Violent Crimes

August 14, 2009

Aggravated Harassment in the Second Degree, New York Penal Law 240.30(1), Dismissed Due to Hearsay

Regardless of the particular misdemeanor you are accused of perpetrating, it is imperative that you obtain the assistance of knowledgeable counsel to guide you through the process, analyze the case and set forth particular defenses. While it may not be apparent to you, your best defense might be right in front of you. In the case of People v. Buchy, a Westchester County Village Justice found that he needed to look no further than the document right in front of him. Fortunately for Mr. Buchy, the information against the defendant contained hearsay and the court dismissed the complaint.

By way of background, Criminal Procedure Law section 100.40(1)(c) sets forth the requirement that an information (the written complaint against the accused) must contain “[n]on-hearsay allegations of the factual part of the information, and/or of any supporting depositions [to] establish, if true, every element of the offense charged and the defendant’s commission thereof.” In other words, if the facts are established with hearsay, the case must be dismissed.

August 13, 2009

Accomplice Liability (New York Penal Law 20.00) in Conjunction with Assault in the Third Degree (New York Penal Law 120.00)

by Jeremy Saland

Your buddy is waiting to be arraigned at 100 Centre Street in Manhattan for Assault in the Third Degree pursuant to New York Penal Law 120.00(1) for splitting someone’s lip with his fists. The worst part is you need an experienced criminal defense attorney as well. Why? Well, you are sitting right next to him. So, here is the question. How is it that he is the guy who threw the punches, but you were arrested as well? The answer is found in New York Penal Law section 20.00. As we like to call it…accomplice liability.

Under New York law, one is liable for the acts of another when:

August 4, 2009

Heller and Burress and the Right to Possess a Firearm in New York…Oh My!

by Jeremy Saland

Now that the Manhattan Grand Jury has voted an indictment in the gun possession case against Plaxico Burress, Burress and his attorney only have a few ways for him to avoid any jail at all. While this is a highly unlikely scenario (like any New Orleans Saints team winning the Super Bowl), outside of “jury nullification,” some legal analysts and attorneys believe that another means for Burress to attack the Criminal Possession of a Weapon charge can be found in the United States Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. In that decision, the United States Supreme Court found that individuals had a constitutionally protected right based in the Second Amendment to possesses firearms even if a local DC ordinance implementing a ban on guns said otherwise. Sounds great for Burress, right? Well…not so fast.

The United States Supreme Court decision in Heller slapped down a particular ordinance in the District of Columbia that amounted to a ban on arms. As noted in a decision published today in People v. Kenneth Kirby, a Suffolk County District Court judge found that:

August 3, 2009

Plaxico Burress Drops “Hail Mary”: Manhattan Grand Jury Indicts Receiver for Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree (PL 265.03)

by Jeremy Saland

Robert Morgenthau has a well coached team. He certainly had an advantage out of the gate with a lot of “Division I” prosecutors. When it came time to hit the field, his pass rush was relentless and his secondary was all over Plaxico Burress. In fact, Burress didn’t stand much of a chance of corralling in the “long ball” of “jury nullification.” Did Burress fumble before a Manhattan Grand Jury or was his quarterback sacked before he could toss the ball the distance of the field? I don’t know. I wasn’t there. Regardless, the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office has a “Giant” lead going into the fourth quarter and I don’t believe that Burress will display any game winning heroics.

So what happened? What kind of second half should we expect?

July 31, 2009

Jeremy Saland Featured on Sports Illustrated Online and Vault.Com: Analysis on Plaxico Burress Gun Possession and the NY Grand Jury

by Jeremy Saland

The Manhattan based criminal defense law firm, Saland Law PC, is pleased to announce that Sports Illustrated Online and the Vault.Com have once again sought out one of our criminal defense attorney’s insight regarding Plaxico Burress’ gun possession case (Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree pursuant to New York Penal Law 265.03). Jeremy Saland, one of the criminal defense attorneys, drafted two articles for the Vault.Com regarding the Grand Jury proceeding in general as well as an analysis of Mr. Burress’ decision to testify before that body. Moreover, CNNSI.Com utilized Mr. Saland’s experience as a former Manhattan prosecutor and criminal defense attorney in their piece on Plaxico Burress as well.

Saland Law PC is a criminal defense firm representing clients throughout the NYC area for white collar and violent crimes. Started by two former Manhattan prosecutors, Saland Law PC utilizes the experience they have from both sides to zealously advocate for their clients, develop legal strategies and implement their clients’ defenses.

