So it would seem that Qumere McClendon, 24, of Long Branch got lucky on his acquittal of murder. Sadly for him, he was convicted on the counts of manslaughter and felony murder, in addition to numerous others to do with the case. This is a tough case for any attorney.

Any kind of murder is a felony. However, this is a specific name for a certain circumstance of murder. Felony murder states that if a murder occurs during the commission of another felony, say robbery, perhaps, then the party who committed the robbery is also responsible for the murder. This also applies to other crimes such as rape, arson, and kidnapping. Now here's where it gets interesting: if there are multiple people involved in the initial felony, each one of them is responsible for the subsequent murder... even if they did not have a hand in killing the victim!

For example, if two people rob a bank, and a bank teller is murdered in the process, the one who drove the car is just as indictable, for that murder as the one who actually shot the teller. The driver is as serious a criminal, in the eyes of the law, as the person who fired a gun or wielded a weapon in the robbery. Additionally, the penalties for a felony murder conviction are just as severe as those for actual murder in the state of New Jersey.

Murder and manslaughter are two different things. Murder, as it is defined, denotes certain malice involved with carrying out the act. While manslaughter is by no means an "innocent" act, the intent behind it is perceived to be one less malicious, less cold, and less absolute than that of murder. One could say that with murder, "he knew exactly what he was doing", and with manslaughter, "maybe he didn't know exactly, but had a pretty good idea." These legal distinctions, as you can see, can have a huge impact on the sentence imposed upon the Defendant. Further, a Defendant might not realize how serious some of his or her actions relating to another's crime can be in a legal sense. What is clear: The services of a criminal defense attorney are crucial in order to protect your rights if charged with a crime.

Formerly on television's Melrose Place, actress Amy Locane has worked along side Johnny Depp and Adam Sandler in film. She now has more in common with many fellow actors, as she was indicted by a Somerset County Grand Jury on counts of third-degree assault by auto and first-degree aggravated manslaughter. Now a New Jersey resident, Locane reportedly crashed her black Chevy Tahoe into another car that was pulling into a driveway on a Sunday evening in June of this year. The passenger died at the hospital soon after the crash, and the driver sustained numerous broken ribs and other serious injuries. Further, police state that she was involved in a hit-and-run accident earlier that day in Princeton, New Jersey. The actress had admitted to consuming wine prior to driving following the crash.

"Aggravated Manslaughter" means, in lay terms, an unintentional killing resulted from one's actions. Naturally, a purposeful killing would be murder, but manslaughter covers all killings that occur as unintended consequences. In this instance, Locane is indicted crashing her car while drunk driving, which resulted in the death of one person and the serious injury to another. In this case, the State of New Jersey needs to prove that "the actor recklessly causes death under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life;" See N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4(a)(1).

The fact that Locane had consumed alcoholic beverages does not automatically prove the State's case. The State will also have to prove that the events are connected, or that Locane's consumption of alcoholic beverages led to her being impaired, which led to the fatal accident. Therefore, one can anticipate Locane's defense team will claim that her impairment is not what lead to the fatal accident, but that some other circumstance caused the collision that took the passenger's life. These burdens of proof and potential defenses are the issues that a New Jersey criminal defense attorney will vigorously analyze, as they apply to the specific facts of the case. You should ensure you have an experienced and devoted attorney to protect your rights should you, a friend or family member find yourself involved in a car accident, or automobile collision, where injuries are sustained or death results. These tragic cases are often not as simple as they appear.

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.

The police are still investigating the situation even though they know that George Huguely killed Yeardley Love. However, the police are doing their due diligence to make sure they prove their case. Also, the police are searching for information about the lacrosse player's state of mind. If they can find some evidence of proof that he intended to kill Ms. Yeardley, also a lacrosse player, then he can be charged with first-degree murder. This is a much different ranking than the rest of his team, ranked first in collegiate lacrosse right now. If that evidence cannot be produced then Mr. Huguely can argue that the crime was manslaughter. That means the death was an accident or that he didn't intend to kill her, but only intended to harm her. Practically speaking this could mean the difference of the young man spending life in prison with no chance of parole or merely spending a very long time in prison.

