Assault with a deadly weapon and attempted premeditated murder of an ex-girlfriend could be considered the antithesis of what one associates with a hilarious blockbuster comedy. An actor who appeared in "The 40 Year Old Virgin," however, has reportedly been charged and convicted of these violent crimes and been sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole in twelve years. There is nothing funny about that. While Shelley Malil's defense attorney described his ex as a violent drama queen, it was the defendant that stabbed her multiple times with a kitchen knife in a jealous rage upon finding her sharing a drink with a male friend in her own home.

A jury has convicted the actor and sentenced him to life in prison for attempted premeditated murder and assault with a deadly weapon. The assault was of course that he stabbed her repeatedly with a kitchen knife. The premeditated murder charge may be analagous to an attempted murder charge in New Jersey. The issue for the jury was to decide if the Defendant had the intent to kill the victim when he began stabbing her. In this instance, they found that he intended to kill her when he began to stab her and he was convicted of that crime. He was also charged with burglary but acquitted on that lesser charge. He can be charged with burglary because he meets the elements of the crime: he entered her home as an uninvited guest and committed a crime in the dwelling. However, it also had to be shown that he had the intent to commit that crime when entered her home. In this situation, the defendant showed that he did not have the intent to assault and murder her. This would be because he did not know the victim was with another man until after he entered the dwelling. He actually only went to her house uninvited to tell her that he had taken her pot and sent some explicit sex photos of the two of them to her co-workers. There is nothing funny about that either.

The mild upside for the Defendant is that he eventually can be eligible for parole and thus most likely will not be confined to prison for the rest of his life. While domestic violence is common, it is not likely that the average person would have this nuanced legal knowledge or even if they did, be capable of drawing upon it in the midst of a conflict. If an individual describe themselves as having a emotionally volatile temperament and intense relationships, or as being involved with this type of personality, he or she would be well served by identifying an experienced attorney to call immediately should he or she be involved in any domestic altercation in order to best protect his or her legal rights.

In a case that will likely appear on a Law and Order episode, a jeweler, whose clients have included Donald Trump and Yoko Ono, has reportedly been sentenced to 25 years in prison for killing his wife, despite the fact that her remains have not been conclusively identified. During his trial, it was determined that he knocked his wife unconscious with a piece of wood and incinerated her body in an oil drum. The theory that he used his scientific knowledge of acids to destroy forensic evidence such as bones and teeth that could be used to identify her has been accepted by the Court. It should be noted that she was in the process of divorcing him, and he stood to lose more than $1.5 million.

The Defendant, representing himself, made the argument that his confessions were inadmissible, but the Court doesn't accept it. For a confession to be considered by the Court to have been involuntary, the defense must show that the police overbore the defendant's will and he was forced to confess. In this case, that doesn't seem to have been shown. First, the Defendant claimed he confessed due to pressure from a friend, even though he didn't seem to indicate how that pressure occurred. He told the friend that his wife "doesn't exist anymore" and that "they can't find her" while that friend was wearing a wire. There appears to be little other evidence offered by Defendant to show how law enforcement did anything improper so as to coerce a confession.

The prosecution leveraged testimony from five witnesses, including the victim and defendant's teenage son, the victim's cousin and sister. His accusations that the judge is prejudiced and the prosecutor incompetent, and that his wife's family and friends formed a lynch mob, did little to strengthen his legal strategy. His statement that "it is impossible to burn a human body and leave no evidence" seems to highlight his terrible and horrific accomplishment. What ever an expert, experienced criminal defense attorney may have done for him in Court will never be known. What is known, however, is that an attorney would have been a better choice.

Texting and driving is a danger with any moving vehicle, as a Boston subway driver proved by crashing his trolley into another trolley. Many of the 60 injured passengers were also likely texting at the time, going by the technology's popularity, but they were not in the drivers seat. The driver plead guilty to criminal gross negligence by a person in control of a common carrier, meaning he was providing a service transporting a group of individuals. His girlfriend must feel a creepy kind of special to have cause the Defendant to run through yellow and red warning lights, endangering his passengers and shirking his crucial job responsibility.

His lawyer certainly did his job with this case. Prosecutors argued that because he felt like reaching out to his girlfriend, the defendant caused 65 people injuries ranging from bruises to broken bones, risking their lives, and incurred $10 million in damage. In defense, Mr. Quinn's attorney argued that this was a one-time thing, that he is ordinarily cautious, and that he has suffered already by losing his job, and becoming extremely unpopular locally and in the media. Tax dollars should not be spent to protect the public from this remorseful, good person he argued.

Mr. Quinn is an extremely fortunate individual. Due to his attorney's efforts, he will avoid time in jail despite carrying with him in the future a criminal record. This case illustrates how someone can be found guilty of a crime and have the State (or Commonwealth in this case) seek jail time, yet still avoid prison. It is because the sentencing judge has the ultimate discretion. Here, the Judge sentenced Mr. Quinn to probation, which means he will have to comply with Probation's requirements, but he will not serve any prison time. In New Jersey, a fourth or third degree criminal offense usually carries with it the presumption that guilty party be given probation rather jail time.

The procedural technicalities, as well as the importance of oral argument, in this case demonstrate how crucial it is to have the best defense attorney possible, no matter how serious or trivial the criminal charges. The right defense attorney can make a huge impact on your life.

Think of a child shooting a machine gun and your mind is flooded with potential legal issues, not to mention the initial gut impression that there is just something wrong with that. The worst possible scenario imaginable happened in Massachusetts in 2008, when an 8 year-old boy held a machine gun, fired it and accidentally killed himself. This tragic loss is of course followed by civil and criminal charges. The gun club where the gun fair was hosted, the two men who supplied the Uzi and the local ex-police chief-owner of the sponsoring company of the show were all charged with manslaughter. The former police chief had hired those two men to run the shooting range portion of the gun show. The boy's father and 11 year-old brother watched as the little, lightweight "mini" machine gun backfired and shot him in the head. In case anyone doubts the sequence of events, his father recorded the entire event on video.

With the charges including involuntary manslaughter, and multiple counts of supplying a minor with an automatic weapon, the defendants could face 10 to 20 years in prison, depending upon whether or not it can be proven that they should have reasonably anticipated that there was an appreciable risk of death to the child. The father relied on the "expert" guidance of the staff at the show, and considered that other children had fired weapons then as well. How a jury resolves the legal questions associated with the criminal charges may hinge upon whether or not they are permitted to see the horrible imagery in the video recording of the event. Rules of evidence provide that the video must be relevant, authentic and not overly prejudicial.

In order to subject the jury to the sight of the boy shooting the weapon, shooting himself, going down, and the responsive screams of horror, the judge must determine whether the video will reveal facts that demonstrate criminal negligence and wrongdoing on behalf of those charged. The graphic nature of the video might urge the jurors/viewers to punish someone for the tragedy, and consciously or subconsciously, disregard other relevant facts, for example, that other children have fired automatic weapons without accident. It may show that the safety instructor failed to take a precaution he should have, or that while all required safety steps were taken, a reasonable person would have determined that death could likely result. Of course, the defense attorney surely wants the video kept out of the trial.

With technology making photographic and video recordings so prevalent, navigating such tricky evidentiary questions will be more and more crucial to a legal strategy than ever before. Whether or not the court, or jury, sees a photo or video could determine years in prison, or millions of dollars in civil liability. Further, assuming the picture or video is authenticated, meaning the source and integrity of the recording can be verified, such evidence could be used in small legal matters involving lesser charges. You may not even know that a picture or video recording of an incident exists following an accident or incident, which one more reason highly skilled attorneys are critical to protecting your legal rights and your welfare.