There was no way that the defendant knew he was attacking the wife of Pittsburgh Pirate pitcher Chris Snyder, and that his temper tantrum was criminal. Driving without a license is indeed illegal, as is aggravated assault. Episodes of road rage similar to his occur every day all over the country on the nations streets and highways. A professional athlete's wife being attacked, while he and their children sit in the car, is genuinely newsworthy, and will not help the defendant's chances in court.

Because the baseball player was incapacitated by back surgery seated in the car and could do nothing but helplessly watch his wife get attacked, an innocent bystander and an off duty cop were left to intervene on Ms. Snyder's behalf, fending off bites, punches with keys between his fingers, and flying shoes. As a result of his extremely poor behavior following a close call while the victim was driving and he was riding a scooter, Mr. Modhwadia was charged with driving with an invalid license, aggravated assault, assault, and criminal mischief. He is being held on $25,000 bail. This will not be an easy case for his attorney.

In New Jersey, any criminal defense attorney should be able to tell you that aggravated assault is governed by NJSA 2C:12-1(b) which governs "attempts to cause serious bodily injury to another..[.]" Based upon police notes from the scene and witness accounts, there is evidence to show that Mr. Modhwadia attempted to cause serious harm to Carla Snyder. Additionally, in New Jersey the aggravated assault is an indictable crime so it would be review by the county prosecutor and most likely would remain in the Superior Court. This defendant is headed for far more than anger management. Anyone who has been the victim of a road rage tantrum, or has had an episode of behavior which has resulted in criminal charges, should without momentary hesitation contact a highly skilled attorney who has years of experience with these types of cases.

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.

Three days is all it took for a released sex offender to victimize another person, a teenager, no less, and it gets worse: a disabled teenager, in a bathroom, of all places. Police reportedly found the fourteen year-old victim in Newark's Penn Station appearing as if something was amiss. She told them that she had been assaulted in a library restroom. The forty-five year-old accused had been released from state prison and was wearing an ankle monitor. As of the date of the report, it was unclear if he had retained a defense attorney.

Criminally, this person has definitely dug himself into a grave. He is a "recidivating" or re-offending sex offender, meaning that a subsequent offense will land him an automatic mandatory minimum of five years in prison with no possibility of parole, who can be sent to an additional five years in prison if he faces a new sexual assault charge with aggravating factors. Those aggravating factors include if the rape was forcible, if the victim was a minor, and if he or she is disabled.

Assessments of this sort of behavior lead many to believe that these urges are not easily suppressed or quelled. According to Dr. Gregory J. Coram, Forensic and Medical Psychologist and Director of the Masters program in Criminal Justice at Monmouth University, the acts in which these urges manifest are often unpredictable, repetitive, and non-stop. Rehabilitative treatments, are not often, if ever, likely to be effective when it comes to sex offenders.

"Due to the nature of these sexual disorders," says Dr. Coram, "it is very difficult to make any reasonable prediction on whether or not these individuals will re-offend. Sexual behavior is an integral part of the individual, and any distortions or pathology in that area will permeate their personality. Therefore, I am not a strong believer in true rehabilitation for these types of offenders. They have their signature and their methods, and the capability of rehabilitative treatment to break that pattern of behavior is something I believe to be unrealistic with current treatments."

This type of attack is very serious, and even if the sexual activity itself was not initiated by means of an attack, that is, if it was "consensual", the act would still be considered statutory rape, considering the victim was underage, and in no determinable position to give consent. In terms of legality of sexual activity, any act that is coerced is illegal. Physical force and/or threats need not be used to qualify as criminal.

You might ask, why do I need to know the law? It's not like I would ever commit such an atrocity.

