There are always questions on who are involved in a particular and who are not. Up to what extent can be a person’s participation for him to be considered as part of a crime? This particular case is all about these doubts and questions about a person’s participation in committing a crime.
According to a source, John T was charged and indicted with second degree. But this was contested by T because the nature of his involvement in the said crime. He was sentenced to three to nine years of imprisonment.
Based on facts, T teamed up with Vincent C in robbing the Giant Food Store. This happened on December 18, 1981. Both T and C went to the Giant Food Store on Main Street in the City of Binghamtom apparently to rob it with all its cash money. What’s unique about this case is that C, who was the one who went inside the Giant Food Store did not declare a hold-up or robbery in the conventional way. What he did apparently was to write a note declaring robbery. What was written in the note was that C had a hand gun and he is going to use it to kill anybody if they do not cooperate and give the cash that they have. The employee at the Giant Food Store complied with C’s note, fearing he will kill anybody who doesn’t comply.
With reports, C had taken $2,500 cash from Giant Food Store, left the store and entered the passenger’s side of the waiting vehicle. This is where T enters the picture. T is the driver of the get- away vehicle that was used in this robbery. According to testimonies by C and other witnesses, T never entered the Giant Food Store. He was not seen with C when C handed the Giant Food Store employee the alleged robbery note. Timlin was waiting in a nearby alley way all the time that C was doing the robbery. The car was pulled-up by the police only minutes after C and T tried to get away.
This is where the dispute begins. Because T was not actually with C inside the giant Food Store during the robbery he was saying that he shouldn’t be charged with second or first degree robbery. But the court and the jury established that even though T was not inside the food store when the robbery was taking place, his participation in making sure that C gets away after getting the money was proof enough that he was an accessory or accomplice to the crime committed by C. But it was not enough to convict T of robbery in the first or second degree. The court indicted T with robbery in the third degree.
At Stephen Bilkis and Associates together with their Petty Larceny Lawyers will treat your case with care and confidentiality. Always remember that no one understands what you are going through better than Stephen Bilkis and Associates who are always ready to listen.
You will be happy to know that Stephen Bilkis and Associates have already put up offices all over the Metropolitan area of New York as well as in Corona. This is being done for the sole purpose of serving you better with confidence and convenience.
Also, please be informed that Stephen Bilkis and Associates will also recommend Shoplifting attorneys in case you might need it.