Unlike VTL 1192.2 which requires a reading of alcohol in a person's blood to be .08 of one per centum or more, a person is guilty of Driving While Intoxicated pursuant to "Common Law" VTL 1192.3 if they operate a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated condition. Well, if there is no reading or analysis, what does law enforcement hang it's hat on to establish this crime? Very often the police cite certain characteristics of the accused across the board. The officers claim that that the accused had "water bloodshot eyes," "slurred speech," "the smell of alcohol on their breath," and they were "unsteady." Maybe the police allege that a person was asleep at the wheel, was driving erratically, or even threw up on themselves. One of the easiest ways they establish your lack of sobriety is based on the boneheaded mistake that people of all walks of life make when confronted by the police regardless of the accusation. That is, they make an admission. Something as simple as "I only had a few (or couple) of beers." Well, if you didn't present any of the characteristics mentioned above, but you stated you had a couple of beers, you probably just bought yourself a trip to the precinct and ultimately before a judge.
As I always state, DWI is a serious and terrible offense. The lives of many innocent people are put in harm's way if one gets behind the wheel intoxicated. That being said, an accusation or an arrest is not evidence of guilt. It could be that you did have two beers, but you are 6'4 230 pounds. Maybe you did have bloodshot eyes because you had not changed your contact lenses for a day or you were in a room full of cigarette smokers. Are these excuses? No, and in fact may be legitimate reasons why a wrongful conclusion was made that you were driving drunk.
Whatever the set of facts, fighting a DWI with counsel that is not experienced in criminal law and DWIs in particular can and often does compound a bad situation. If you are accused of any crime, contact the criminal defense attorneys and former Manhattan prosecutors at Crotty Saland, LLP. We are ready and able to pursue any legal and ethical avenue to protect your liberty, integrity and rights.
]]>According to the Manhattan District Attorney's Office's press release:
Mark A. Focht "stole $250,000 by using a forged authorization form to wire $250,000 out of a bank account of Pierce Diversified Strategy Master Fund, LLC, one of the funds managed by 3V Capital Management. Mr. Focht used the stolen money to make a personal investment to benefit himself. To conceal the missing $250,000, Mr. Focht created forged documents that falsely represented to both Mr. Focht’s employer and to the client hedge fund that the $250,000 had been invested on behalf of the hedge fund. In fact, the $250,000 was invested by Mr. Focht for his own purposes, in violation of the legal, fiduciary and ethical obligations he owed his clients."
If convicted of the Grand Larceny in the Second Degree, Mr. Foch faces up to 15 years in prison. Forgery in the Second Degree is punishable by up to 7 years in prison and Falsifying Business Records is punishable by up to 4 years in prison.
As a former Manhattan prosecutor who served under Robert Morgenthau for seven years, I supervised white collar investigations and prosecutions with the NYPD, Secret Service, Postal Inspection Service, State Department and SEC. Many of these prosecutions involved multiple millions of dollars in theft through both forgery and the falsification of business records. The prosecutors who are handling this case are not merely diligent and methodical in their investigations, but experienced in these types of crimes. In fact, the bureau that is pursuing this case, Investigation Division Central, consists of many elite prosecutors and support staff who for years have handled similar crimes and obtained convictions for those crimes. In short, Mr. Focht and his criminal defense attorney have a lot of work ahead of them.
Whether you are charged with Grand Larceny, Forgery or Falsifying Business Records, a white collar criminal defense attorney with practical experience who has battled in the trenches on both sides is required in order to preserve your liberty and integrity. While no attorney can guarantee a particular result, the white collar criminal defense attorneys and former Manhattan prosecutors at Crotty Saland, LLP have the experience, knowledge and tenacity to assess your case and implement the right plan to zealously defend your rights, freedom and good name.
]]>If you or a loved one is in need of legal representation and a criminal defense attorney for a white collar crime, contact the former Manhattan prosecutors at Crotty Saland, LLP. Whatever your best defense may be, Jeremy Saland and Elizabeth Crotty will take the time to address your concerns, explain the legal process and implement what is needed to zealously defend your liberty, integrity and future.