Naturally, it's not expected that any reasonable person would perpetrate a crime like this. However, the laws about statutory rape are not always as crystal clear to everyone as they should be. Plainly, an attorney is in the best position to sort through the details of a questionable scenario as it may be construed by the law. The New Jersey Criminal Code states that sexual activity between an adult (18+) and a child between the ages of 13 and 16 is illegal unless the participants are within four years of age of one another. For example, it is legal for a 20-year old and a 17-year old to engage in sexual activity, but illegal for a 20-year old and a 15 year old to do so. Additionally, any sexual activity involving a child under the age of 13 is strictly illegal. It is worth noting that the gender of the victim or the assailant is not specified.

When it comes to a question of statutory rape, remember: it does not matter if both participants are willing, or even if the underage participant initiates the act itself. The law views a person under the age of 16 as lacking the emotional maturity to give consent to sexual activity, except in the circumstances provided above. And always remember: any act of forcible sex, that is, against the will of either participant, is considered aggravated sexual assault.

The courts do not accept a defense of mistaken age, e.g., "She looked like she was of age to me." The presumption is that if the participant looks underage, it should be assumed that he or she is underage. Real life often presents complications and complexities even where the facts seem clear. As such, anyone involved in an attack, or a relationship or circumstance where these laws may be considered, should contact an attorney who is an expert in this area of practice.

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 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.

Hell hath no fury like a woman wielding a urostomy bag scorned... Reportedly, an ex-girlfriend was lurking outside the home of her ex-boyfriend, when she was detected and confronted. She immediately attempted to hit her ex's brother with her automobile and then drove away. When police pulled her over soon afterwards, she detached her urostomy bag and hurled it at the three officers, splashing them with urine.

Not only can this woman be charged with attempted murder for trying to hit a man with her vehicle, but she also can get in trouble for assault on police officers. Though her attempt did not connect directly, under criminal law, the throwing of a bag of urine would constitute assault if it hit an officer. Here, the liquid did make contact sufficient to uphold a simple assault charge. This is analogous to one individual spitting on another. Even though he or she didn't actually reach out and touch someone in a layman's understanding, the spit itself acts as an extension of the person and thus criminal exposure results. The same is true here, as urine acts as an extension of the woman by hitting the police with it. Naturally, her more urgently serious problem is the attempted murder charge, but still interesting regarding throwing a bag of urine. Either charge should be handled by an experienced attorney.

An arrest has reportedly been made of a high school senior, who is charged with third-degree aggravated criminal sexual contact and third-degree criminal sexual contact, which allegedly occurred in Seaside Heights, following his prom in northern New Jersey. It is said that the 18 year old woman was incapacitated when she was victimized in a hotel, meaning she was indisputably unable to or did not give consent and anything that may have transpired was not consentual. The young man, who is in the U.S. on a student visa from Zimbabwe, is being held on $125,000.00 bail in Toms River and has been relieved of his passport.

The fact that Mr. Kabete is on a visa makes his potential trouble even more severe for him since he can be deported if he is convicted with a crime. If he cannot make bail, Mr. Kabete will be sitting in jail for a while, since this matter will have to present for indictment with the grand jury. If the grand jury returns an indictment, he will then have to be arraigned, which means he must plead guilty or not guilty. This is the stage at which a public defender would enter the proceedings, unless Mr. Kabete can afford to hire a private attorney. After an indictment and at the arraignment, the law requires someone to be represented by a lawyer, assuming he hasn't chosen to represent himself. Mr. Kabete has no such right at this time and will have a long process to get there if the reports prove to be true. It is clear, however, that his interests would be best served by the counsel of a skilled attorney who has experience with these types of charges.

Details have yet to be provided, and the victim's identity continues to be protected due to age and the nature of the crimes. These charges can include a wide array of conduct involved with an act of sexual penetration such as use of a weapon, physical force, threats, the aid of another person, severe personal injury, or it coincides with assault on another. The severity of the charges remains to be seen, but the occurrence of this sort of crime is a huge fear often associated with risky behavior surrounding proms. It should serve as a warning, with weeks left in the prom season. If you find yourself in any way related to a similar occurrence, it is in your best interest to contact an attorney.

