How the N.J. superintendent might be defended following the crappy predicament
Watch video
While the superintendent accused of defecating on a high school track said nothing in his Tuesday court appearance, some lawyers from around the state have offered insight on what might come next for the man the internet has dubbed the "Pooperintendent."
Thomas Tramaglini, 42, the superintendent of Kenilworth Public Schools, faces municipal court charges in Holmdel for public urination/defecation, littering and lewdness. Using security footage to identify the alleged mystery pooper, Holmdel police arrested Tramaglini around 6 a.m. on April 30 at Holmdel High School while he was running the track.
Tramaglini is currently suspended with pay until June 30.
"I can't see how he cannot be found guilty of lewdness, presuming the video shows him committing the act," said Phillipsburg attorney Gregory Gianforcaro, who has dealt with municipal court cases for nearly 30 years.
"If I were the superintendent's attorney, I'd probably inquire what the prosecutor looks for by way of a plea," he added. "And if I were the prosecutor, I would expect the lawyer to reach out to me prior to the case going to trial to see what deal could be made."
"I'd think under these circumstance, it's unlikely to go to trial -- unless there's a defense where they have the wrong person," he said.
Gianforcaro also noted that a majority of municipal court cases in New Jersey don't go to trial.
"I would venture to say 99 percent are plead out in some fashion or another."
Joe Compitello, an attorney based in Tinton Falls, said this case may be difficult to defend, since authorities say the mystery poops occurred on multiple occasions. However, Tramaglini may have some hope in regard to the lewdness charge.
The key when it comes to lewdness cases, is that the state criminal code's disorderly persons' statute specifically says a lewd or offense act is an incident in which "he knows or reasonably expects is likely to be observed by other nonconsenting persons," Compitello said.
"It was before 6 a.m. at a high school track," he added. "The expectation that no one would be at the track at that hour and observe him is a reasonable one, and it could be a viable defense with respect to this count."
Hamilton attorney Les Hartman shared a similar view.
"It's not like hiking on the Appalachian trail, where it's not reasonable to expect someone will see you," Hartman said. "But with a track, it still might be something where he said, 'there's no one here, I didn't think anyone would observe me.'
"Based on the fact he was going to the bathroom, it wasn't reasonable to expect being observed," Hartman added.
As for the public urination and littering charges, Compitello said the only real defense is improper identification.
"This is why his attorney is pressing the issue with respect to surveillance cameras and any potential witness identification," he said.
In Tuesday's court appearance, Tramaglini's attorney Matthew Adams stressed that the footage officials released is not the entire surveillance video. He claimed that his client only received "snippets" of the surveillance.
Tramaglini did not comment on his court appearance, and headed straight to a black SUV on his way out, ignoring a crowd of reporters along the way.
Defense attorney and TV commentator Remi Spencer noted that challenging the authenticity of the surveillance video is "a sound defense."
"Common sense says we should assume that's accurate, the law says the state should show more," Spencer said. "That can lead to proof problems."
"Challenging the authenticity is a sound way to try and defend this case," she added. "I haven't seen (the video), but you may have a real issue with whether you can identify the individual. It could be someone else."
Gianforcaro added, "I would also review the reports, the video surveillance, any pictures or statements, police investigation -- if there is any doubt that it was my client who did this, then that might be a reason why I'd take the case to trial. It's the burden of the state to prove superintendent committed the acts."
But an important question still remains, and it has stumped lawyers as much as the rest of the public: why would the superintendent do it?
Gianforcaro concluded, "If I were the judge, then when or if he were either to plea guilty or be found guilty, I would want to know why or for what reason he did this before I impose a fine."
Spencer stressed two things: Tramaglini has not been proven guilty, and that the prosecutor should make sure the surveillance footage is authentic.
"I think it's easy for people to rush to judgement," Spencer said. "Rules exist to protect the innocent. Until there's some proof this video is real, knowing how easy it is for anyone to create something, we should remain open-minded."
"For now, he's an innocent man," she said.
Gianluca D'Elia may be reached at gdelia@njadvancemedia.com. Follow him on Twitter @gianluca_delia. Find NJ.com on Facebook.