Articles Posted in New York City

Published on:

A New York Robbery Lawyer discusses the details of a court case that illustrates the difference between first and second degree robbery.

A, B, and T were brought before the court on charges of first degree robbery. B and T were found guilty of the charges while A was acquitted (found innocent). B and T submitted an appeal to the Court of Appeals for a review of the case.

According to reports, on March 6, 1964, M, a taxi driver, was driving along Bronx River Avenue, in the Bronx, when he was hailed by T, A, and B. Tillman sat behind him while B sat in the middle and Anderson, on the right side. M said that he saw T reach over and take his money changer. T was holding a gun. Then, one of the other men grabbed his throat. During the struggle, M said he also saw B holding a gun.

A was found innocent of the robbery charges. M explained that he did not see do anything during the whole incident and that he did not have a gun. T was charged with the Sullivan Act, a gun control law, but was later found innocent. B was also found innocent of illegal gun possession because of a lack of evidence. No one could really say if B was just holding the gun, if he owned it, or if it actually belonged to Mangum.

In the end, both T and B were found guilty of first degree robbery.

After reviewing the facts of the case, the Court of Appeals announced that it agreed with the decision of the Trial Court. The evidence establishes “without a reasonable doubt” that a first degree robbery had indeed taken place.

The expert explains that first degree robbery is the illegal taking of another person’s property with the use of a deadly weapon, and with the help of another person. Both are present in this case.

Justice Benjamin Rabin however, did not agree with the majority. He believes that given the fact of the case, the charge against T and B could have been second degree robbery. He explains that if there is evidence that the people on trial are not guilty of the the crime charged, but guilty of a lesser crime, then the lesser crime should be charged.

How could T and B not be guilty of first degree robbery? Justice Rabin explains that since Brown was found innocent of illegal possession of a gun, the only way he could be involved in the crime was if he was the man who grabbed M’s throat. But even M was not sure who actually grabbed his throat. Assuming that it’s not B, then it would be possible for T to be the only man who committed the robbery.

Also, T was found innocent of illegal gun possession. That removes the deadly weapon element. Assuming that he was alone in committing the robbery, then the second element is also removed. Therefore, the jury could have found Tillman guilty of second degree robbery. The New York Robbery Lawyer defines this as robbery with the use of force.

Justice Rabin notes that because the second degree robbery charge was not included, then the jury could only choose between finding T guilty of first degree robbery, or finding him innocent.

Although, neither of the parties appealed to have second degree robbery included as a charge, Justice Rabin’s belief is that the original judgment could have been unfair to both B and T. He says that the Court still can decide on a retrial if it wants to, and that it should.
Continue reading

Published on:

Although a lot of people joke about lawyers being a hassle to work with, when push comes to shove, the right lawyer can mean the difference between guilty and not guilty. Your lawyer should speak for you and say what you want to say. But what happens when a lawyer and his client are not of the same mind? A source tells of such a criminal case.

On February 10, 2005, Jack W was convicted of two counts of 1st degree robbery. He appealed to have a retrial and to be given a different lawyer, on the basis that his lawyer, Joseph D, did not represent him properly. Washington said that he did not authorize his lawyer to admit in court that he was guilty of 2nd degree robbery.

According to reports, W was arrested on September 2003 for participating in a robbery. He and others showed their handguns to the store manager and successfully took money from him and from a customer who entered the store.

During the trial, the first lines of D’s presentation was that Washington did not dispute that he participated in the robbery and that he would not ask the jury to excuse him for that. He asked the jury to consider instead that he was guilty of 2nd degree robbery instead of first degree robbery.

According to a rep, 1st degree robbery is robbery with the use of a deadly weapon. Second degree robbery, on the other hand, is robbery with the use of non-deadly force. Second degree robbery is a lesser offense and has a lighter sentence.

The first witness that D called in was the store manager. The questions that he asked were all related to the guns. According to reports, it was after the cross examination that Washington and D began to argue.

Washington announced to the court that he was innocent and that he did not agree for D to say that he was guilty of 2nd degree robbery. He also said that he had told his lawyer “not to try my case like that”.

D said that given the evidence showing that W was involved in the robbery, he didn’t want to waste his time proving otherwise. Instead, he wanted to focus on his opponent’s weak point, which was that there was no proof that the guns were loaded.

The Court of Appeals note that this is an effective strategy. Given the overwhelming evidence, including DNA tests, there seemed to be no doubt that W would be proven guilty of 1st degree robbery. By admitting that W indeed participated in the robbery but that there was no proof that the handguns were loaded, D had a chance of making the jury decide that his client was guilty of robbery not in the 1st degree but in the 2nd degree.

