New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

In criminal trials in the state of New York, the People (a.k.a. the prosecution) bear the burden of proving that the defendant has committed the charged offense beyond any reasonable doubt. Obviously, the role of the criminal lawyer in New York is to controvert, challenge and poke holes in People's case. Many times in criminal trials the strongest evidence of guilt in the prosecution's arsenal is the direct testimony of a witness. Therefore the District Attorney's Offices, whether it be one of the five borough/counties-- Manhattan, Brooklyn/Kings, the Bronx, Staten Island/Richmond, or Queens-- or surrounding counties-- Westchester or Rockland -- must be empowered to compel these "material witnesses" to testify. A subpoena is that legal tool, which empowers the State of New York to compel testimony by a witness. Of course, even if you've been subpoenaed to testify in a New York criminal trial, you don't necessarily have to testify.

Most of us don't need a NY criminal defense attorney to tell us what the Fifth Amendment is, but many times people do confuse the scope of the Amendment. The Fifth Amendment only protects individuals from self-incrimination. That is, if your boyfriend was charged with burglary and you are subpoenaed to testify as to his whereabouts on the night in question, but you had nothing to do with the burglary and your truthful testimony will in no way incriminate (admit guilt of a crime) you, then you can potentially be compelled to testify.

So what if you get up to the stand and still don't cooperate? The answer to this question is what I want to highlight in this blog post. The court may hold you in Contempt. This is the strongest power a judge has to impose sanctions for acts which disrupt the court's normal process and proper functioning. Criminal Contempt is an offense against judicial authority. The court will hold a hearing, called a contempt proceeding (where the individual in contempt can defend him/herself), if "the contemptuous behavior is primarily an offense to the court." The primary purpose of a Criminal Contempt proceeding is to "protect the integrity of judicial process and compel respect for its mandates."

A recent criminal case from Westchester County, People v. Selwyn Days, 01-0469, NYLJ 1202520880499, at *1 (Co., WE, Decided October 11, 2011) is a perfect illustration of the type of behavior by a witness that will result in that witness being held in contempt. Cherlyn Mayhew was a material witness in the Murder trial of Selwyn Days. Mayhew had testified in 2003 before the grand jury and also in the first trial, which ended in a hung jury. Mayhew did not testify in the second trial because she was unavailable due to sever illness, but Days was convicted. That conviction was overturned and in the third trial Mayhew refused to testify (although now healthy), so the prosecution compelled Mayhew to testify pursuant to a Material Witness Order. Yet again there was a mistrial, and in the fourth trial Mayhew again was compelled to testify. The Westchester County District Attorney's Office flew her in to New York and paid for all travel expenses. However, on the stand Mayhew responded "I don't remember" or "I don't know" to every single question. She even claimed not remembering even testifying before the grand jury and in the first trial back in 2003. She claimed that her memory loss was due to Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy (RSD)- the illness from which she suffered back in the second trial. Frustrated with the inconsistencies in the many testimonies especially after making so many accommodations for Ms. Mayhew, the court held a Criminal Contempt proceeding. After inquiring into the effects of the RSD illness and examining the evidence, the court found sufficient proof that Mayhew was "willful and contumacious in her failure to answer legal and proper questions posed and that she did not obey the mandate of the Material Witness Order." In other words, Mayhew was held in Contempt because she completely feigned the memory loss so as to avoid answering the lawfully posed questions. The court found her guilty and punished her to 5 days in the Westchester County jail.

Though it may not seem like much (considering the small jail sentence), a judge has the power to hold a witness, who is attempting to obstruct the proper orders of the court, in Contempt. In Mayhew's case, the court only gave her 5 days in jail. However, this Contempt does not merely go away and stays on your record for life.

To educate yourself about the criminal process and judicial system in New York, a review of this blog as well as following the links below will provide a strong starting point. Crotty Saland PC, a New York criminal defense firm founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors, represents witnesses and targets of arrest, indictments and criminal investigations throughout the New York City area.

As a New York criminal attorney who works on behalf of clients in the criminal trial courts throughout the New York City area--from the boroughs of Brooklyn, Queens and Manhattan into the counties of Westchester and Rockland-- I pick up on the strategies employed by the respective District Attorney's Office. Equally important, having served as a Manhattan prosecutor for over seven years, I witnessed first hand Assistant District Attorneys pursuing these strategies. As I also saw them, I've noticed a trend amongst Assistant District Attorney's trying to corroborate the allegations in a complaint and further cases even where a complainant is not cooperative. A recent case, The People v. Joseph Valentine, 2009KN083896, NYLJ 1202516492758, at *1(Criml, KI. Decided September 8, 2011) is a great illustration of this trend and thus is a case worth examining in this blog.

