Robbery

Published on: May 22, 2012

New York Appellate Court Discussed Juvenile Murder Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a very sad case about a juvenile offender in which a life had been threatened and killed. This case only goes to show the social problems that we are now facing with our children. This case is a call not only to parents but to all who are responsible in rearing the children of today.

Ricardo S, 15 years old at the time the crime was committed, was at the school yard of Fort Hamilton High School in Brooklyn, according to a witness. It was October 21, 1980 and it was clear day. Ricardo was seen approaching the victim. According to facts , Ricardo had a handgun and threatened the victim to hand over his gold chain which he wore around his neck. When the victim apparently refused to give his gold chain, Ricardo then shot the victim and then took the gold chain from the victim’s neck.

Published on: May 19, 2012

Does a Person Have to be Physically Present to be Charged with Robbery? New York Courts Discuss

by Stephen Bilkis

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.

Published on: March 20, 2012

A, B, and T were brought before the court on charges of first degree robbery.

by Stephen Bilkis

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.

Published on: March 19, 2012

A New York Man, Bennie H, found himself facing additional charges

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Man, Bennie H, found himself facing additional charges following his arrest for possession and sale of a controlled substance in 2004. It seems that he had been arrested in North Carolina previously for robbery. The previous conviction made his current charges considerably more serious because under New York law, the previous felony conviction increased the seriousness of his current charges. Mr. H’s potential jail sentence had been increased on both of his charges. Mr. H decided to fight the increased sentencing by requesting that the courts evaluate the use of the North Carolina robbery conviction.

Mr. H argued that since the laws were substantially different between New York and North Carolina that the conviction for robbery in North Carolina did not meet the elements of the crime in New York. If this was the case, then Mr. H did not have a previous felony charge and the increased seriousness of the current charges against him would be invalid.

Published on: March 15, 2012

In some trials, there are more than one judge who comes up with the verdict

by Stephen Bilkis

In some trials, there are more than one judge who comes up with the verdict. Have you ever wondered what would happen if not all the judges agreed on a decision? A source tells of one such case.

Frank A was charged with robbery and illegal possession of a weapon for two incidents. The first was the robbery of Mark J on December 27, 1981 in the City of Buffalo. The second was for the robbery of William . Both robberies happened at around the same time and in the same area.

Published on: March 14, 2012

The right lawyer can mean the difference between guilty and not guilty

by Stephen Bilkis

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.

Published on: March 13, 2012

Court cases are very interesting in that the verdicts that the courts come up with for similar situations can be very different

by Stephen Bilkis

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.

Published on: March 12, 2012

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

by Stephen Bilkis

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.

Published on: March 9, 2012

Sometimes it works to be doubly cautious with the helpers we get to live with us in our own home

by Stephen Bilkis

Sometimes it works to be doubly cautious with the helpers we get to live with us in our own home. This is the case that transpired with Mr. and Mrs. Arnold W as the victims and Frank C and Denise G as the ones convicted of the murder and robbery. According to the lawyer who studied the case, it was in June 1980 that G started working as a maid for Anna W and her husband Arnold. She was recommended by a neighbor in the Manhattan building they were living in.

The Ws as per the description of the expert who also analyzed the case, are already in their late 80s. After two weeks from the very first day that she started working for the elderly couple, her fiancé by the name of C was observed to be parking near the building where the couple lives. During the day of the crime, it was discovered that G left the door open so that her partner can easily trespass the unit. C then entered the apartment unit and used a knife to threaten the Ws.

Published on: March 8, 2012

Robbery cases can seriously harm a lot of innocent people

by Stephen Bilkis

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.