]]>Decisions rendered by the Court of Appeals, New York's highest court, further fortifies the ability of state and local prosecutors. In People v. Sakow, 45 N.Y.2d 131 (1978), the Court of Appeals found that a "defendant could properly be held criminally liable for violation of city administrative code based on his willful neglect and refusal to comply with violation orders issued by fire department where there was adequate proof from which it could be inferred that defendant was the active manager and dominant controlling force in corporations, in each of which he was principal and, at times, sole shareholder, and for which he acted in the absence of minutes and without a meeting of the board of directors."
This "piercing of the corporate veil" is far from atypical. In fact, a Queens County Supreme Court Justice held that Penal Law Section 20.25 "eliminates the possibility that a culpable defendant might evade criminal responsibility simply because he was acting in a corporate capacity or in the interests of a corporation. The corporate veil can be pierced, if appropriate, in criminal as well as civil cases. The culpable actor can no longer hide behind a corporate curtain." People v. Aquarian Age 2000 Inc., 85 Misc.2d 504 (Queens County 1976).
Obviously, both history and the Penal Law tell us that federal and state prosecutors have and will continue to prosecute individuals for their activities in corporate settings as they relate to criminal activity. Therefore, it is imperative to protect yourself from getting into legal "hot water," limit your exposure and preserve your career and freedom if you have been arrested or you are the target of an investigation. As former Manhattan prosecutors who supervised prosecutions into multi-million dollar fraud schemes and criminal defense attorneys who have represented clients in alleged multi-million dollar thefts, Crotty Saland, LLP stands ready to zealously fight on your behalf to preserve your freedom, rights, livelihood and integrity.
]]>As a result of Mr. Ungar's plea, he will make full restitution of over $125,000 for the scheme. Additionally, he will be given a lifetime debarment from doing business with the MTA and serve five-years of probation. Mr. Unger must also pay over $200,000 in back taxes. If Mr. Unger fails to comply with the terms of his plea he will not be sentenced to probation, but instead could receive two to six years in state prison.
Between 2003 to 2008, Mr. Ungar fraudulently portrayed himself and his business as another person and another firm because of his alleged past ethical and professional lapses associated with his business. As a result, the MTA was duped into agreeing to contracts while unaware it was in fact Mr. Ungar. Mr. Ungar then supplied knock-off and counterfeit parts for MTA buses and subways. These parts were not American made, but made in China.
Beyond the crimes committed by Mr. Ungar, this case is even more interesting because the corporation pleaded guilty to a crime as well. More specifically, the top crime the corporation pleaded guilty to was Identity Theft for assuming the identity of another corporation or firm. While not common, this type of prosecution will likely gain steam where individuals and their corporations perpetrate frauds while assuming the identity of anther firm. As a result of ABEC's crimes, the company will cease operations and dissolve.
According to the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, Mr. Brooks engaged in this conduct from a period between March of 2005 through April of 2008. The women, as young as 18 and as old as 30, went voluntarily to Mr. Brook's apartment believing they were auditioning for an acting role. Prosecutors claim that Mr. Brooks flew many of these women into New York from as far as Washington State and Florida after they learned of the potential acting gigs on Craigslist. Once Mr. Brooks got the women into his apartment, however, they quickly learned there was no role to be had.
The Grand Jury indicted Mr. Brooks on:
Rape in the First Degree and Criminal Sexual Act in the First Degree - punishable by up to 25 years in prison.
Attempted Criminal Sexual Act in the First Degree - punishable by up to 15 years in prison.
Rape in the Second Degree, Criminal Sexual Act in the Second Degree and Sexual Abuse in the First Degree - punishable by up to 7 years in prison.
Rape in the Third Degree, Attempted Criminal Sexual Act in the Second Degree, Criminal Sexual Act in the Third Degree, Attempted Sexual Abuse in the First Degree and Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree - punishable by up to 4 years in prison.
Sexual Abuse in the Second Degree, Forcible Touching, and Criminal Mischief in the Fourth Degree - punishable by up to one year in jail.