Mr. Valentine was charged with Assault in the Third Degree pursuant to NY PL 120.00(1), Menacing in the Third Degree pursuant to NY PL 120.15, Criminal Obstruction of Breathing or Blood Circulation (choking) pursuant to NY PL 121.11(a), and Harassment in the Second Degree pursuant to NY PL 240.26(1). The arresting officer had responded to a "radio-run" (911 call) for a family dispute. The complainant, Ms. Ingram, who is the defendant's girlfriend, was outside of the house hysterically crying and explained to the officer that Mr. Valentine had choked her.

As you may suspect, domestic violence Assault cases, such as this one, can often be difficult to bring to trial because the victim/complainant will become uncooperative. The personal relationship between the victim and the defendant often leads to the victim changing their mind and not wanting charges to be "pressed." The ADA's (prosecutors) may still want to pursue the criminal charges, especially if they believe the defendant is a threat to continue the abuse. Nevertheless, in order to bring the case to trial the People must convert the initial complaint (in this case, the charges Ms. Ingram laid on Mr. Valentine in hysterics to the arresting officer) into an "information, which is a formal written accusation listing the offenses charged supported by non-hearsay allegations, which if true, establish every element of each of the offenses charged.

In Valentine the ADA did not have the cooperation of Ms. Ingram. All they had was the statements by the arresting officer retelling Ms. Ingram's initial verbal complaints. On its face, this would appear to be hearsay and thus not enough to support the allegations. [Remember, Hearsay is an out of court statement by a person, offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.] However, as I mentioned at the outset, there is a strategic trend amongst the ADA's in the New York City area criminal courts, which was employed in this case. In Valentine, the People made a motion "to retain the charges on the ground of an excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule." That is, the prosecution argued that while the testimony of the officer reiterating the statements of the victim, Ms. Ingram, are hearsay, they should be allowed because they actually were "excited utterances."

Hearsay rests on the premise of allowing the opposition an opportunity to cross-examine the speaker so the jury can weigh the truth of a statement. The logic behind the excited utterance exception is that if someone blurts something out in the heat of a moment ("contemporaneously with the event") that statement can be trusted because the speaker did not have an opportunity to reflect enough to make up a lie.

Despite the prosecutor's contention, the defense argued that the statements in this case are not an excited utterance and moreover, even if the statement about being choked was accepted it would not corroborate all of the elements of all the charges [the choking statement would only corroborate Obstruction of Breathing or Blood Circulation- NY PL 121.11. The court felt that in this Valentine case, the excited utterance could not apply. The court assessed the nature of the event, the amount of time that elapsed between the occurrence and the statement and the activities of the declarant between the event and the statement. Here there was no real proof of how much time elapsed between the radio run of domestic violence and the officer's arrival at the scene. Moreover, just because the complainant was "crying, upset, afraid and hysterical" did not necessarily mean that she had no time to reflect or had no opportunity to fabricate a story. Therefore the People failed to show that the statements were not the product of studied reflection or fabrication, and the charges could not be supported.

It is important to note that the court here correctly recognized that prosecutors can use the excited utterance in lieu of a supporting deposition in order to convert a complaint to an "information." However, the court wisely used restraint in applying this principle. The prosecution must show that they statement was truly an "excited utterance."

To learn more about any of the crimes mentioned in this blog entry, follow the highlighted links above or below.

Crotty Saland PC is a New York City criminal defense firm representing those target or arrested for crimes throughout the region.

If a conviction for a felony in New York was not bad enough, New York Penal Law section 80.00 sets forth the potential fines that could accompany a felony plea or a felony conviction. Pursuant to New York Penal Law 80.00(1), a court can fine a defendant the greater of (a) five thousand dollars ($5,000) or (b) two times the amount of the monies or property that the defendant gained from his or her crime. If there is a felony conviction for a drug or marijuana offense, there is a distinct and separate fine schedule.

"Gain" is defined not merely by what was misappropriated, whether it be money or property, but by the value obtained less what has been returned. In other words, if $10,000 was stolen, but $2,500 was returned to a victim, the "gain" would be $7,500. Should the evidence not clearly establish this gain, your New York criminal lawyer may demand a hearing on the issue where the court can ascertain the appropriate number.

