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.

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.

A New Jersey boy brings attention to a potential consequence of neglecting bullying in our schools. Explaining it was for self-defense, a twelve-year-old middle school student reportedly brought a stun gun to school with him. It was a real, functional stun gun or "touch taser," that the boy felt he needed for protection. Police do not believe it was a weapon belonging to his parents, or that they even knew about it. The boy said he mailed cash somewhere to purchase the weapon.
Stun guns and tasers are illegal in New Jersey. You need not use it; just having a stun gun or taser is illegal. Legally, a weapon is anything that can be lethal or cause serious physical injury. In the statute prohibiting these devices, a taser or stun gun includes anything that would emit an electric current or charge meant to disable someone, or cause temporary or permanent harm. If you are caught with this weapon, or it is proven that you have it or wielded it against someone, you can be charged with a fourth degree crime, sentenced up to 18 months in prison and fined up to $7,500.00, though if you have no prior convictions you will not be incarcerated.
You might anticipate that students would look for other ways to protect themselves from bullies, or any other social danger. New Jersey has rules about mace and pepper spray, two devices commonly associated with self-defense. You can have pepper spray if you are over 18 years of age, have never been convicted of a felony, and as long as the bottle contains ¾ of an ounce or less of spray. It must not ordinarily be capable of having a lethal effect or serious injury, but rather, cause temporary disability, presumably through pain or discomfort. Beyond possession, you may only use it if you feel that you are in danger. Mace is illegal because it can cause more serious injury. So while they are relatively easily obtainable, they are also dangerous and illegal in the hands of minors.
It is sad to think that children feel the need for protection in schools. It is sad to think that it is so apparently easy to obtain such a dangerous device. Yet more support for the need to talk to our kids, and thoroughly parent, making no assumptions about what is being done in our schools. This boy was bragging about his taser, but had he not been, we do not know what he may have done, and we do not know what might have triggered his apparent need to protect himself. And if it was just the gag of a child who doesn't know better, it is clearly time to learn. That said, many grownups feel that today's world makes it necessary to arm oneself for protection that may not be at the ready when you need it. It is important to know what your legal rights are, if you make that choice, and especially if you have found yourself charged with a crime that may have allegedly been committed in self defense. In any case, contacting an attorney is crucial should you find yourself in a position that requires you to explain actions you have taken in your own defense.

A Monmouth County man will reportedly be sentenced in Freehold to five years in prison in connection with the death of Wall Township man. Walter Poland was intoxicated when he hit the victim with his truck. Mr. Poland pleaded guilty to driving with a suspended license, driving while intoxicated and leaving the scene of a fatal accident. His 54 year-old victim used a walker, had fallen and was lying on the ground in the shoulder on Route 35 in Wall Township. Police found Mr. Poland with help from a witness who reported the incident, which occurred back on October 4, 2010. These are three separate offenses, 1. driving with a suspended license, 2. driving while intoxicated, 3. leaving the scene of a fatal accident, but all deal with his fatally irresponsible operation of an ice cream truck.

A DWI offense means he admitted to being intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle, Driving While Intoxicated. The suspended license offense means his license was suspended at some point prior to this accident for a motor vehicle violation, and that he has no legal right to be on New Jersey's roads. If that previous offense was a DUI conviction, Driving Under the Influence, then the current convictions carry mandatory jail time. In this case, the number of offenses charged is a factor that will be considered in his sentence.

Finally, the leaving the scene of a fatal accident is an extremely serious offense. In any motor vehicle accident, whether a fender bump or a full on crash, if someone involved in the accident leaves the scene of that accident, that person can lose his or her license. If injuries occur, the penalty becomes more significant. Obviously, in this case where there was a fatality, leaving the scene is a regarded as a fairly shocking wrongdoing. The public is supposed to be protected from anyone driving who has not earned the privilege of a valid drivers license from the state. So we can be certain that Mr. Poland will be off New Jersey roads for a long time.

Even one conviction of DUI on your record could have a big negative impact on your future. It is vital that an attorney assist in handling any DUI or motor vehicle charges. Contact an experienced attorney immediately if you have any DUI or motor vehicle charges brought against you.

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.