The Grand Jury indicted Ms. Lucier on:
Criminal Facilitation in the Fourth Degree - punishable by up to one year jail.
It is never easy to get inside the head of a prosecutor, but looking at the culpability of both Mr. Brooks and Ms. Lucier as well as the disparity in the potential punishment, it is conceivable that Ms. Lucier may not remain a co-defendant of Mr. Brooks for long. Clearly, Mr. Brooks, not Ms. Lucier, is the main target of the indictment and Ms. Lucier may be able to use that fact to her advantage. Regardless of how the case plays out, each of these individuals need skilled, experienced and savvy criminal defense counsel to put forth their best and most compelling defense as soon as possible.
]]>*** UPDATE ***
]]>Pursuant to PL 225.05, a person is guilty of Promoting Gambling in the Second Degree when he knowingly advances or profits from unlawful gambling activity. Promoting Gambling in the Second Degree is a class A misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail.
A more serious offense, Promoting Gambling in the First Degree, pursuant to PL 225.10, a person is guilty of this crime when he knowingly advances or profits from unlawful gambling activity by:
(1) Engaging in bookmaking to the extent that he receives or accepts in any one day more than five bets totaling more than five thousand dollars; or (2) Receiving, in connection with a lottery or policy scheme or enterprise, (a) money or written records from a person other than a player whose chances or plays are represented by such money or records, or (b) more than five hundred dollars in any one day of money played in such scheme or enterprise. Promoting Gambling in the First Degree is a class E felony punishable by up to four years in state prison.
Be forewarned...the following is a list of terms and definitions applicable to the statutes addressed above. While an understanding of these terms are essential to have a working knowledge of gambling crimes - that doesn't make them easier to read. Please note, however, that the second entry in this series will deal with cases and legal decisions further defining these crimes. So...here we go:
]]> (1) "Contest of chance" means any contest, game, gaming scheme or gaming device in which the outcome depends in a material degree upon an element of chance, notwithstanding that skill of the contestants may also be a factor therein.(3) "Player" means a person who engages in any form of gambling solely as a contestant or bettor, without receiving or becoming entitled to receive any profit therefrom other than personal gambling winnings, and without otherwise rendering any material assistance to the establishment, conduct or operation of the particular gambling activity. A person who gambles at a social game of chance on equal terms with the other participants therein does not otherwise render material assistance to the establishment, conduct or operation thereof by performing, without fee or remuneration, acts directed toward the arrangement or facilitation of the game, such as inviting persons to play, permitting the use of premises therefor and supplying cards or other equipment used therein. A person who engages in "bookmaking", as defined in this section is not a "player."
(4) "Advance gambling activity." A person "advances gambling activity" when, acting other than as a player, he engages in conduct which materially aids any form of gambling activity. Such conduct includes but is not limited to conduct directed toward the creation or establishment
of the particular game, contest, scheme, device or activity involved, toward the acquisition or maintenance of premises, paraphernalia, equipment or apparatus therefor, toward the solicitation or inducement of persons to participate therein, toward the actual conduct of the
playing phases thereof, toward the arrangement of any of its financial or recording phases, or toward any other phase of its operation. One advances gambling activity when, having substantial proprietary or other authoritative control over premises being used with his knowledge for purposes of gambling activity, he permits such to occur or continue or makes no effort to prevent its occurrence or continuation.
(5) "Profit from gambling activity." A person "profits from gambling activity" when, other than as a player, he accepts or receives money or other property pursuant to an agreement or understanding with any person whereby he participates or is to participate in the proceeds of gambling activity.
(6) "Something of value" means any money or property, any token, object or article exchangeable for money or property, or any form of credit or promise directly or indirectly contemplating transfer of money or property or of any interest therein, or involving extension of a
service, entertainment or a privilege of playing at a game or scheme without charge.
(7) "Gambling device" means any device, machine, paraphernalia or equipment which is used or usable in the playing phases of any gambling activity, whether such activity consists of gambling between persons or gambling by a person involving the playing of a machine. Notwithstanding the foregoing, lottery tickets, policy slips and other items used in the playing phases of lottery and policy schemes are not gambling devices.
