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.

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.

Unfortunately, an arrest of a student-athlete is infrequent but not uncommon. When the school's mascot gets arrested, while serving in his official capacity at the stadium, it is at least noteworthy. Apparently, the University of Cincinnati Bearcat mascot was arrested during a Saturday football game against the University of Pittsburgh. During the game that day, the weather was harsh as snow blanketed the stadium. While sitting amidst the falling snow, many fans were tossing snowballs for additional entertainment. Generally, both football fans and players are a hearty bunch, but due to safety concerns, it seems that the fans were warned to stop throwing snowballs. Hard snow and ice can easily injure someone who is not prepared to catch it or doesn't see it coming, in a crowd packed tight in stadium seats. A ball of ice could be used as a weapon. However, the Bearcat mascot did not heed that warning, and threw snowballs into the stands from his perch on a 6-foot high wall behind the end zone that was covered with ice and snow. In addition to hurting crowd members by pelting them with ice and snow, he could have fallen, injured himself and whomever he may fall upon.

When confronted by police, the Bearcat allegedly shoved the officer, both men ended upon the ground, at which point he was arrested for disorderly conduct. In New Jersey, this would give the student-mascot a criminal record. Further, he would be subject to fines and even a potential loss of driving privileges. The best thing the Bearcat can hope for is that he would be able to pay a fine to a municipal ordinance violation, and that he will be allowed to escape being saddled with a criminal record, or receive terms for expungement. While the visual of a mascot being led away in handcuffs may be humorous, it will be no laughing matter for this Cincinnati student when he appears in Court. It should also be noted that even the mascot is replaceable as Cincinnati had a "backup" mascot fill in the original mascot for the second half of the Bearcats defeat.

This sort of scenario, a row among fans or mascots at a stadium in any weather, provides a range of legal issues, personal injury or negligence claims as well as criminal charges. It is crucial for a skilled attorney to navigate this sort of legal minefield, so if you or someone close to you ever finds yourself in a situation like this, the very first thing to do, once your physical safety has been ensured, is to contact and retain an attorney immediately.

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.

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.

Part II Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement:
A basic principle of Fourth Amendment law is that "searches and seizure inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable." Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 5861980). The State bears the burden of proving that a warrantless search falls within one of the few, narrowly circumscribed exceptions to the warrant requirement. State v. Patino, 83 N.J. 1, 7 (1980). Of course, if police have entered your home without permission without a warrant resulting in criminal charges, you should contact an attorney immediately.

One such exception is the "protective sweep." In Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990), the Unites States Supreme Court determined the circumstances under which the police may perform a warrantless protective sweep of a defendant's premises incident to an arrest in order to ascertain the presence of any dangerous third parties. The Court held that the Fourth Amendment permits a properly limited protective sweep in conjunction with an in-home arrest when the searching officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene. Id. at 327, 334, 337. Such a protective sweep is not a full search of the premises, but may extend only to a cursory inspection of those spaces where a person may be found. Id. at 335. The sweep is to last no longer than is necessary to dispel the reasonable suspicion of danger and in any event no longer than it takes to complete the arrest and depart the premises. Id. at 336. Thus an officer's search for contraband or other evidence incident to an arrest does not constitute a protective sweep, and therefore cannot be based upon merely a reasonable suspicion.

New Jersey also has addressed protective sweeps. In State v. Henry, 133 N.J. 104, 118 (1993), the Court held that upon arresting an individual, "[t]he police may also 'fan out' and conduct a protective sweep of the area if they have reason to believe that they may be in danger from other parties on the premises." In State v. Doyle, 42 N.J. 334 (1964), the New Jersey Supreme Court found that the key to the propriety of a search is when the defendant was arrested. Police may not search in order to arrest, and a search to uncover evidence upon which to arrest is not made lawful because the desired evidence is obtained. Id. at 342. Absent a valid search warrant, the police must actually perform a valid arrest at same time that they performed the search that police justify as incident to an arrest. Id. at 342-43.

It is important to note that the scope of the sweep is a crucial factor. In Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969), the Court held that in the absence of a search warrant, the justifiable search incident to an in-home arrest could not extend beyond the arrestee's person and the area from within which he might have obtained a weapon. A search of a person or things within his immediate control or of the place of arrest to the extent that it is within his immediate possession or control is considered incidental to the arrest. Doyle, supra, 42 N.J. at 344. If police fish around beyond the area where a person might be able to reach, for example, evidence they find is not permissible in Court. Police then arguably must be able to convince the court that the evidence of danger was in reach. The experience of a police search and seizure at the home can be overwhelming, which is why these facts are best examined by a skilled attorney in order to determine the best defense strategy.

Plaxico Burress was indicted by a Manhattan grand jury on two counts of criminal possession and one count of reckless endangerment.

The two counts of criminal possesion of a weapon in the second degree, a Class C violent felony, each carry a minimum of 3-1/2 years in state prison and a maxiumum of 15 years. The sentences would be imposed concurrently.

New Jersey Criminal Lawyer Blog's Take: An update to a prior entry, Plaxico Burress's appearance before the grand jury did not work and he was indicted. As stated in previous entry, it was a long shot at best for this defense to work and now Burress will face trial. Furthermore, Burress is now bound by his grand jury testimony and cannot stray from it or else he faces additional perjury charges.

The best Plaxico can do now is hope to get a beneficial plea. It appears no matter what happens whether by plea or a conviction at trial, the former Giants player will be spending time in the state prison.

Plaxico Burress indicted - Newsday 8/3/09

Former New York Giant Plaxico Burress could potentially testify in front of a grand jury in his pending New York gun possession case. Burress's attorney, Benjamin Brafman, suggested to ESPN reporters that Burress may testify in front of a grand jury. This would be a dramatic step in trying to defend the case against Burress.

Burress faces charges for possession of an unlicensed firearm inside a New York City nightclub. The gun discharged while on Burress's person and left the Super Bowl XLII hero with a self-inflicted gun shot wound in his leg. Burress was subsequently suspended by the New York Giants and ultimately released this offseason. No other N.F.L. team has signed him to date.

New Jersey Criminal Lawyer Blog's Take: This would be quite a rare occurance and might just be a "hail mary" attempt to save Burress from serving prison time. If a suspect goes in front of the grand jury, he will be cross-examined by prosecutors without the benefit of a defense attorney present. Although the proceedings are closed to the public, a transcript of Burress's testimony could be used against him if the grand jury chose to indict him. It is difficult to see how a grand jury could not indict Burress, since based on news reports it appears that Burress will have to admit he brought the gun into the nightclub and the gun discharged into his leg. This will be a tough hill to climb, but shows how much the former Giant wants to avoid any jail-time.

D.A. want Plaxico in jail by trial or plea