Facebook
Home Criminal Page 21

Criminal

Man Stole Truck with White House Audio Equipment

Man Stole Truck with White House Audio Equipment


On November 7, 2012, the US Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia announced that Eric Brown of Richmond was arrested after he was accused of stealing a truck the contained audio equipment for the President of the United States.  He faces 10 years in prison for theft of government property if he is convicted.  


Court documents show that a truck was reported stolen on October 16, 2011 that stored audio equipment the president uses during public appearances.  The truck was located in Henrico Country before it was reported stolen.  The truck was stolen several days before President Obama was supposed to speak at an event in Central Virginia.  


Video surveillance saw a dark SUV enter the parking lot where the truck was located.  The truck was driven off the lot shortly after, and the SUV followed shortly behind.  The stolen equipment included a laptop and other audio and visual equipment.  These items bore the presidential seal.   


After the theft, Brown sold the laptop and kept the audio and visual equipment.  The laptop still contained the presidential seal, and Brown was reported to have bragged about the theft.  During the investigation, authorities were able to obtain cell phone data that proved Brown was at the place where the truck was stolen on the night of the crime.  


The investigation was led by the Secret Service, the FBI’s Richmond Field Office, and the Henrico County Police Department.  Assistant United States Attorney Roderick C. Young is handling the prosecution.  


Brown is still innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.  The FBI has not released any information about his sentencing date, but updates about the case will appear on the website of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia.  


Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation

Requested Assistance in Identify Serial Bank Robber

Requested Assistance in Identify Serial Bank Robber


On November 20, 2012, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in Newark asked for information from the public for a series of four bank robberies that occurred starting in August 2012.  During all of the robberies, the man approached the teller, gave them a note demanding money, and walked away with an undisclosed amount of cash.  During two of the robberies, he wore a baseball cap containing the letter “R.”  The FBI believes the letter stands for Rutgers.  


The robberies are summarized below:


On August 9, 2012, the man entered the TD Bank on 74 Route 571 in East Windsor, New Jersey around 7:12 p.m.  He was wearing a short-sleeved shirt, dark pants, large sunglasses, and a baseball cap.  


On August 23, 2012, the man entered the TD Bank on 1010 Raritan Road in Clark, New Jersey at about 7:50 p.m.  He was wearing a dark baseball cap, a short-sleeved polo shirt, and dark pants.  


On September 8, 2012, the man entered the TD Bank on 3024 Route 516 in Old Bridge, New Jersey at approximately 2:50 p.m.  He was wearing a baseball cap, a blue polo shirt, gray pants, and sunglasses.  


The last robbery occurred on November 16, 2012 at the TD Bank on 70 Middlesex Avenue in Metuchen, New Jersey around 7:15 p.m.  He was wearing a black jacket, gray shirt, blue jeans, white sneakers, large sunglasses, and a baseball cap.  


The man is described as white and about 5’8” tall and 170 pounds.  He had a beard and mustache during all of the robberies.  


If you have any information about the bank robberies, you need to contact the FBI at 973-792-3000.  Do not attempt to apprehend the suspect on your own.  You can also contact 911 if you suspect you’ve spotted the bank robber.  


Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation

Student Planned to Use Weapon of Mass Destruction

Student Planned to Use Weapon of Mass Destruction


On November 13, 2012, the Department of Justice announced that Khalid Ali-M Aldawsari was sentenced to life in prison for attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction.  The Saudi Arabian national was admitted into the United States in 2008 on a student visa for South Plains College near Lubbock.  


On February 1, 2011, a chemical supplier told the FBI that they received a suspicious request for concentrated phenol by Aldawsari.  Phenol is used to make explosive trinitrophenol (T.N.P.) or picric acid.  The chemicals needed to make T.N.P. or picric acid include sulfuric and nitric acids.  Aldawsari told the company he wanted the chemicals sent to a freight company for “off-campus, personal research.”  He eventually cancelled the order, but he obtained concentrated nitric and sulfuric acid by December 2010.  


A journal found at Aldawsari’s resident showed that he was planning a terrorist attack on the United States for years.  The journal stated that a scholarship greatly helped him come to the United States, and the journal specifically stated, “And now, after mastering the English language, learning how to build explosives, and continuous planning to target the infidel Americans, it is time for jihad.”