(7-a) A "coin operated gambling device" means a gambling device which operates as a result of the insertion of something of value. A device designed, constructed or readily adaptable or convertible for such use is a coin operated gambling device notwithstanding the fact that it may
require adjustment, manipulation or repair in order to operate as such.
(8) "Slot machine" means a gambling device which, as a result of the insertion of a coin or other object, operates, either completely automatically or with the aid of some physical act by the player, in such manner that, depending upon elements of chance, it may eject something of value. A device so constructed, or readily adaptable or convertible to such use, is no less a slot machine because it is not in working order or because some mechanical act of manipulation or repair is required to accomplish its adaptation, conversion or workability. Nor
is it any less a slot machine because, apart from its use or adaptability as such, it may also sell or deliver something of value on a basis other than chance. A machine which sells items of merchandise which are of equivalent value, is not a slot machine merely because such items differ from each other in composition, size, shape or color. A machine which awards free or extended play is not a slot machine merely because such free or extended play may constitute something of value provided that the outcome depends in a material degree upon the skill of the player and not in a material degree upon an element of chance.
(9) "Bookmaking" means advancing gambling activity by unlawfully accepting bets from members of the public as a business, rather than in a casual or personal fashion, upon the outcomes of future contingent events.
(11) "Lottery" means an unlawful gambling scheme in which (a) the players pay or agree to pay something of value for chances, represented and differentiated by numbers or by combinations of numbers or by some other media, one or more of which chances are to be designated the
winning ones; and (b) the winning chances are to be determined by a drawing or by some other method based upon the element of chance; and (c) the holders of the winning chances are to receive something of value provided, however, that in no event shall the provisions of this
subdivision be construed to include a raffle as such term is defined in subdivision three-b of section one hundred eighty-six of the general municipal law.
(11) "Policy" or "the numbers game" means a form of lottery in which the winning chances or plays are not determined upon the basis of a drawing or other act on the part of persons conducting or connected with the scheme, but upon the basis of the outcome or outcomes of a future contingent event or events otherwise unrelated to the particular scheme.
(12) "Unlawful" means not specifically authorized by law.
Boring? Yes. Necessary? Yes as well. Again, check back for our second entry where Crotty Saland, LLP will address and review the various statutes and case law applicable to gambling crimes.
According to Penal Law 120.00(1), a person is guilty of Assault in the Third Degree when with intent to cause physical injury to another person, he causes such injury to such person or to a third person. Additionally, physical injury requires impairment of physical condition or substantial pain.
In finding the complaint against the defendant sufficient, the court stated that:
"Causing someone to be unable to breath, albeit momentarily, clearly supports an impairment of a person's physical condition, i.e. - breathing, which in the case at bar is directly attributable to the defendant's alleged actions. In the medical field (and as every First Class Boy Scout is trained) it is well settled that among the three most exigent medical "hurry cases" for first aid purposes are 1) heart attack, 2) severe bleeding and 3) impairment of breathing. Such conditions are considered to be potentially life threatening as they relate to fundamental systems necessary to the continuation of bodily function. The even momentary compromise of any such function, is of great concern to the overall integrity of the human body. Such compromise therefore clearly fits within the meaning of the statue."
It is important to note that although this case extends the definition of "impairment of physical condition," it is not a case that is controlling on other courts in Manhattan or other jurisdictions such as Brooklyn or the Bronx. In other words, this decision is not an appellate decision that binds lower courts in any New York City court. Nonetheless, it is an important decision that at a minimum sets forth the idea that one must not suffer a broken nose, bloody lip or black eye to be the victim of Assault in the Third Degree under the law in New York. Clearly, the bar dictating injury may be much lower.
Because courts can view facts and the law differently even within the same building, it is imperative to be represented by experienced criminal defense attorneys who, like the former prosecutors at Crotty Saland, LLP, are able to assess the facts before them, develop a plan of attack and implement a strong and viable criminal defense.
]]>According to the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, a search warrant at the defendant's house revealed a computer printout of Assistant District Attorney's Mariani's biography, as well as another threatening letter directed towards her. The letter stated, in pertinent part, “You will be captured and before you are sent to hell you will taste hell on earth.”
