The cases of robbery, whether petty or serious, usually involve the presence of some accomplice. Many innocent people are brought into such trouble of being accused of a crime without them even knowing that what they have done or their mere presence in the crime scene already depicts them as an accomplice to the crime to be judged fairly in court. This is what can be studied in the case of John Williams and Donald Mendoza as researched by an expert New York robbery lawyer. Their case involved also the use of possession of harmful weapon.
According to the New York grand larceny lawyer who made his own findings from this case, the defendant did not object at all to the final ruling that he was convicted of robbery. But the defense was consistent as to lessen the degree of conviction that was rendered. They tried to point out that the trial court made a mistake in charging them in separate cases instead of consolidating everything to be considered as one huge crime. The court was also accused of not responding right away to the possibility of such a mistake so that they can easily revise their verdict.
To further understand the scenario, a petty larceny lawyer shared his knowledge on what consists of a robbery in the second degree. As per the Penal Law, it has the separate elements that are way too distinct to be deemed similar at all to the first degree. It should be pointed out well enough that those two are distinct crimes of its own. This goes the same with differentiating grand larceny from the third degree counts of robbery. This means that one indictment should go through a separate trial from another. And it is only the trial court who has all the authority to issue such changes.
In this aspect, even a simple shoplifting lawyer agrees to the inconsistent reasoning of the jury. It could be that the jurors just exercised their rights to acquit or convict anyone whom they believe would be for the best interest of many and of the justice system of the court. But to admit the inconsistency made in the verdicts also has its own boundaries. When a certain defendant is convicted of a certain crime and acquitted from another, but the elements of the two crimes remain seemingly identical, then it can described as highly repugnant and the judgment may not be able to stand on its own.
As final judgment, the two were convicted of robbery in degrees of first and second, but they were acquitted from the third degree. The acquittals were considered repugnant since the elements of the case in third degree were all essential for the conviction of the first and second. It was even compared to another case that of Belvin but the consequences and the details of the scenario are all way too opposite. The other arguments raised by the defendant were deemed without merit by the court.
Many may perceive robbery cases as very simple compared to other heinous crimes. But we also often forget that such simple cases have the capacity to grow into worse crimes like putting in danger the lives of others. If you want to know more about the proper legal proceedings of robbery cases, you may want to get the counsel of a reliable New York robbery lawyer. A good place to start off your search would be in the Stephen Bilkis & Associates office in Corona, NY. They can also offer you the assistance of even the most competent New York shoplifting lawyer in town.