The investigation proved that Aldawsari sent emails to himself that contained instructions on how to make powerful explosives, how to turn a cell phone into a detonator, and how to make a bomb out of a vehicle.  He also bought a Hazmat suit, multiple beakers and flasks, a battery tester, a soldering iron kit, and more.  


U.S. Attorney Sarah R. Saldaña stated, “This case, in which private citizens paid attention to details and notified authorities of their suspicions, serves as a reminder to all private citizens that we must always be observant and vigilant, as there are some who intend to cause great harm.  Khalid Aldawsari, acting as a lone wolf, may well have gone undetected were it not for the keen observations of private citizens.”


Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation

$70,000 Reward for “AK-47 Bandit” Information

$70,000 Reward for “AK-47 Bandit” Information


On November 8, 2012, the FBI announced that a male adult suspect who robbed an Idaho credit under the day before appears to be the “AK-47 Bandit.”  The suspect has robbed banks in parts of California and Washington, and it appears his crime spree has spread into Idaho.  


The recent robbery occurred at the East Idaho Credit Union in Rexburg on November 7.  The suspect was wearing a mask and yielding an assault rifle as he ordered employees and customers into the bank’s vault.  Nobody was injured during the robbery, but the suspect made off with a large amount of cash.  


The suspect is believed to have robbed banks on February 29, March 12, and July 6, 2012 as well.  The first robbery on February 29 occurred at the California Bank & Trust in Chino, California.  A police officer was shot and seriously injured by the assault rifle during the robbery.  


The second robbery occurred on March 12 at the Bank of the West on the 1000 block of Helen Power Drive in Vacaville, California.  The third robbery occurred at the Chase Bank on Mt. Si Boulevard in North Bend, Washington.  The suspect may have been involved with a robbery at the Tri Counties Bank on the 1700 block of Challenge Way located in Sacramento, California on March 9th as well.


The FBI is offering up to $50,000 for information that leads to the suspect’s arrest, and the East Idaho Credit Union is offering up to $20,000 for information that leads to the arrest of the suspect who robbed the bank on November 7.  You can contact the FBI Salt Lake City Division at (801) 579-1400.  


The suspect is considered armed and extremely dangerous.  


Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation

Texas Inmate Pleaded Guilty to Hate Crime

Texas Inmate Pleaded Guilty to Hate Crime


On November 8, 2012, the Department of Justice reported that John Hall—a current inmate at the Federal Correctional Institution in Seagoville, Texas—pleaded guilty to a hate crime against an inmate he thought was gay.  Hall was in direct violation of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.  The crime occurred on December 20, 2011.  


According to court documents, Hall targeted the other inmate because of the inmate’s sexual orientation.  He admitted to kicking and punching the victim while yelling gay slurs, and he also admitted to using a dangerous weapon during the crime.  The victim sustained serious bodily injury, chipped teeth, and numerous lacerations on the face.  The victim survived, but the victim had a long recovery.  


Thomas E. Perez, the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, stated: “The Justice Department continues to investigate and prosecute acts of violence targeting individuals because of their sexual orientation; this case is just another example of the department’s commitment to the pursuit of justice on behalf of all people regardless of their sexual preference or orientation.”  


Hall can receive a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison on top of the time he currently serving.  The Justice Department has not released any information about the length of this prior sentence.  


Perez went on to say, “The department will continue to vigorously enforce the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, and all the laws under our jurisdiction, to protect the rights of all individuals.”  


The FBI Dallas Division investigated the case.  Assistant U.S. Attorney Errin Martin and Trial Attorney Adriana Vieco of the Civil Rights Division were in charge of prosecution.  


Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation

Consent

Consent

How is Consent Used as a Defense?
Consent is the provision of assent or approval usually after thoughtful consideration. There are many different types of legal consent:
Implied consent: This controversial form of consent is not explicitly granted by a person, but inferred based on his or her actions or inactions, and the circumstances and facts of the situation
Expressed consent: This form on consent can written, verbal, or nonverbal form but is unmistakably and clearly stated.

