BERKELEY – A Superior Court judge has denied Jeffrey Lentz’s bid to enter New Jersey’s Pre-Trial Intervention program, rejecting arguments that the Berkeley Township man’s background and the circumstances surrounding the death of Ruby, a French bulldog, justified diversion from criminal prosecution.
The ruling came during a hearing that touched not only on Lentz’s unsuccessful PTI appeal, but also allegations that he violated court monitoring conditions by photographing people in the courtroom whom his attorney said had made death threats against him.
Lentz, 56, is charged with second-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, third-degree animal cruelty and related offenses stemming from Ruby’s October 3, 2025 death. He has pleaded not guilty and is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in a court of law.
The case has generated intense public interest, with supporters wearing “Justice for Ruby” shirts regularly filling courtrooms in support of Ruby’s owners, Nicole and Nick Guarino.
As previously reported, the Guarinos left Ruby, their one-year-old French bulldog, in the care of Nicole’s mother and stepfather while attending a wedding. Investigators said Nicole Guarino was initially told the dog had been injured in an animal attack. A veterinarian later determined Ruby had been shot, with X-rays revealing a bullet lodged in the dog’s jaw.
During the hearing, Judge Kimarie Rahill emphasized that defendants charged with second-degree crimes face an exceptionally high burden when seeking admission into PTI.
“Persons charged with second degree crimes must demonstrate extraordinary or unusual facts to establish compelling reasons for admission into PTI,” Rahill said. “I didn’t really even see any extraordinary or unusual facts to establish the admission.”
Rahill also noted that much of the defense submission focused on disputing facts surrounding the case rather than the narrow legal standard governing PTI appeals.
“The PTI process is not designed to assess the weight of the state’s case,” Rahill said. “This court today is certainly not charged with, nor will it entertain any factual arguments.”
Defense attorney Ali Homayouni argued that prosecutors improperly weighed several statutory factors and maintained that the circumstances surrounding Ruby’s death were unique. He also pointed to Lentz’s lack of criminal history, his ownership of two small businesses, prior experience as a firearms instructor and character references submitted on his behalf.
During the hearing, Rahill questioned aspects of the defense’s own submissions concerning the events surrounding Ruby’s death.
The judge cited statements contained in defense filings suggesting that if Ruby died from a gunshot, it resulted from an accidental discharge while Lentz was intoxicated. “You’re acknowledging that there was an issue with the consumption of alcohol and the possession of a firearm,” Rahill told defense counsel. “I think intoxication and possessing a firearm, and or discharging it, even accidentally, that’s a problem, that’s a personal problem.”
Assistant Prosecutor Eleni Demestihas argued that the defense had failed to show the type of gross and patent abuse of discretion necessary to overturn the prosecutor’s denial of PTI.
“The state would submit that there was nothing in any filing that would rise to the level of a patent or gross abuse of discretion,” Demestihas said.
After hearing arguments, Rahill denied both the request for PTI admission and the defense request for a remand for further consideration.
Photographs And Alleged Threats
The hearing also addressed allegations that Lentz violated the conditions of his pretrial release during the previous court appearance.
Defense attorney Homayouni told the court that Lentz had used his cell phone to photograph individuals gathered in the hallway outside the courtroom because they had allegedly threatened him. “He had no purpose to harass any individual, including the alleged victim in this case,” Homayouni said. “He was just taking his phone and just going around and taking screenshots of individuals we thought were making the threats.”
Homayouni said Lentz had received additional threats online through social media and argued that his client was attempting to document individuals in case legal action became necessary.
Assistant Prosecutor Demestihas responded that if Lentz believed he was being threatened, he should have reported the matter to sheriff’s officers assigned to the courthouse. She also noted that Lentz had since been charged in municipal court with harassment and obstruction related to the incident.
Judge Rahill ultimately found that Lentz had violated the conditions of his release, although she declined to increase the level of monitoring. “While I understand the charges are pending in municipal court, they are charges which is a violation of pretrial monitoring,” he said.
Rahill noted that signs posted throughout the Ocean County courthouse prohibit photography or video recording without approval.
“The defense fails to note that there are posters throughout the courthouse, including your entry into the building … that specifically says no photography or video without approval,” he said. “It doesn’t say it has to be inside the courtroom, it is inside the courthouse, and the defendant did violate that provision.”
The judge ruled that Lentz would remain on Level Three pretrial monitoring, requiring regular reporting to pretrial services and continued compliance with all release conditions.
Defense Considering Gag Order
At the end of the hearing, Homayouni indicated the defense may seek a gag order because of the extensive publicity surrounding the case. He referenced comments made on a Facebook page entitled “Justice for Ruby” and expressed safety concerns. “My client shouldn’t have to worry, basically, about, you know, losing his life while he’s trying to fight for his liberty at the same time,” he said.
The defense also announced plans to file a motion to suppress certain evidence. The specific evidence at issue was not disclosed during the most recent hearing.
Judge Rahill established a briefing schedule and scheduled oral arguments on the suppression motion for July 15.
The post Pre-Trial Intervention Rejected In Dog Killing Case appeared first on Jersey Shore Online.