For information on misdemeanor and violation fines in New York (NY PL 80.05), please follow the link.

Additional content on New York criminal statutes, legal decisions and interesting cases in the news can be found on the New York Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Representing clients in the greater New York City area, the New York criminal defense attorneys and former Manhattan prosecutors at Crotty Saland PC handle all stages of criminal litigation from investigation and arrest through hearings and trial.

Most experienced New York criminal lawyers will be able to tell you potential incarceratory punishments for felonies, misdemeanors and violations without hesitation. For example, in New York, an "E" felony is punishable by up to four years in state prison while and "A" misdemeanor is punishable by up to one year in a county or city jail (in New York City such as Manhattan or Brooklyn, county "time" is served on Rikers). Aside from a term of imprisonment, however, what are the potential fines associated with pleas or convictions for particular crimes? This entry will address those fines that may be levied for misdemeanor and violation convictions as set forth pursuant to New York Penal Law section 80.05.

Fines for Class A Misdemeanors Convictions in New York

For class "A" misdemeanors, the highest misdemeanor degree, a court can fine a defendant in an amount not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000.00). Although limited to violations of section 215.80 of the New York Penal Law, the court may impose a fine double the value or amount of the property that was disposed of by the defendant in an unlawful manner.

Fines for Class B Misdemeanors Convictions in New York

Not as serious a class A misdemeanors, class B misdemeanors are still crimes that will give you a criminal record. The maximum fine a court can levy upon a defendant for a class B misdemeanor is five hundred dollars ($500.00).

Fines for Unclassified Misdemeanors Convictions in New York

Certain crimes in New York are misdemeanors that are neither A nor B misdemeanors. These crimes may be treated similar in their scope of punishment as A or B misdemeanors, but are considered unclassified. An example of an unclassified misdemeanor is Aggravated Unlicensed Operation of a Vehicle found in New York's Vehicle and Traffic Law. For these crimes, the court my set a fine not as established under the guidelines for A or B misdemeanors, but as established in the specific statute dealing with that crime. In other words, if the particular crimes permits a fine of only one hundred dollars or two thousand dollars, then that is the amount the court may levy.

Fines for Violation Convictions in New York

Not a crime, a violation is often a good way to resolve criminal charges in the event an outright dismissal or acquittal is not likely. The maximum fine the court can fine a person for this type of conviction in New York is two hundred fifty dollars ($250). Like unclassified misdemeanors, there are violations that do not fall under the New York Penal Law. Those violations specify in the language of the statute the amount of the permissible fine.

Other Possible Fines for Convictions in New York

In the event a person is convicted for a crime and as a result of their criminal activity they obtained property, including money, the New York Penal law permits courts to fine that person in an amount double to their gain even if that exceeds the statutory limits outlined above.

Additional information on New York Sentencing Guidelines, including terms of incarceration for both felonies and misdemeanors, can be found through the link. Beyond this information, both the Crotty Saland PC website and the New York Criminal Lawyer Blog contain significant educational information about New York Penal Law statutes, legal decisions and interesting commentary about cases in the news.

Crotty Saland PC, a New York criminal law firm, represents individuals charged with or investigated for crimes throughout the New York City area. Both founding partners previously served as prosecutors in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office.

It is common throughout New York City and the region for judges to grant prosecutors' requests for orders of protection whereby no contact between a complainant and defendant is permitted. These "full" orders of protection are often requested in other counties, such as in Brooklyn and Westchester, where the parties don't even know each other and are complete strangers. What is concerning for the accused, however, is where a "full" order of protection is issued that ultimately requires one party to vacate their own home. Unquestionably, these orders of protection are often necessary to protect one individual from another. However, "full" orders of protection are also implemented where there is merely an accusation without full investigation. Prosecutors, taking the side of caution, may ask for these orders of protection, but amend them at a later date. Unfortunately, what happens to the accused if they must leave their home, their property and their possessions behind while they wait for a prosecutor or detective to conduct their investigation? What is this person to do for the weeks or months that he or she may not have access to his or her property?

Fortunately, there is a potential remedy or at least a means to challenge the order of protection in New York. If your "personal or property rights will be directly and specifically affected," by a "full" order of protection, your attorney can request a "Forman Hearing." Having said that, merely requesting one does not mean such a hearing will be granted and you will be successful. It is the accused's burden to establish this direct and specific affect. Once having done so, the court must ascertain and weigh this affect against the danger(s) to the complainant. See People v. Foreman, 145. Misc. 2d 115 (NY Cty. Crim. Ct. 1989).

