Articles Posted in New York City

Published on:

A source tells of a case in Albany County where the judges came up with different decisions because of their differing perspectives on how double jeopardy applied to a situation.

David M was charged with 1st degree criminal robbery and put on trial. According to our expert, 1st degree robbery is robbery using a deadly weapon. During the trial, there was no evidence to prove that M was armed with the knife that he allegedly used. Therefore, he appealed to the Court to drop the charge. The Court did not. However, it said that it would open to the jury the possibility that M was guilty only of 2nd degree and 3rd degree robbery. These are lesser offenses with lighter sentences. The jury however still could not decide if M was guilty of these.

The Court then decided on a retrial with a different jury. The same thing happened. When it became clear that there was not enough evidence to prove that M was guilty of 1st degree robbery, he again appealed to the Court to drop the criminal charge. The Court declined the appeal but told M and the prosecutor that it would advise the jury to consider 2nd degree and 3rd degree robbery instead. M did not ask for an explanation and seemed to accept the Court’s decision.

The Court then told the jury that although M was accused of 1st degree murder, they should not concern themselves with this accusation but instead consider if he was guilty of 2nd degree or 3rd degree robbery. In the end, the jury voted to find M guilty of 2nd degree robbery. M appealed for a retrial on the grounds of double jeopardy.

According to reports, the Appellate Court came up with two decisions on this matter. The first was to approve the decision of the Trial Court during the 2nd trial. Our report confirms that by virtue of double jeopardy, M could not be tried again of 1st degree robbery because it had been proven in the 1st trial that he was innocent of it.

The Trial Court admitted that the retrial exposed M to the greater risk of being charged with 1st degree robbery a second time and that this was wrong. However, because the Trial Court had clearly explained that the jury should not consider the charge of 1st degree robbery, the mistake was harmless. They did not bias the jury against M because the accusation of 1st degree robbery was glossed over. It was only mentioned when the charges were read to the jury and when the Court told them to ignore it. It did not play any part in the decision of the jury.

Justice Sweeney however voiced out a different view of the matter. He agreed that the retrial was wrong but said that it was a very harmful mistake. The question was not if it biased the jury against M but whether or not it had the possibility of making the jury biased against M. Because the jury knew that he was being accused of 1st degree robbery, Sweeney believed that it was enough to make them biased against him.

Also, M was already proven to be innocent of 1st degree robbery in the first trial. Therefore, he could no longer be accused of it in the second trial. Justice Sweeney’s decision is that the Trial Court’s decision should be reversed.
Continue reading

Published on:

Robbery cases can seriously harm a lot of innocent people to the point of even having their lives be put at risk. And this is all because of utmost selfishness and the wicked ways that some people resolve to doing even if it puts them into the most desperate and most extreme measures. An expert takes into consideration the case which involves George S. He was convicted of a crime which involves murder of a 20 year old female who died of major injuries as her purse was snatched in a moving train.

It was further investigated by the expert who also studied the case that George intentionally wanted to rob the said victim. The whole story start with the victim by the name of Regina G leaving her home to buy a present for her brother’s birthday. It was the very same morning that S also met with his friend Samaniego by the subway. S said that George told him about his plans of snatching someone uptown. In short, it all led to a terrible tragedy with George snatching the purse of Regina which eventually caused the worse accident of having her legs passed over by a train. Her pelvic bones and legs were crushed that she instantly died after 11 days.

The move of the defense on the side of George according to a witness who was present during the case was to plead for insanity. They told the court that ever since the young age of six, George was already in the habit of stealing purses from train passengers who ride during the rush hour. With the psychiatrist evaluation, it was mentioned that George feels sad when he is not able to rob in a day. They wanted to prove that he had this compulsion of stealing purses and that he lacked the right sense of thinking when the said crime involving Regina happened.

In terms of the analysis made by a credible study, there was surely an expressed resistance on the side of the victim. Or else, it may not have ended up in such a terrible scenario. The main argument that emerged in this case is whether or not it was part of the plan of the accused to harm Regina in such a morbid way.

It is true and right that George be punished for being guilty of robbing Regina that day but it is not just to rule out that the moving train was one of the elements used by George to carry out his robbery plan. It is still safe to believe that he did not take advantage of the forward motion of the train to assist his plans of theft or to make his robbing process easier to do. In the end, it is still important that George pay for his criminal act which caused the life of an innocent woman like Regina’s to end.
Continue reading

Contact Information