Verbal consent: Consent that is explicitly given verbally.
Nonverbal consent: Consent given by using nonverbal communication.
In criminal law, consent can be used as an excuse in order to prevent the defendant from acquiring liability for the actions at hand. A consent defense against criminal liability can occur when a defendant can argue that there was no crime due to consent given. For example, if consent was received for using a car, it cannot be considered a crime since there was no theft involved. However, there are limits placed on courts based on public policy that limit the extent to which consent can be used as a defense.
The most common example of this limitation is regarding minors who cannot consent to sexual intercourse under a certain age, resulting in the “victimless” crime of statutory rape. Other examples of these limits on the consent defense can be seen in in bigamy and incest, where consent does not justify the unlawfulness of the act.
Consent is typically considered a legitimate defense when used in situations with incidental injury, for example, in a properly regulated sport. Here the victim consents to taking the risk of injuries involved within the rules of the game. However, this does not give the sport any right to enact rules that promote excessive or malicious violence. This is also applicable to situations regarding practical jokes or “fun” active physical interaction where local standards of contract would dictate potential injury. 

Rights of Victims

Rights of Victims

What are the rights of victims?

Those that have been victimized are often scared and unsure of what to do next.  It is very important to remain calm, contact the authorities and do nothing that will compromise evidence that will find and convict the criminal.  Timing is essential in a criminal case and you must not delay in reporting the crime.  The police will have professionals, most likely a detective that will be able to help you organize your thoughts and build a case.  Cooperate with law enforcement and be truthful in your testimony at all times to avoid compromising the case.  Do not fabricate or mislead the detectives as this will prevent them from giving your case proper credence.

What do I do immediately after a crime?

Obviously, this varies on the nature of the crime.  In almost all cases, however, there will be a crime scene.  You will need to preserve the crime scene by not touching any items, however important.  Just a tiny sliver of DNA can be all that is needed to find a culprit.  The need to preserve a crime scene applies, unfortunately, in rape and sexual assault cases and it is imperative that the victim not wash or clean after the attack.  The police will get you to a hospital where the DNA will be collected and you will then be given the treatment you need for damage sustained, be it physical or emotional trauma.

Do not hesitate in calling the police after a crime.  You may need to use a payphone, or the phone of a nearby merchant or passerby.  Either way, the quicker the police get to the crime scene, the better the chance that the police will preserve evidence and even look for the suspect in the event that the suspect remains in the area.

What do I do if I am called to testify?

You must be truthful about the circumstances of the crime and recount the events of the crime to the court.  You must answer questions posed to you, and you will be assisted, usually be an attorney if you choose to testify.  You may alternatively make a written or recorded statement and have that statement presented on your behalf in court.  Your participation in the trial will help you receive compensation and restitution from the criminal that caused you damages.  The court will be able to protect you if you feel threatened in any way, as far as to relocate you, provide a protection detail and a assign new identity, if necessary.

What are my rights as the victim of a crime?

Speedy trial – all criminal cases must be brought to trial in a reasonable amount of time, generally a maximum of six months after the crime has been committed.  This may be delayed to locate witnesses, but not to specifically benefit the prosecution.  The victim of a crime has the right to be informed of the proceedings related to the criminal such as sentencing, arraignment and parole hearings.

Compensation – there will be a Crime Victims Board that will address financial relief to victims of a crime.  Persons usually have one year to file for compensation when that are victims of a crime.  States will vary on the amount of compensation that can be collected by there will be a few general categories:

– Loss of earnings

– Burial expenses of a victim that died as a result of the crime

– Cost of crime scene cleanup and initial securing of the crime scene

– Costs associated with seeking counseling and other medical expenses

– Repair and replacement of items damaged as a result of the crime

Enforcement – the victim has a right to know about actions taken against a criminal and actions that might reduce the penalty enforced on the criminal.  This includes if the criminal becomes eligible for parole or release.  Victims have a right to make victim impact statements at these hearings to sway the decisions of the law enforcement personnel as well as petition to keep enforcement on the criminal.

Harassment/Witness protection program – the victim or witness of a crime is protected against retaliation or harassment by the criminal as well as the criminal’s associates and relatives.  A witness protection program generally changes the identification of a threatened witness and maintains dedicated a protection detail to safeguard their well-being.  This prevents the possibility of witness intimidation or tampering.

