Published on:

There is no better way to learn a lot with the legal proceedings of robbery cases but by going through cases

There is no better way to learn a lot with the legal proceedings of robbery cases but by going through cases that an expert has handled in the past. This goes the same for this robbery case of Walter J which happened last October 8, 1978. He was arrested by two police officers when the two received recent reports that there has been stolen automobile on the loose within the vicinity. When J went out of the car, he was holding a jacket whose pockets were filled with a lot of items that you would surely think have been just stolen.

According to the data taken by the observer, J was brought to the nearest precinct and was given the usual Miranda warnings to which he responded, “I understand.” With the rest of warning, he just consistently said that he decides not to say anything. According to the officer, the questioning lasted for about 30 minutes. When the second officer came around and administered the same questioning, the accused only responded with this statement: “I don’t want to talk to you.” The suspects were then transferred to another precinct, where the officers who brought them there testified that they are unsure already if the two were once again, questioned upon arrival.

As per the investigation conducted also by a source, a line-up of suspects was presented for two emerging witnesses to choose from for identification. It was concluded in the end, that it was J and R who were truly the ones to be convicted. The only major thing that J fought for in his case according to a source is that he was subjected to repeated questionings which disregarded his rights also, even if he was already a suspect at that time.

But with further findings, there was never really enough criminal proof which showed the police did not honor Jenkin’s rights especially of his decision to stop the questioning upon request. The consecutive questionings that happened transpired only after a considerable amount of time which did not put in too much pressure J. But eventually, matters got worse when there was a transcript presented in court that J denied greatly to have occurred. Hence, the request of J to speak in actual court was permitted so that the actual story can be taken from the side of J live.

In this case, it is very important to learn that any individual cannot be convicted just because of a confession or some kind of admission that he or she may not have done or stated. There should always be additional proof to such documents of confession before any charges can be placed upon the suspect. There should be enough proof to show for a person to be convicted of a certain crime so as to give way for the respect of each person’s rights. But in the end, of course, it was still proven that Jenkins was the robber on the loose then.

In every legal case, one of the topmost priorities of any New York robbery lawyer is to honor and respect the rights of every individual, whether they are the victim or the accused. Hence, it can help a lot to seek the assistance of a New York grand larceny lawyer especially if from the office of Stephen Bilkis & Associates. Their team is all set up in the heart of Corona, NY where you can find lots of other competent teams of lawyers whose expertise vary according to the types of crimes presented in court.

Contact Information