July 30, 2009

Menacing in the Third, Second and First Degree: New York Penal Law 120.15, 120.14 and 120.13

by Jeremy Saland

Your family is looking for an experienced New York City criminal defense lawyer because you are alleged to have followed someone around for a few hours intimidating them. You threatened to strike someone with a bat and severely hurt them. Although shots were not fired, you threatened another person with a firearm and placed him in fear for his life. While each of these sets of facts may establish numerous crimes, all of them may establish some degree of Menacing in the First, Second or Third Degrees pursuant New York Penal Law 120.15, 120.14 and 120.13 as follows:

NY Penal Law ､ 120.15

July 16, 2009

Best Possible Outcome: NY Criminal Defense Lawyers at Saland Law Obtain Dismissal of Assault in the Third Degree (PL 120.00)

by Jeremy Saland

Saland Law PC, one of the top New York City and Manhattan based criminal defense firms, is pleased to announce the dismissal of the criminal charge of Assault in the Third Degree, pursuant to NY Penal Law 120.00(1), against our client. The case, a difficult one to defeat, involved an alleged altercation between our client during a “road rage” type incident.

After our client’s car was struck by the complainant’s vehicle, our client, driving a mini-cooper, confronted the complainant over the incident. Our client exited the mini-cooper and approached the other vehicle. To the “big” surprise of the complainant, the man who stepped out of the mini-cooper was 6’10 and 320 pounds (I can’t speculate how he got into that mini-cooper). As the incident unfolded, the police claimed they observed our client strike the complainant through the window of the car. Ultimately, our client was arrested.

June 19, 2009

Assault in the Third Degree: Manhattant Judge Finds Momentary Loss of Breath Sufficient to Establish PL 120.00(1)

by Jeremy Saland

NY criminal defense lawyers and attorneys who handle Assault cases in New York City should take notice. In People v. Sergio Garcia, 2009NY017018, a Manhattan Criminal Court Judge recently upheld the facial sufficiency of a complaint alleging Assault in the Third Degree, pursuant to Penal Law 120.00(1), where the defendant “punched [an officer] in the chest, thereby causing [that officer] to appear to lose his breath momentarily.”

According to Penal Law 120.00(1), a person is guilty of Assault in the Third Degree when with intent to cause physical injury to another person, he causes such injury to such person or to a third person. Additionally, physical injury requires impairment of physical condition or substantial pain.

June 14, 2009

NY Criminal Defense and Presumptions: Criminal Possession of a Weapon – Guns, Pistols and Firearms

by Jeremy Saland

With the recent media attention over the gun possession charge against Plaxico Burress (he is back in Manhattan criminal court this coming week, but the matter will be adjourned until September because there is no deal in place), New York criminal defense attorneys, such as the former Manhattan prosecutors and criminal defense lawyers at Saland Law PC, are keeping an eye on how the charge of Criminal Possession of a Weapon resolves itself in this case. In fact, Jeremy Saland, one of the founding partners who served for seven years under Robert Morgenthau, has been immersed in the case since its inception as a legal analyst on gun crimes as it relates to Mr. Burress for CNNSI.Com, the New Jesey Star-Ledger, and the AM NY. While Saland Law PC has been extremely successful in representing individuals charged with carrying a loaded firearm, the best defense is knowing the law in New York State so that you do not put yourself in a situation where you may violate the law. Therefore, the subject of this entry is going to deal with certain legal presumptions that apply to gun possession that are found in the New York Penal Code.

Pursuant to Penal Law 265.15 there are certain legal presumptions that apply to guns in connection with one’s intent to use that firearm unlawfully as well as defacement of the firearm. While this entry will not deal with every presumption, I will address some of the more common ones as follows:

June 5, 2009

When is a Your Firearm, Gun, Revolver or Pistol Loaded in the Eyes of the Law: Criminal Possession of a Weapon

by Jeremy Saland

You have just been arrested for Criminal Possession of a Weapon for possessing a loaded firearm, gun, rifle or revolver. You tell your NY criminal defense attorney that the handgun was not loaded. After all, you had the ammunition locked away in the same carrying case as the gun while checking it at JFK or Laguardia Airports, but the bullets were not physically in it. In a different scenario, you explain to your criminal defense lawyer that your handgun was in a holster and empty while the bullets where in a pouch in your other pocket. How is it, you ask, that you are being charged with Criminal Possession of a Weapon in New York if the ammunition was not actually inside the gun?

The answer to this question is a fairly simple one. Pursuant to Penal Law Section 265.00(15), “Loaded Firearm” is defined under the NY Penal Law as “any firearm loaded with ammunition or any firearm which is possessed by one who, at the same time, possesses a quantity of ammunition which may be used to discharge the firearm.” See People v. Walston 147 Misc.2d 679 (Kings County 1990) (Possession of shotgun shell where the shotgun was present was sufficient to find the shotgun loaded.)