There may be Federal and State protection programs.  States that offer witness protection programs include Washington DC, Texas, California, Illinois, Connecticut and New York.  The Federal Witness Protection Program covers these states plus any state that does not have such a program.  Federal witness protection will entail relocation, assumption of a new identity and protection by the US Marshalls in high threat situations.

Special visas may be granted to victims of human trafficking or foreign witnesses that provide protection in exchange for testifying against a criminal.

Proceedings – victims and families of victims are allowed to provide dispositions on the case, regarding matters such as sentencing and restitution.  In a criminal trial for any felony, the victim is allowed a victim impact statement and can address the court regarding the sentencing of the criminal.

Restitution – this is the right of the victim to be restored to the financial status they had prior to the crime.  This is related to reparation, which is payments made to the victim for damages caused by the crime.  All property held as evidence is returned to the victim, unless the court has a legitimate reason for withholding it.

Right to be informed – all victims of a crime are entitled to a free copy of the police report related to their incident.  In addition, all victims of a crime receive access to the Victim Information and Notification Everyday (VINE) hotline where you may inquire about the status of an offender and the likely release date of that offender.  The victim of a crime will be informed on a number of procedural matters related to the criminal and will also be informed if the criminal is released or escapes from prison.

Abandonment Withdrawal

Abandonment Withdrawal

What is abandonment/withdrawal?
In a criminal context, abandonment or withdrawal is the failure to complete a criminal action due to the defendant refusing to complete the action.  This is usually the case in criminal cases involving conspiracies and/or accomplices.  The burden of proof is on the defense with this affirmative defense and they must prove that the defendant renounced the criminal act in the process and refused to help commit the crime, even after participating in part of it.  This action must be voluntary and the risks involved with the crime must not have been apparent to the defendant.
What is abandonment and withdrawal in relation to conspiracy?
If the defendant is the principal in a conspiracy case and prevents the individuals solicited from committing the planned crime, that individual may mounts an abandonment or withdrawal defense and prove that the plot was aborted before the illegal activity could be completed.  One may not mount an abandonment or withdrawal simply because the defendant and accomplices realized they would be caught as there is the assumption that they would have carried out the crime under normal circumstances.
How does an abandonment or withdrawal defense work?
The defendant making an abandonment or withdrawal defense must not only prove that they lacked criminal purpose, but also made an attempt in good faith to prevent others, generally accomplices from also committing the crime.  The individual must forsake the criminal activity voluntarily and not because they feared impending punishment or were compelled to do so.  Remember that in conspiracy cases an individual that acts as an accessory or solicits other to commit a crime has equal and often greater liability than the others representing that person’s role in facilitating the criminal activity.
For one to make an abandonment or withdrawal defense, they must be the one that informed law enforcement, contributed in no way to the crime and has disavowed the criminal activity before the crime has taken place.  Only then can this affirmative defense be successful and exempt the defendant from criminal liability.
Am abandonment or withdrawal is negated if the defendant maintains contact or affiliations with the conspirators, as this proves that the defendant has not disavowed all ties as implied by his or her abandonment or withdrawal defense.
Can I be protected after making an abandonment or withdrawal defense?
Yes, depending on the circumstances.  If other conspirators or accomplices and their associates elude law enforcement, the state may be able to provide witness protection and other services to protect your identity.  There is Federal Witness Protection in the most extreme, high risk situations where the defendant is in real danger of retaliation for tipping off law enforcement or stopping the criminal activity.
What is an alternative to an abandonment or withdrawal defense?
You may be able to make a case for being under duress, which forced you to cooperate with the crime.  You had no criminal intention but had a reasonable belief that you would be harmed for not cooperating with the plot or criminal activity.