Certainly, an accusation that requires the issuance of an order of protection is a serious matter. However, just as in all cases, an accusation is not a finding of guilt and the ramifications of loosing one's rights to their property is significant while prosecutors sort out the criminal allegations. Not only may a Forman Hearing be a means to protect your property rights, but it is also a potential tool for your New York criminal defense attorney to get an early chance to cross examine witnesses.

For further information on New York criminal statutes, newsworthy cases and legal decisions, please review Crotty Saland PC's New York Criminal Law Blog at NewYorkCriminalLawyerBlog.Com.

Representing clients throughout the New York City region, the New York criminal defense lawyers at Crotty Saland PC served as prosecutors in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office before founding the law firm.

Reckless Endangerment, New York Penal Law sections 120.20 and 120.25, is either an "A" misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail or a "D" felony punishable by up to seven years in state prison. While I have defined Reckless Endangerment in the First and Second Degrees in other entries, if one acts reckless and causes a substantial risk of serious physical injury or death (or they act with a depraved indifference to human life), they are setting themselves up for this charge. Having said that, merely acting stupid does not mean one acted reckless in the eyes of the law. For example, speeding in a car after consuming alcohol may not be "reckless" in the eyes of the law even though you may ultimately be convicted of DWI. Other elements should be present and "fleshed out" in the accusation. In the scenario above, one may be driving dangerously, but where there other cars or pedestrians in the street? Did the accused almost hit them? How fast was he or she speeding? What were the road conditions? There are other important facts before one's actions give rise to at least a "substantial risk" of not merely a small injury, but serious physical injury or a grave risk of death.

Keeping with the theme of what constitutes a the crime of Reckless Endangerment in New York, a question that is often addressed is whether or not factual impossibility is a defense to the crime in New York of Reckless Endangerment in the Second or First Degree. That answer is generally yes. A great non-legal way to look at this is as follows:

Person "A" fires a gun into a room. He actually believe that room is crowded full of people at a meeting. However, it is an empty room. Nobody is there. Certainly ill advised, his actions would not necessarily be reckless as there is no "substantial risk" or "depraved indifference" for human life where there is no risk of either "serious physical injury" or death. If nobody is there, there can be no risk and no injury. This is a very base definition of the legal concept of "Factual Impossibility."

According to the Court of Appeals, New York's top court, "Factual Impossibility" is a defense to Reckless Endangerment in the First and Second Degrees. See People v. Galatro, 84 N.Y.2d 160 (1994). Because the level of the risk on the part of the accused determines the level of the offense, if factually there can be no risk because it is impossible, then there can be no crime. See People v. Davis 72 N.Y.2d 32 (1988). As addressed in Davis, if a gun is inoperable and cannot fire a bullet, pointing that gun at someone cannot establish the requisite risk (although, other crimes may be perpetrated, ie, if the weapon is brandished in a robbery it can still raise the level of the felony offense even if the gun is ultimately found to be inoperable.).

The above cases merely touch on this concept of "Factual Impossibility." Even if there is this impossibility as to Reckless Endangerment, it does not meant that other crimes cannot be established by the prosecution. Moreover, even though you may deem something factually impossible, a court, prosecutor or jury may disagree.

For further information on the crime of Reckless Endangerment in the First Degree (New York Penal Law 120.25) and Reckless Endangerment in the Second Degree (New York Penal Law 120.20), please follow the highlighted links. A brief factual/legal Reckless Endangerment case analysis regarding the charges against JetBlue's Steven Slater can be found on the respective link as well. Additional information on different statutes of the New York Penal Law, legal decisions and cases in the news can be found on Crotty Saland PC's New York Criminal Lawyer Blog (NewYorkCriminalLawyerBlog.Com).

Representing those investigated and accused through the New York City area, the partners at Crotty Saland PC served as prosecutors in the Manhattan District Attorneys office prior to serving their clients as New York criminal defense attorneys.

Before the dawn of identity theft laws, the crime of Criminal Impersonation, pursuant to New York Penal Law sections 190.25 and 190.26, was the weapon of the assistant district attorney to prosecute fraud crimes related to one's identification or persona in New York. This entry will address the crime of Criminal Impersonation in Second Degree (NY PL 190.25) and Criminal Impersonation in the First Degree (NY PL 190.26). A second entry will address legal decisions applicable to these laws.