The Court of Appeals however, also notes that the question here is not if what D did was effective, but if he had the authority to admit in court that his client was guilty of any criminal charges.

D claimed that he told W of the strategy that he would use. He showed him what he was going to say in court and that although W was not happy with it, he did not stop him from using it.

The Court said though that this does not mean that W allowed him to admit he was guilty. Our New York Lawyer says that there are certain things that a lawyer is allowed to decide for the client but there are also certain things that he cannot do without the permission of the client. Admitting guilt is one of these.

The Court of Appeals explained in its decision that W was always very consistent in saying that he was innocent. Even when faced with a heavier sentence, he still maintained that he was not guilty. The Court decided that what D did was unfair to W and biased. It accepted W’s appeal and decided on a retrial with a new lawyer.
Continue reading

Published on:

Court cases are very interesting in that the verdicts that the courts come up with for similar situations can be very different. Our source tells of one case where a pair of men robbed someone but were given different sentences.

In September 2, 2004, Frank M was found guilty by the Trial Court of 2nd degree robbery. His alleged accomplice, S, was charged with 3rd degree robbery. M appealed to the Court of Appeals for a review of the sentence. He found it unfair that he would receive a heavier sentence than S when they were both charged with the same crime.

According to our expert, 2nd degree robbery is when a person takes another person’s things by force, and with the help of another person. Third degree robbery, is when a person uses force to take another person’s things. Third degree robbery is a lesser offense than 2nd degree robbery and has a lighter sentence.

This is the story of what happened. Ernesto M, the victim, was selling ice cream from a Mr. Softee ice cream truck near 466 East 185th Street in the Bronx. S approached him and asked for an ice cream cone. As he was serving S, M heard the back door of his truck close and when he turned around, M was there, holding a knife. S was already gone.

Montoya realized that he had seen M and S even before he had parked in that particular street and that he had felt them stalking his ice cream truck. M asked for money and M gave him all he had, which was $300. Then he left.

Montoya said he saw M and S meet up at the corner of 185th Street and Washington Avenue and informed the police of what happened. The police later caught both M and S in a nearby park. They found the knife with
M and $61 with S.

Given these turn of events, the Trial Court found M guilty of 2nd degree robbery. They fount Serrano not guilty of 2nd degree robbery but guilty of 3rd degree robbery. M claimed that it was unfair that the Court would find him guilty of 2nd degree robbery, in which case S helped him to accomplish the crime, but would find S not guilty of the same thing. The Court of Appeals agrees with this point.

However, as happened in this case, after the verdict was said but before the jury was dismissed, the lawyers of both M, S, and the defense approached the judges of the Trial Court. S asked that the verdict be changed as it was unfair. The defense disagreed and the Court dismissed the jury. The lawyers of M and S did not oppose this.

According to our source, this is important because according to law, if either side finds the verdict to be unfair, it should be placed before the jury so that they can decide again. This should be done before the jury is dismissed. However, as neither Maldonado nor S opposed the decision to dismiss the jury they could no longer appeal to have the verdict changed.

Furthermore, the Court of Appeals found that even though Serrano was the one who asked that the verdict be changed, the decision not to have the case placed again before the jury was strategic and in their best interests. M, on the other hand, lost his right to complain of the unfairness of the verdict when he agreed to have the jury dismissed.

Thus, the Court of Appeals affirmed the criminal decision of the Trial Court.
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

Published on:

Robberies can happen anywhere from subway trains, on the streets, and even inside your own apartments. A competent source recalls a robbery case which happened on May 4, 1984 at around 10pm. It involved Lyman Green along with Harold Vizian who came into the apartment of John Matlock in Long Island. Vizian was a former boarder of Matlock and as they entered, he offered him immediately an item to sell at $35. But after inspecting the vise, the victim said that he was not interested to buy it even if the price was lessened.

According to further research made by another expert, Matlock told the two to leave already but they refused and instead assaulted him as they demand for money. Vizian was the one who closed the door and just watched Green and Matlock argue. This was the point when Green threatened Matlock with a pen knife which he got from the victim’s own pants. As they were struggling, Green ripped off Matlock’s pockets to get his wallet and then eventually ran out of the place. Vizian already left the place by this time.

When both Vizian and Green were called by the police, they were both given the same level of conviction and charges. But the trial judge demanded that there should be further investigation on the case and the two should be judged separately which led to the acquittal of all charges for Vizian. The rep agreed on this decision as well for it was proven that Vizian did not commit any kind of robbery during the scene. He was there when the altercations happened but he was not directly involved. The only argument that the other side was pushing for is that Vizian may have been contributory to the opportunity given to Green to rob Matlock.

