It is not kown by many that you can learn a lot from studying robbery case reports that were gathered and analyzed by a reporter. With this particular report, the defendant involved is John Gr. The robbery happened late afternoon of May 22, 2008 as he entered the Staten Island Bank and approached a teller and gave her a note with instructions. The teller just complied to the instructions written which said: “I have a gun, fill the bag. Don’t say anything or I’ll shoot.” When he left the bank, the teller immediately locked it and informed the police.
What was good about this scene is that according to a source, there was a video surveillance which helped in identifying better the suspect. When the investigation was pursued, the teller was able to identify the defendant when placed in a lineup. In this case, John G is fighting for his right to lessen the degree of robbery since according to him, he was not carrying any gun even if his note said so. The court said that even if it was not proven that he was truly armed with a life threatening instrument or tool, he was still capable at that moment of causing harm or even death to others.
A rep adds up to the research that even the simple handwritten note can be considered as a form of threat by the court to his victim. The court can even use verbal threat as you harm causing tool for the crime. This is because it is capable of pushing threat and force that makes the victim feel harmed whether in the emotional aspect alone. If the goal is to convict John because he was using an actual gun, then more solid sets of proof are required by the court.
But of course everything changes when the accused himself confesses the evidence that is being searched to prove him guilty. He admitted and claimed that he was indeed carrying a weapon then capable of harming others he encountered that particular instance. He even identifies the specifics of his weapon and expressed his intention of why he brought it and that is to threaten the victims if they would not comply with his prepared note of command. His testimony alone reached the required criteria of the court.
The jury has no option at all but to believe what the accused said about him really carrying a weapon since he was the only witness to know about this detail. According to a report, this admission is enough even in the most legal proceedings that he was in actual possession of a very dangerous tool that he intends to use for his planned crime of robbery. Hence, the first degree conviction of robbery is just right to be reinstated due to the possession of the dangerous instrument that can put the lives of others at risk.
You are sure to learn a lot more from any New York robbery lawyer who is a known expert in handling such cases so that you would know more how you would protect your rights and yourself. The office of Stephen Bilkis & Associates is a good place to start in finding a competent New York grand larceny lawyer who can assist you through all the details of its unique legal proceedings. They are known or being very keen in details and very motivated to win every case they get to be assigned with. Triumph for every case is yours for the taking!