarding some form of DUIs in California. I believe they were 2002 and 2006. But aside from that, he has no criminal history in — in New Jersey.
I don’t — there’s nothing before me regarding substance abuse, subject — with the exception of the entries regarding the DUIs in California. (Redacted for privacy). He — with respect to employment, I have reviewed the exhibits that defense counsel has proffered to the Court. In one, there is a description by a coworker regarding the defendant’s — the defendant’s business. So, he is fully and gainfully employed. He does have roots in the community. There was another letter from an individual that indicates that he has known him for 30 years. They played sports together in their younger years. He does have roots in the — in the community. He’s also a — a member of the Middletown Board of Education. I also note the entry that — or the — the letter that describes his participation as the president of a veterans organization. He was not on pretrial release, parole, probation, or had recently been sentenced.
As far as his risk of failure to appear, should he be released, I see nothing in this defendant’s profile that would lead the Court to conclude that he is anything more than a low risk of failure to appear. He’s got no criminal history. He’s got roots in the community. It would be in his interest to appear in court when required and contest these charges. So, I do not find that he is a risk of failure to appear, and he does score a 1 out of 6 on the failure-to-appear scale. As far as danger to the community is concerned, he scores a 1 out of 6 in the PSA on the new criminal activity scale.
However, the Court has concerns on a couple of levels. Obviously, there is high tension between the defendant and his wife and there is a propensity to possess weapons. Now, I know that there is a temporary restraining order in effect with respect to (his wife), and the police have allegedly — apparently, I’ll say, recovered all the weapons that were contained both in his car and in his home. It is quite concerning that, in addition to — in addition to all of the weapons recovered in the vehicle, upon a search of the — of the home, as permitted by the judge who entered the restraining order, there were a number of other items recovered in the home, both firearms and various other forms of — of weapons. One, two, three, four — five different variations of firearms, either handguns or long guns, multiple — there’s a quantity of — of ammunition, a handheld TASER, a hatchet, a miniature spike launcher, ammo cans filled with ammo. So, this was a real arsenal that the defendant had stored in the home with his wife and children.
Also, the — the fact that the defendant demonstrated minimal control over his emotions while being — while in proximity to these weapons gives the Court concern that he could be a danger, not just to (his wife) but to the community. (His wife), in her statement, indicates that he had made remarks in the past that, if they were going to be divorced and he was — she was going to get a lawyer, he — he had made remarks along the lines of, well, now this — that would be war, and it wouldn’t — it won’t turn out well for you. So, these are concerning emotions, when combined with the weapons. The quantity of weapons gives the Court great pause that he could possibly be a danger to either (his wife) and/or the community.
As far as a risk of obstruction is concerned, clearly, in any domestic violence incident, there is always a risk of obstruction based upon the nature of the relationship. This isn’t a domestic violence case, but it’s a case that arises out of a domestic violence incident. So, there — there is the possibility of obstruction, should the defendant have contact with (his wife) or other persons involved.
Here, the — the PSA indicates that the defendant should be released. Rule 3:4A-5 bars detention based solely on a recommendation of the PSA, unless the defendant is subject to the presumption of detention. In this case, the defendant is subject to the presumption of release. The Court has considered the PSA recommendation. However, the recommendation — the Court doesn’t decide this matter based solely on the PSA recommendation. It is merely a factor for the Court to consider. It doesn’t substitute for judicial discretion.
The Court, here, weighs heavily the fact that the defendant has no criminal history, subject to the DUI matters noted in California some time ago. But he has no criminal history here in New Jersey, and this is, apparently, the first reported incident involving a domestic violence issue.
The Court is also concerned about the quantity of weapons in his possession, both in the car and in the home. It’s — the Court is relying on the fact that the — all of his weapons have been seized. The issue is, are there any conditions which can be imposed which could satisfy the three-prong goals of criminal justice reform. I have to find that there are onditions that the Court could impose.
So, for all those reasons, the Court is going to agree with the PSA recommendation and find that the State has not demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that there are no conditions of release that would satisfy the three prongs of criminal justice reform. And therefore, the State’s motion for detention is denied, and the defendant will be released under the following conditions.
I’m going to release the defendant on level 3 conditions, which means he has to report to pretrial services once every other week by telephone and once every other week, either in person or by video. He is to appear in court when required. He is to refrain from the excessive use of alcohol or any narcotic drugs or other controlled substance without a prescription by a licensed practitioner. He should refrain from possessing a firearm, destructive device, or any other dangerous weapon or device. He is to maintain or actively seek employment. He is not to commit any offenses during the period of release.
Now, I note that there is a temporary restraining order which is in effect. Some of my conditions are going to be redundant. He’s not to have any contact with (his wife) or (the husband). He is to comply with the temporary restraining order that’s in effect in — in all respects. There is a return date of — I believe it’s July 31st for the final restraining order hearing. He is to comply with — with any final restraining order that is imposed.
(The following is redacted as it talks about Fitzgerald’s children.)
He’s not to return to the scene of this incident, which is (redacted) address in Atlantic Highlands or Middletown. He’s to — he’s to obtain a mental health evaluation within ten days of the date of his release and comply with any conditions or treatment recommendations that they make; and he’s to provide proof of that evaluation to pretrial services. He’s to reside at the address that Ms. Maglone placed on the record, which I believe is his sister.
(Address redacted.)
The court: And I note that, in the — in one of the exhibits, the defendant has indicated, when he purchased some of these weapons from a local dealer, he — he placed in the form a firearms purchaser ID number. What I need to know is, when he was arrested, did he — was that firearms ID card in his possession?
Your client is shaking his head. Do you have a firearms ID card?
Fitzgerald: I do, Your Honor.
The court: Stand up. Where is it?
Fitzgerald: It’s in the house.
The court: Okay. So, the last thing I’m going to add to this order is, with the restraining order as well as my order, you’re not to return to the house or have contact with (your wife). The way you do accomplish that, if you need to get belongings, clothes or anything like that, you need to contact the Middletown police … You need to contact the police, show them the restraining order or my order. They will arrange to take you to the house and give you a reasonable period of time to get any necessary belongings that you need. I’m — I’m going to need him to turn over the firearms purchaser ID card to the Middletown Police,Prosecutor, and you can arrange to get that — get custody of that purchaser ID card. If, for some reason, the ID card is lost or he refuses to turn it over or it’s mislaid, we need to know about that because relinquishing the firearms purchaser ID card is a condition of his release. Any other conditions you think I might have omitted.
Layton: No, Your Honor, thank you.
The court: Anything further from either counsel? What is his next court date?
Court clerk: His next court date would be before Judge English on August 18.
The court: Ms. Maglone is going to give you a notice to — to sign. That’s going to be your only court notice.
Fitzgerald: I understand that.
The court: If you fail to appear in court that day, a warrant will be issued for your arrest. Do you understand?
Fitzgerald: I understand, Your Honor.
The court: Anything further from either counsel?
Layton: No, Your Honor, thank you.
Maglone: No, Your Honor, thank you.
Proceedings concluded at 11:01 a.m.