As per another study made by a prominent study, the thing that was questionable was the part of the story when Vizian even closed the apartment door to somehow make things private inside. This could be a probable action leading for Vizian to allow such a crime to happen. This could lead for him to be convicted of the crime of being an accomplice instead. But overall, the court did not see the presence of Vizian as a negative element to the entirety of the crime.

In short, the solidity of the presence of Vizian is established but he is not directly convicted to the crime of robbery that only Green committed. He may have been accessory to the crime by just actually being there but it was not to the extreme level of consideration. Overall though, there is an accountability to which Vizian must take responsibility of. Things could have turned out differently if he did not just stay on and watched the entire altercation happening before deciding to run off. This could be a great learning lesson for most of us when we find ourselves accidentally trapped in such situations.
Continue reading

Published on:

Not all robbery cases are straightforwardly easy to judge. It can be as intricate as any other sensitive cases such as that of the sex crimes according to one expert who has been handling severe cases of robbery since the seventies. A good example of this to let you understand it all the more is the case of Larry Fay. It was considered to be a weak case with the defendant insisting that the gun found in their car was actually planted by the police and this then would cancel the conviction of robbery placed upon them.

Such convinced the trial court to admit what the accused was fighting for and investigate more on what made the police stop them. According to a source, the first one that was called to serve as first witness was Office Sheehan. He said that they were called through police radio about a robbery that happened at around 4:30am on December 3, 1978. There was not any picture of the robbers given considering that the alleged crime has just transpired and that everyone is after the profile of two people who ran away on a car after committing the crime.

However, when further analyzed by an expert, he saw the entire trial as done fairly for both sides. It was of course permissible for the police to stop anyone who would pass by that scene which would be closest to the description that was given to them. It was found out that there were two men who made gunpoint robbery in a token booth at the nearest subway station. It was reported that around 4:15am, the details of the robbery report was being made which includes the possible description of the accused men.

When the police pulled a certain cab over and made the suspects go out, they found a gun in the waistband of one of the passengers. However, as researched by an expert, the victim of the robbery is unable to identify the said person but he was still charged with possession of a weapon. Larry Fay was very consistent with his fight that the weapon was truly planted by the police officers just to make the case short and closed immediately. His defense counsel only insists that the only solid evidence one can present to court would be the actual image of the alleged perpetrators.

The good point that the court was able to raise in this case is that this particular robbery case happened in a short period of time. It is understandable why there are not any sufficient proofs of the looks of the perpetrators or even the presence of other evidence. Everything just ends up simple: if at that short span of time, Larry Fay was with the gun at that particular moment, then he must have surely been the one to commit the crime; unless one would deem that it was all pure coincidental.
Continue reading

Published on:

It is common to discover that many of our youths of today are the ones who fall into committing crimes of robbery that even start as simple as shoplifting according to a New York shoplifting lawyer. The case that can help you unravel it out all the more with the assistance of an expert would be that of Andre Garcia. The factors that were included in his crime of robbery include that of the use of illegal drugs. In the robbery crimes that he was involved in, the victims never really saw a gun displayed but they saw that the defendant was holding something inside his pocket. There was even once instance that one of the victims thought it was a knife.

With further investigation, the source who was also there during one of the trial hearings that it was a starter pistol under the possession of Garcia. He placed it against the body of the victims so as to threaten them and give in to his demands easily even if his pistol is not capable of discharging any bullets. It was between the months of April and May in 1989 that he committed numerous robberies within the area of Washington Heights.

His usual routine according to an expert petty larceny it’s the case that he would enter the vehicle of his targeted victim while it is still at full stop due to the traffic light. He would usually appear with his pistol and demand money from the victim before finally running away. He was arrested by May but was released on July 3, 1989 through bail. But just after ten days, he was arrested again and charged with another series of robbery counts. On August 14 of the same year, he was found guilty of all the counts bestowed upon him.

Due to the robbery spree, he has committed for several months, majority in the community wanted him to even pay for his crime longer than the six years that he was given by the court. It was difficult for the court also to get information from Garcia himself since he does not seem to have any good memory at all. His excuse with this is that he has been a long time drug user already which made it difficult for him to remember things pretty well, even when it comes to the crimes he did. However, he admitted the facts that he truly went into a robbing spree with his starter pistol.

In finality, Garcia was still judged to pay for his crimes in not more than six years. This is because the court considered that he is still way too young and immature to be of the right common sense all the time considering that he is also a habitual drug user. His sentence was also lessened since the weapon he used during the crimes did not cause any of his victims any physical harm or injury.

I Continue reading

Contact Information