Criminal Impersonation in the Second Degree - New York Penal Law 190.25

A person is guilty of Criminal Impersonation in the Second Degree when he:

(1) Impersonates another person. This impersonation must be accompanied by an intent to obtain a particular benefit or, in the alternative, to defraud another person. Although often charged as Theft of Services, pursuant to New York Penal Law 165.15, if one uses a metrocard, for example, of a student or senior citizen, the crime of NY PL 190.25 may be charged.

2. Again, with the intent to benefit or defraud another person, a person pretends to be a representative of a particular organization and acts in that capacity. The type and size of that organization does not matter.

3. (a) A person acts and pretends to be a public servant and, without authority, wears that particular uniform or shield, etc. of that public servant. In the alternative, that person, wrongfully expresses by action or words that he or she is the public servant or acting o their behalf; and (b) acts with intent to induce that person to submit to such pretended or false official authority for the purpose of obtaining funds or to cause the targeted person to act under the fraudulent authority or reliance on the fake public servant.

4. Impersonates another person online with the intent to defraud or obtain a benefit. In the alternative, that person pretends to be a public servant through electronic or online communication to induce that person to follow the authority of the fake public servant or to act in reliance on this pretense.

Criminal Impersonation in the Second Degree is a class A misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail.

Criminal Impersonation in the First Degree - New York Penal Law 190.26

A person is guilty of Criminal Impersonation in the First Degree when:

1. He or she acts similar to NY PL 190.25(3) except that the person pretends to be a police officer or a federal law enforcement officer or wears or displays without authority, any uniform, badge or other insignia; and

2. That person acts with the intent to induce another to submit to such pretended official authority or otherwise to act in reliance upon said pretense and in the course of such pretense commits or attempts to commit a felony; or

3. Pretending to be a licensed doctor, physician or other person authorized to issue a prescription, he or she communicates to a pharmacist an oral prescription which is required to be reduced to writing.

Criminal Impersonation in the First Degree is a class E felony punishable by up to four years in state prison.

For further information on the crimes of Criminal Impersonation, please read the second installment of this "primer." Not a direct transcription of the law, a reading of the actual statute and consultation with an experienced New York criminal defense lawyer is necessary to understand the nuances of the statutes as well as the potential criminal defenses that may be available to you.

Founded by former Manhattan prosecutors, Crotty Saland PC is a New York criminal defense firm representing clients throughout the New York City region.

That secret video recorder you installed capturing someone undressing in a hotel bedroom, the changing room or in your tenant's apartment may land you in serious trouble. While you may think it is funny to show your friends images of a person you filmed while you were intimate without that person knowing, it will be far from humorous when you find yourself charged with either Unlawful Surveillance in the Second Degree pursuant to New York Penal Law section 250.45 or Unlawful Surveillance in the First Degree pursuant to New York Penal Law 250.50.

Although a serious offense, there may be numerous defenses to the crimes of Unlawful Surveillance pursuant to New York Penal Law sections 250.45 and 250.50. For example, did the subject of the surveillance or video consent to the recordings and is there any corroboration of that? Obviously, making such an argument where the installation is in a fitting room, bathroom or other "personal space" may be difficult. That being said, was the search of the location or computer used in the alleged crime conducted with probable cause and with a search warrant? Do you have standing to challenge that search? Whatever the facts, discuss the them with your New York criminal defense attorney to ascertain and implement the best defense you deem appropriate. Having briefly glossed over the severity of the crime and potential defenses, the follow are the definitions involving Unlawful Surveillance in New York:

A person is guilty of Unlawful Surveillance in the Second Degree when:

1. For his or her own, or another person's amusement, entertainment, or profit, or for the purpose of degrading or abusing a person, he or she intentionally uses or installs, or permits the utilization or installation of an imaging device to surreptitiously view, broadcast or record a person dressing or undressing or the sexual or other intimate parts of such person at a place and time when such person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, without such person's knowledge or consent; or

2. For his or her own, or another person's sexual arousal or sexual gratification, he or she intentionally uses or installs, or permits the utilization or installation of an imaging device to surreptitiously view, broadcast or record a person dressing or undressing or the sexual or other intimate parts of such person at a place and time when such person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, without such person's knowledge or consent; or

3. (a) For no legitimate purpose, he or she intentionally uses or installs, or permits the utilization or installation of an imaging device to surreptitiously view, broadcast or record a person in a bedroom, changing room, fitting room, restroom, toilet, bathroom, washroom, shower or any room assigned to guests or patrons in a motel, hotel or inn, without such person's knowledge or consent.