It is beginning to look like there is evidence of his state of mind because it has been reported that he allegedly attacked Ms. Yeardley before, at another university, the University of North Carolina. They had a long term, on-off-again volatile relationship. Our "gentleman" student-athlete has been arrested for threatening to kill a female police officer while drunk, in an altercation where the officer eventually tasered him. He apparently jumped off the family yacht when his father called the police to come out a quarter mile off shore from the family's Florida estate to help with a domestic dispute. Both the defendant and the victim were raised in a life of privilege, complete with prestigious prep schools the likes of which make this story ripe for a made-for-television-movie. In the interim, the trial will unfold that will demonstrate the relevant issues in prosecuting and defending crimes of passion. There are many lesser crimes resulting from domestic type disputes that, if prosecuted, could prevent the violence from escalating. A proper, skilled defense by an experienced attorney can redirect someone a defendant on a destructive path toward a more productive, mentally healthy life and protect those around him or her.

A 17 year-old girl pleaded guilty to misdemeanor driving while intoxicated and criminally negligent homicide connected to a car crash that killed her boyfriend. She was driving drunk in the middle of the night, and crashed her car into a brick pole. She had a blood alcohol level of .13 % and was driving 56 m.p.h. in a 30 m.p.h. zone. Basically, she got behind the wheel of a car while drunk, and should have known that doing so could easily kill someone. Every state, including New Jersey, has its own requirements, definitions and terms for driving while under the influence of drugs or alcohol and the crimes that stem from that action. As always, it is crucial to consult an attorney well versed in those laws.

The Judge denied her youthful offender status and imposed a 6-month jail sentence reportedly because he had seen a picture she posted of herself on Facebook. The photograph was taken of her one month after the crash, and she posted it captioned "drunk in Florida." She could have gotten as much as 4 years in state prison, but the Judge reportedly felt forced to consider her young age and clear history.

Her drivers license is revoked, and following her jail sentence, she will be under electronic home monitoring for one year and on probation for five, during which she is not allowed to drink under its terms.

A judge wants to see a remorseful defendant regardless of the crimes he or she has been charged with or found guilty of, and evidence to the contrary is extremely damaging. The Judge is free to consider all factors that have any arguable relevance. Every defendant should keep in mind that the Judge wants to see that his or her encounter with the criminal justice system has taught a lesson and changed his or her behavior for the better. The Internet has created a new environment in which to evaluate a defendant's behavior, and it is completely public. There is a new way we are all being held accountable for our behavior, and the legal profession is aware, that is nothing new. The consequences can clearly be harsh, and it is yet another lesson young adults have to learn.

In Somerville, Hunterdon County, NJ, former NBA star Jayson Williams was told by a judge that his defense attorney was unable to prove that any racial bias on the part of a county investigator constituted prosecutorial misconduct during his first trial back in 2004. Further, Williams' motion to overturn his conviction of tampering with evidence and witnesses to cover up his shooting of a limo driver in his own house with his own gun was denied. In order to make even the suspicion of racial bias a non-issue, state Attorney General's office has granted Hunterdon County Prosecutor J. Patrick Barnes's request and will be taking over the case.

New Jersey Criminal Lawyer Blog's Take: Apparently, evidence that a Captain William Hunt uttered the "n-word" during the course of the investigation was not enough to taint the evidence which showed that, upon the course of a house tour of his residence, Jayson Williams shot the driver-guest with his own shotgun, then wiped off his fingerprints, placed the gun in the driver's hand, directed his brother to lie to 911 operators about the shooting, change clothes giving his old clothes to a guest to hide, jump in the pool to wash off, and order all guests to lie that they were downstairs when they heard the gunshot. It seems that the Captain's second "wrong" does not make Williams' first "wrongs" right.

Jayson Williams was hoping that his retrial for "reckless manslaughter" scheduled for January, 2010 would be dismissed due to the offensive utterance, theorizing that that word was evidence of prosecutorial misconduct motivated by racial bias, that would call into question all the evidence produced by that investigation. Williams also hoped that his conviction on the cover-up charges would be dismissed on the same theory. For some reason, three years had passed before the Judge received a letter from the Hunterdon County prosecutor notifying him of the use of this racial epithet by a county investigator.

So a jury did not believe that on February 13th, 2002 following a night out to see the Harlem Globetrotters and dinner, Williams acted in a way that demonstrated "extreme indifference to the value of human life," but that he should be retried to determine whether or not he "disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death," for which Williams could serve 10 years in prison. The evidence that the jury heard was not tainted by a racially biased investigation, and the fact that the jury could not decide on one count with the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a retrial.

It is too bad his former teammates, now Globetrotters, Chris Morris and Benoit Benjamin, Curly "Boo" Johnson and Paul "Showtime" Gaffney, among other guests on Williams' house tour didn't bring more reason to the situation. It is impossible to foresee the array of crimes that a defendant may be charged with due to incorporated lesser charges.