Right to Counsel

Right to Counsel

The right to counsel is established in the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution and ensures that all persons accused of a crime, regard of income, is entitled to legal representation.  Those who cannot afford a lawyer will have a public defender appointed to work on their behalf.  The quality of the legal representation is not addressed in right of counsel provision, thus imperiling a suspect with inadequate legal representation.
Why do I have a Right to Counsel?
The protection against self-incrimination has a somewhat ambiguous application, with law enforcement allowed to waive your protection automatically if you make statements after you have been informed of your Miranda rights.  Law enforcement is even allowed to make false statements and engage in other forms of trickery to coax an incriminating statement out of the suspect.  These statements can be used in a court of law or used to influence the jury to think in a certain way about the defendant.  The right to counsel exists to protect against unfair police interrogations and prevent clients from self-incrimination.
What is the legal history of the right to counsel?
Prior to the 1963 case of Gideon v Wainwright, the right to counsel was interpreted as providing legal aid for those involved in serious and capital offenses.  Gideon, who was accused of larceny, could not afford a lawyer and was told he state of Florida that he could only have a public defender in capital punishment cases.  Gideon served as his own legal representation and was sentenced to five years in prison.  The Supreme Court heard in the case in 1963 and determined that the selective interpretation of the sixth amendment was unconstitutional and the right to counsel was a critical component to ensuring a fair trial for the defendant.  In a subsequent trial, Gideon was allowed legal counsel who proved that the testimony used to convict Gideon was faulty, thus exonerating him.
A subsequent case, Maryland v. Shatzer found that the right to counsel would need to be invoked again if the suspect reentered police custody 2 weeks after being released.  This case derived from the questioning of Shatzer on child molestation charges that had an attorney for the first interrogation but lacked legal counsel three years later upon reopening the case and made incriminating statements that implicated him in the molestation charges.
What is a public defender?
After Gideon v Wainwright case, a formalized system of public defenders came into practice to give indigent suspects legal representation.  The lawyers are considered government employees.  There are also legal aid and legal defense associations that rely on public funds to represent clients at low cost or pro bono.
A chief public defender is elected to office in some jurisdictions and appointed in others.  Public defender offices generally employ a staff of clerical personnel, investigators, social workers and other relevant persons to assist with defending indigent clients.  In many jurisdictions, public defenders handle a large caseload and are often unfamiliar with their clients, only serving as competent yet generalized legal representation.

Self Incrimination

Self Incrimination

The Fifth Amendment of the constitution protects those accused of a crime from making statements that could be used against them in criminal court.  Those accused of a crime, despite this right, often incriminate themselves, without their knowledge, by making statements to the police.  It is advisable to make any statements only in the presence of a lawyer, to prevent implicating or incriminating oneself.
What is the legal precedent for the prohibition on self-incrimination?
The landmark legal case, Miranda v. Arizona, requires officers to inform suspects of their protection against self-incrimination, specifically their “right to remain silent.”  Statements made prior to being informed of the right to remain silent and have an attorney present are inadmissible in court.  Subsequent court decisions, such as Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010) decided in the Supreme Court, has ruled that voluntary statements made by the suspect in police custody after being informed of Miranda rights can be interpreted as a waiver of those rights, making the statements admissible in determining the suspect’s guilt.
What are self-incriminating statements?
Any statement where the suspect admits to certain actions of behaviors can be used to incriminate them.  For instance, one that is questioned over the murder of a relative and admits to not being fond of that relative has uttered a self-incriminating statement.  This is not nearly enough to tie the individual to the murder, but is enough to establish motive.  Self-incriminating statements have been used a number of times to convict individuals for crimes, even if those statements do not constitute a confession or there is insufficient evidence.  Self-incriminating statements can also be made during police interrogations.  Police are allowed to lie and make false promises to coax a suspect into self-incrimination, thus necessitating the presence of a lawyer during police interrogations.
What should one do in police custody?
After you are informed of your Miranda rights, your only obligation to talk to the police is to identify yourself by stating your name and handing over identification.  Failure for the police to inform you of your Miranda rights is sufficient to invalidate an entire criminal case.  The right against self-incrimination does not cover finger printing as well as blood and other DNA tests and you must submit to these tests as requested.  Do not make any other statements without the presence of an attorney.
What is “pleading the Fifth”?
Pleading the fifth is the refusal to testify as the testimony entered can be used to implicate the witness in criminal actions.  This right is waived if the witness answers any questions posed by the prosecution.  If the witness is subpoenaed to testify, the witness may choose to answer no questions.  Witnesses cannot be charged with contempt of court for refusing to answer questions.  It is best to consult with an attorney prior to testifying to ensure that you will not make a self-incriminating statement.  When pleasing the Fifth, you must choose to answer all questions or answer no questions.  One cannot selectively chose questions to answer when testifying.
1...202122...38Page 21 of 38
Facebook

EVEN MORE NEWS

POPULAR CATEGORY

©

Attorneys, Get Listed

Let's Do It
X