(b) For the purposes of this subdivision, when a person uses or installs, or permits the utilization or installation of an imaging device in a bedroom, changing room, fitting room, restroom, toilet, bathroom, washroom, shower or any room assigned to guests or patrons in a hotel, motel or inn, there is a rebuttable presumption that such person did so for no legitimate purpose; or

4. Without the knowledge or consent of a person, he or she intentionally uses or installs, or permits the utilization or installation of an imaging device to surreptitiously view, broadcast or record, under the clothing being worn by such person, the sexual or other intimate parts of such person.

Unlawful Surveillance in the Second Degree is a class E felony punishable by up to four years in state prison.

If you have perpetrated this offense in the previous ten years and you are again charged with this crime, you may face the crime of Unlawful Surveillance in the First Degree, New York Penal Law section 250.50, a "D" felony, punishable by up to seven years in state prison.

Crotty Saland PC is a criminal defense firm located in New York. Founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors, Crotty Saland PC represents clients throughout the New York City region.

Regardless of the crime or crimes you are charged with in New York County (Manhattan), the arrest process or a desk appearance ticket (DAT) will ultimately land you along with your criminal defense attorney at 100 Centre Street...the nexus of all criminal prosecutions in Manhattan. 100 Centre Street is where you will be taken from a precinct or Central Booking for your arraignment before a Manhattan criminal court judge (on certain occasions a case is arraigned in the Midtown Community Court). If your criminal defense lawyer is unable to resolve your case at your arraignment, whether you are initially charged with a misdemeanor or a felony, 100 Centre Street is where you will return for the immediate future for court appearances.

Elizabeth Crotty and Jeremy Saland, the founding partners at Crotty Saland PC, have walked the halls of 100 Centre Street and 1 Hogan Place (the District Attorney's Office that is attached to the courts) for nearly a combined 20 years as Assistant District Attorneys in Manhattan under Robert Morgenthau and as criminal defense attorneys in New York City. Our experience as prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys has given us a unique perspective having seen and worked in the criminal justice system from both sides. Although we can't share everything in a blog entry, here are some important things you need to know if you are arrested, issued a desk appearance ticket (DAT) or waiting for an arraignment in Manhattan's 100 Centre Street:

Continue reading "New York's 100 Centre Street: The Manhattan Criminal Court From Felony Arraignment & Misdemeanor Desk Appearance Tickets to Court Appearances & Your Criminal Defense" »

To those of us that know him or worked for him, Robert Morgenthau, a/k/a, the "Boss," was and will continue to be the personification of justice and the pursuit of its principles. In his three and a half decade journey as the Manhattan District Attorney fighting crimes in the streets as well as the "suites" of Manhattan and beyond, Mr. Morgenthau did not bend to public pressure or perception, staying focused on his goal.

Whether a case grabbed the headlines and captivated the public or was only known to the single mother victimized by an abusive partner, Mr. Morgenthau sought to have each case, victim and witness treated with the highest level of professionalism, dignity and respect. Regardless of the media coverage, one thing rang true amongst all of his cases. To each victim, his or her case was the most important. Justice demanded that they be treated accordingly.

Certainly, we can't all agree on what we believe justice is or how to obtain it. Although criminal defense attorneys and prosecutors have adversarial roles in the criminal justice system, it is this training in the pursuit of justice that has further assisted me in representing and connecting with my clients regardless of the legal issue they face. The formal legal education I received at the Manhattan District Attorney's Office under Mr. Morgenthau went far beyond books and lectures. On the front line in the court rooms, the daily reinforcement of our ethical duties, and the constant training in the intricacies of criminal law, I am a better attorney for having served and learned under him. There is no doubt my clients have and will continue to benefit from all my experiences including my time as a prosecutor. The 1000s of attorneys who have revolved through the doors of 1 Hogan Place would likely agree that the "Boss" was invaluable to their practical and ethical development in the field of law as well.

While I cannot formally speak on behalf of all the prosecutors who served under Robert Morgenthau, I am confident we all wish him the best as he travels beyond the walls of 100 Centre Street and thank him for his leadership, dedication and pursuit to make New York a better place.