Mr. Chang, who was previously convicted of Grand Larceny in the 1990s, now faces not only the new Grand Larceny and Scheme to Defraud indictment, but he faces additional charges of Coercion in the First Degree, Placing a False Bomb or Hazardous Substance in the Second Degree, Stalking and Aggravated Harassment. Although Stalking and Aggravated Harassment are misdemeanors punishable by up to one year in jail, Coercion is a "D" felony punishable by up to seven years in prison and Placing a False Bomb is an "E" felony punishable by up to four years in prison.
Because of the nature of the threats, it is likely that both the District Attorney's Office and the courts will take a hard line in the event the defendant is convicted of these crimes. Moreover, the newest arrest can potentially run consecutive to the defendant's recent arrest for Grand Larceny.
If it is not overwhelmingly clear, Mr. Chang's alleged actions are clearly the worst way one could challenge the prosecution or fight for one's rights. As a former prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office I can assert without any hesitation that threatening a witness, victim, judge or prosecutor is rightfully viewed by law enforcement as one of the most heinous crimes. Nothing good can come of these type of threats.
If you are being investigated or you have been arrested or indicted, the absolute best way to resolve a case is to retain experienced criminal counsel. A criminal defense attorney who is versed and skilled in criminal law will advocate for your rights and hold the prosecution to their burden without compromising any ethical standard or your integrity. Whether you are victorious in the defense of your freedom and liberty will require you to work alongside your criminal defense attorney and allow him or her to zealously defend you.
]]>As much as I would like to put this incident into my own words, I have attached the press release for my readers' review. The press release indicates as follows:
"In the 1990s, Irene Prusik (the defendant's mother) deeded her home, 492 6th Avenue, Park Slope, to her son, Thomas Parkin. At the time, Prusik, Parkin and Prusik’s other son lived in the building. Parkin was unable to maintain ownership, and in January 2003, the building was sold at foreclosure auction.
However, according to the indictment, after Prusik died, in September 2003, the two defendants began filing lawsuits against the new owner, Samir Chopra, in the now deceased Prusik’s name, alleging real estate fraud. They claimed that the deed Chopra had bought at auction was invalid and had actually been forged by Parkin, in the 1990s. The real owner, they claimed, was Irene Prusik.
The defendants received Prusik’s Social Security benefits every month for six years, totaling approximately $52,000, according to the indictment. They are also charged with receiving $65,000 in rental assistance from the city Human Resource Agency, claiming the deceased Irene Prusik was Parkin’s landlord and that he and his brother were unable to pay the rent because of a disability. Rimolo was listed as the property manager.
To initiate the crime, Parkin and Rimolo doctored Prusik’s death certificate, providing a false Social Security Number and date of birth, which made it appear as though she were still alive, according to the indictment. In order to perpetuate the ruse, the defendants went as far as to dress Parkin up as his deceased mother, and visit the Department of Motor Vehicles to renew her driver’s license, where, incidentally, they were captured on surveillance video.
In June 2008, believing Prusik was alive, Chopra came to the Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office to report that he believed Parkin and Prusik had filed false affidavits, in the course of more than five years of lawsuits against him and various bankruptcy filings, to prevent him from evicting them for failure to pay rent for six years.
Coincidentally, unaware prosecutors had already begun an investigation into his actions, Parkin walked into the Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office in March of this year, to report to the new Real Estate Fraud Unit that he and his mother were victims. He claimed his mother was the rightful owner of the property and that the new owner had been using illegal forms of coercion and filing false documents in court filings against them, according to the indictment. Prosecutors also met with Rimolo, who identified himself as Prusik’s nephew.
To the investigators’ surprise, Rimolo and Parkin agreed to arrange a meeting with Prusik at the home on 6th Avenue. When prosecutors and detective investigators arrived, they found Parkin dressed as his 77-year-old mother, wearing a red cardigan, lipstick, manicured nails and breathing through an Oxygen tank."
If convicted of the top charge of Grand Larceny in the First Degree, the defendants face up to 25 years in state prison.