Police have reportedly just made the second largest drug bust in upstate New York, finding a young co-ed with a LOT of heroin. Keri Blakinger, a 26 year old senior at Cornell University, was arrested holding over 6 ounces of heroin, in a Collegetown hotel-motel. It is suggested that she was holding 500 uncut doses or $150,000.00 worth of the drug. Her former boyfriend has a history of drug charges in the area. Columbia, Brown and the other Ivy League universities all have drugs on or around their campuses, but this large amount is thankfully not common. It is unfortunate that the opportunities afforded to someone who earns an Ivy League degree will be lost on this student, and a tragic waste. Instead, she will be tested by the legal and, likely, penal system instead of the educational system.

Though the college student is described as holding $150,000.00 worth of heroin, the New Jersey laws regarding drugs or narcotics use weight in ounces rather than "street value" to measure the severity of the crime committed. If Keri had been in a New Jersey jurisdiction, she would be subject to various drug offenses. If the amount a defendant is charged with holding is greater than 5 ounces, the crime constitutes a first-degree crime, and carries with a possible 10-20 years in prison. The crime "intent to distribute" does not actually mean that the state would be required by the Court to prove that the person was a real "drug dealer" by trade or day-to-day profession. The way the law is written, it assumes that if someone has so much of a drug, he or she must be planning on selling it. It isn't something that people typically stockpile for use alone.

If you are, or anyone close to you is accused of possessing any amount of illegal drug, an experienced attorney should be retained in order to determine the best possible strategy to protect your rights. A skilled defense attorney can examine the facts and identify where the state's case might be fall short in terms of sufficient evidence and of burdens of proof, as required by law.

A 2007 Beacon Theater hip-hop concert arrest sends another rapper to prison. In this case, Ja Rule will head to prison for two years. Lest anyone believe him to be a "wanna-be," Ja Rule pleaded guilty, just as Lil Wayne did in response to his arrest at the same event, to attempted criminal possession of a weapon. It is stated on the record for the Police, that he was found with a .40-caliber loaded semiautomatic gun in his pricey, speeding Maybach.

The New York City gun laws are the toughest in the nation and Ja Rule became the latest celebrity to learn a difficult lesson. New York City imposes a mandatory minimum prison term on the gun related offense, in this case a violent felony. The Court takes any offense involving a firearm as extremely serious. In New Jersey, the possession of a gun triggers mandatory jail time, as governed by the Graves Act N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.

Furthermore, the Graves Act requires time periods of parole ineligibility in addition to mandatory prison terms for certain gun offenses, as well as for related offenses committed while in possession of a firearm. These include offenses such as homicide, manslaughter, aggravated assault, kidnapping, sexual assault, aggravated sexual contact, robbery, and burglary.
If two years seems like a long time, take a moment to consider that he might have gotten 15 years if he had been convicted of the initial weapons charges. He has some time to relax, if that is possible, because he is free at least until his next Court date in February, when a date will first be set for sentencing. His attorney is earning the counsel fees for sure, and demonstrated how crucial a skilled attorney is, whether or not you are a rapper.

The law is gender-blind for sure, at least, because rappers who have done jail time include Foxy Brown, Lil Kim and T.I. Plaxico Burress, the former New York Giants football player was charged with the same crime and received the same sentence last year. In his case, though, he shot himself. Ja Rule's wife and children living in New Jersey, will write and visit, no doubt, and help his time fly. They can be sure, his criminal defense attorney did as well as any could have given the facts of his case. Be sure to contact the best possible defense attorney, should you find yourself charged with any kind of weapons related or other crime.

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 suicide of a Rutgers freshman, Mr. Tyler Clementi, is a tragic event, to say the least. The two students who broadcast his homosexual sexual encounter over the Internet using a hidden webcam, Dhuran Ravi and Molly Wei, now face charges for invasion of privacy. It is alleged that they filmed an intimate encounter of Clementi's with a webcam, posted a twitter message about the recording, and shared the video on iChat. The problem here is that the Middlesex County Prosecutor isn't able to charge them with more serious crimes. The consequences of their actions certainly seem to warrant more. The students were charged with 3rd degree invasion, which carries a potential five years in prison. However, there is a presumption of a non-custodial sentence for 4th and 3rd degree crimes. This means that Ravi and Wei would be looking at probation or even potential enrollment in a pretrial intervention program.

It is clear that the students' actions were driven by anti-gay bias. It may be argued that they might have had the same poor judgment had the victim been heterosexual. The only thing working against the students is the media coverage of the case. If the students were to end up in jail it would only be because of the media coverage's focus on the anti-gay motivation, and would not be consistent with what the average 3rd degree invasion criminal would receive. A defense attorney with experience dealing with intense media coverage would have to confront this risk head on.