Home Criminal Page 21

Criminal

Assistance Needed in Identifying San Diego Bank Robber

Assistance Needed in Identifying San Diego Bank Robber


On November 27, 2012, the FBI in San Diego and the San Diego Police Department asked the public for information on an unidentified man who robbed a US Bank inside a Vons grocery store on November 27, 2012.  


The FBI announced that the man is suspected in one robbery but may be linked to other robberies as well.  


The robbery occurred around 4:33 p.m. on Tuesday, November 27, 2012.  The US Bank was located in the Vons grocery store on 5555 Balboa Avenue in San Diego, California.  The man entered the doors on the east side of the store, approached the teller, and sat down in a chair in front of the teller’s station.  


The man proceeded to pull out an envelope and a piece of paper with writing inscribed on it.  The piece of paper appeared to be a demand note because the teller looked at the note, put a sum of money in the envelope, and returned the envelope to the unidentified man.  After the man received the money, he stood up, walked away from the teller’s station, and left the store through the doors on the west side.


Nobody was hurt during the robbery.  


The man is described as Caucasian, about 30 years old, 5’6” to 5’10” tall, and about 130 to 140 pounds.  He had brown hair during the robbery and had a brown goatee.  He was wearing a blue baseball cap with yellow letters, a dark coat, a gray T-shirt, and light blue jeans.


If anyone has information about the robbery or suspect, they should call the FBI at (858) 565-1255 or Crime Stoppers at (888) 580-8477.  Individuals are discouraged from approaching a suspect by themselves or with the help of other people because the suspect may be armed and dangerous.  


Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation
 

Mint Hill Fire Chief to Plead Guilty of Public Corruption

Mint Hill Fire Chief to Plead Guilty of Public Corruption


On November 27, 2012, the US Attorney’s Office for the Western District of North Carolina announced that Jeremy K Russell, the former fire chief of Mint Hill Volunteer Fire Department, agreed to plead guilty for embezzling over $225,000 from the Town of Mint Hill and the Fire Department.  


According to the charge filed in the U.S. District Court in Charlotte, Russell engaged in the embezzlement scheme from May 2010 to April 2012.  During the scheme, Russell set up a sham corporation called “Regional Medic & First Responder Supply Connection” and opened a bank account in Regional Medic’s name that he controlled himself.  He also created a mail drop for Regional Medic so mail wasn’t sent to his address.  


Court documents show that Russell filed fake invoices for services and equipment from Regional Medic that were never provided to the Mint Hill Fire Department.  The invoices were usually under $5,000 and the checks were signed off by members of the town and Fire Department employees.  


When Russell received the checks in the mail drop, he took them to the bank and deposited them in Regional Medic’s name.  By engaging in the scheme, Russell was able to obtain over $225,000 in under two years.  The Mint Hill Volunteer Fire Department is supported by taxpayer money and receives over $10,000 in federal funds as well.  


Russell used the embezzled money for personal expenditures and a gambling habit.  As part of the plea agreement, Russell will plead guilty to the embezzlement charge and pay restitution to victims.  


Embezzlement carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison and a fine up to $250,000.  The date of Russell’s plea hearing is not yet scheduled.  


The case was investigated by the FBI and prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Kurt W. Meyers.  


Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation

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

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.

Teen Confesses to Hate Crime

Teen Confesses to Hate Crime

Months after the jury’s deliberation proved fruitless in determining guilt, a Southern California teen plead guilty for murdering his gay classmate three years ago in their junior high classroom. 
In September, a judge declared a mistrial in the case of Brandon McInerney, now aged 17, after jurors claimed a deadlock following the nine-week trial on whether he should be found guilty for manslaughter or murder. Following the announcement of a stalemate, the Ventura County District Attorney’s Office announced that McInerney would be retried on first-degree murder charges—McInerney was tried as an adult in both cases.
 McInerney eventually plead guilty to killing classmate Lawrence King as well as using a firearm in the crime. McInerney will serve 11 years for manslaughter and another 10 for using a firearm to gun-down his classmate. The plead ultimately reduced the teen’s sentence by at least 20 years—he would have served a maximum sentence of 50 years to life in prison had he not confessed. 
McInerney was just 14 when he brought a handgun, belonging to one of his relatives, to E.O. Green Junior High School in Oxnard. 
McInerney shot the 15-year-old King twice at point-blank range in the back of the head, while the two students—along with their 24 classmates–were writing papers in a computer lab for their English teacher.
King, who was habitually bullied, was proud of being openly homosexual. He often wore jewelry and makeup to school and added high-heeled boots to his school uniform. He requested to be called Leticia instead of Larry. 
McInerney’s motivation stemmed from King’s eccentricity. McInerney was often a subject of harassment because King openly talked about liking McInerney. 
The Ventura County district attorney’s office acknowledged criticism regarding its decision to try the then 15-year-old as an adult. The office, however, stood by its decision, citing the juvenile system’s inadequacies of trying a case this severe. 
King’s father, Greg, described the plea as “bittersweet”, claiming he didn’t think the sentence matched the crime but understood the court’s decision. 

NYPD Nabs Lone Wolf

NYPD Nabs Lone Wolf

The NYPD’s Intelligence Division arrested a man on Saturday (November 19th) accused of plotting to bomb post offices and police headquarters in New York City, as well as American troops returning home. Jose Pimentel of Manhattan was formally described by Mayor Bloomberg at a Sunday news conference as a “27 year-old Al-Qaida sympathizer.” 
Pimentel is said to be motivated by terrorist propaganda and resentment for American war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. New York Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said, police were forced to move quickly to arrest Pimentel on Saturday because he was ready and willing to carry out his horrific plan. 
Commissioner Kelly described Pimentel as a “lone wolf”—an individual, who although influenced by extremist propaganda, was working alone to raise hell on the city. “He was in fact putting his bomb together. He was drilling holes and it would have been not appropriate for us to let him walk out the door with that pipe bomb,” said Commissioner Kelly. 
Kelly said that Pimentel was particularly motivated after U.S. forces killed al-Qaida’s U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. 
The foiled attack marks the 14th terrorist plot that was curbed by law enforcement agents since the World Trade Towers were brought down on September 11th of 2001. 
Pimentel was an unemployed citizen of the United States. The al-Qaida sympathizer was originally from the Dominican Republic. 
The NYPD had Pimentel under surveillance for over a year and were working with a confidential informant to pinpoint the aggressor’s whereabouts. No injury to any individual or property has been reported. Moreover, law enforcement agents have no evidence that Pimentel was working with anyone else.
At Pimentel’s arraignment, Joseph Zablocki, the terrorist’s lawyer, said his client’s behavior leading up to the arrest was not that of a clandestine terrorist attempting to conceal a violent attack. Zablocki claimed Pimentel was public about his wishes and was not trying to hide anything. This exposed attempt, according to Zablocki, revealed merely a cry for attention and not a willingness to carry out such a devious plan. 
Also known as Muhammad Yusuf, Pimentel was denied bail and remained in police custody. Pimentel is accused of having a pipe bomb in his possession; one he planned to terrorize the public with. The formal charges accuse the man of conspiracy, first-degree criminal possession of an explosive, soliciting support for a terrorist act and criminal possession of a weapon as a crime of terrorism. 

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. 

Attorneys, Get Listed

X