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.

There is a reputation for loud, brutish behavior at Philadelphia sporting events and a Cherry Hill New Jersey man did nothing to refute that notion. Apparently, an off-duty police officer was attending the Phillies game with his daughters, and behind them sat a group of extremely intoxicated college aged men. This rowdy crew was certainly a problem, but their poor behavior hit an apex when one of the young men stuck fingers down his throat to vomit at will upon one of the off-duty police officer's daughters. Finally, some other nearby fans intervened and restrained the offender while security could move in to remove him. The man was charged with aggravated assault.

This is a great illustration how one can be charged with assault when the facts are not one a layperson would understand as assault, due to the intent of the law. Here, the young man was charged with aggravated assault because the vomit landed on the girl. The vomit is considered an extension of the man, and of course he willfully vomited, so the act rises to the level of aggravated assault. Many people commonly think that aggravated assault means assault, or harming another using a weapon (i.e. a baseball bat). However, in New Jersey, it is defined in N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(1) as "attempts to cause serious bodily injury to another, or causes such injury purposely or knowingly or under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life recklessly causes injury..." Naturally, there are many more subsections, but that is the basic, fundamental standard for aggravated assault. Psychological trauma on the part of the young girl would certainly be conceivable harm in this case. Now this case is in Pennsylvania so the law may be different, but this gives one an idea of what the spirit and intent of the law is in this matter in New Jersey. A highly skilled attorney would be required to defend against charges such as these.

Charges of a drug-fueled rape of a potential client do not do much to help the legal profession. Mr. Al Garcia's rape trial began with his accuser's testimony that when she appeared for a consultation for his legal services one evening, she was instead offered cocaine, raped and forced to perform sexual acts. While three others have come forward to testify that Mr. Garcia attempted to trade legal services for sex, the defense has offered evidence that shows no signs of force or injury in the medical report taken after the alleged attack.

While this story leaps of the page due to the "shock value" the case may still be a difficult for prosecutor's to prove based on the facts that have been publicized. This case ultimately comes down to the credibility of both the victim and the attorney. This is because the attorney's defense is not a denial that sexual acts occurred, but rather that the sexual acts were consensual. The fact that Judge is allowing three witnesses to testify appears to undermine the defense. Witness testimony like this can backfire, though, because the defense may argue that the victim in this case was accepting the attorney's offer. However, the fact that the attorney was allegedly using narcotics really damages the attorney's image for the jury. The jury is going to have to weigh the evidence, and the drug use may be a factor is convincing a jury that the attorney did sexually assault the victim and that there was no consent. An experienced attorney can determine the strongest defense against these types of charges, with extremely sensitive and nebulous circumstances, based upon the specific facts of each individual case.

In addition to the State trial, Garcia has been convicted in Federal Court as well for distribution of cocaine and methamphetamine, though the State jury will not know this, at least until the trial is over. Regardless of the outcome of the state trial, Garcia faces attorney discipline including potential disbarment. His law license has already been suspended, and he will probably be looking for a new line of work. The only question is whether he'll have a stopover in the state prison.

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.

An update from a previous entry, Los Angeles Police have now charged Ryan Jenkins with the murder of his wife, Jasmine Fiore. Apparently, police were able to gather enough evidence to show that Mr. Jenkins was responsible.

Also, it appears doubtful that Jenkins retained a lawyer as he has escaped to Canada. If he is appreheneded in Canada, he can only be extradited to the United States if he would not face the death penalty.

New Jersey Criminal Lawyer Blog's Take: This is a sad turn, but it appears Jenkins has decided to take his chances on the run. This will be an interesting situation to see if Jenkins is caught in Canada or if he is seeking to escape to another country which will not extradite him to the U.S.

There is no legal strategy discussion left in this matter, it really just comes down to when and where the authorities capture Jenkins.

Megan Wants a Millionaire Star wanted for Murder - Times Online 8/21/09