]]>According to District Attorney Brown:
“The defendants are accused of trying to make a fast buck by stealing tens of thousands of dollars worth of MTA equipment and selling it for a fraction of its value to a scrap dealer. By these arrests we have sent a clear message that in these challenging economic times, the MTA and the riding public can ill afford such waste and thievery and have underscored the fact that those who steal will be held accountable for their actions.”
The most serious offenses that the defendants are charged with, Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree and Grand Larceny in the Third Degree, carry a potential maximum sentence of four years and seven years in state prison.
If you or a family member is accused of any crime, it is imperative to retain an experienced and skilled criminal defense attorney to protect your rights, freedom and integrity. Day or night, the criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland, LLP are ready to work with you and do just that.
]]>According to Attorney General Cuomo:
“New York’s unemployment insurance fund was created to help hard-working individuals who find themselves out of a job get back on their feet. In this economic climate, the fund is more important than ever, and we cannot allow it to be depleted through fraud, waste and abuse. Individuals who attempt to undermine the safety net we provide for New Yorkers will be held accountable.”
To qualify for unemployment insurance benefits in New York State, one must weekly certify by phone or the internet that one has not worked for more than four days a week or, in the alternative, earned more than $405 a week.
It is alleged that Maureen McGovern, 70, of Greenwich Street, New York, NY, Randy Destin, 45, of Pacific Street, Brooklyn, NY Kimberly Abrams, 42, of Watson Avenue, Bronx, NY, Ronald Antoine, 52, of Cruger Avenue, Bronx, NY, William Gee, 45, of 151st Street, Bronx, NY, Ani Leon-Marquez, 42, of 169th Street, Bronx, NY, Gail Miller, 32, of Elsmere Place, Bronx, NY, Phillip Lee, 24, of Channingway Court East, Columbus, OH, Nestloye Elliot, 50, of Bascolm Ave, Jamaica, NY, Martha Ulloa, 34, of 88th Street, Woodhaven, NY, Gaylord Beltran, 27, of Forest Avenue, Staten Island, NY, Aliesohn Reid, 27, of Caton Avenue, Brooklyn, NY, Renee Bridgeman, 36, of Myrtle Avenue, Brooklyn, NY, Kira S. Young, 27, of Albany, NY, Jamie Viola, 31, of Latham, NY, Jean Davis, 53, of Albany, NY, Greg Askilden, 53, of Palenville, NY, Tracy Barber, 26, of Rome, NY, Wayne Earing, 36, of Rensselaer, NY, Deborah Girgenti, 55, of Rensselaer, NY, Charles McMillan, 53, of Hartwick, NY, Cesar Ferarras, Jr., 35, of Poughkeepsie, NY, Joel Babcock, 33, of Stony Point, NY, Dawn Chase, 49, of Peekskill, NY, Steve Lawrence, 46, of Mount Vernon, NY, Carmen Alvarez, 38, of Islandia, NY Aida Licata, 48, of Center Moriches, NY, Donna Ryall, 51, of Deer Park, NY and Jimmy Rodriguez, 48, of Williston Park, NY, all took part in this scheme.
If convicted, Grand Larceny in the Third and Fourth Degrees carry a maximum sentence of seven and four years in state prison respectively. Falsifying Business Records carries a sentence of up to four years in state prison while Petit Larceny carries a maximum sentence of up to one year in county jail.
If you or a loved one is accused of a white collar or violent crime, the criminal defense lawyers and former prosecutors at Crotty Saland, LLP are ready to put forth your best defense to maintain your integrity and freedom.
For further information on white collar crimes and other legal matters, please search and review our criminal law blog.
]]>Pursuant to Penal Law 265.15 there are certain legal presumptions that apply to guns in connection with one's intent to use that firearm unlawfully as well as defacement of the firearm. While this entry will not deal with every presumption, I will address some of the more common ones as follows:
(2) The presence in an automobile, other than a stolen one or a public omnibus, of any firearm is presumptive evidence of its possession by all persons occupying such automobile at the time such weapon, instrument or appliance is found except under the following circumstances: (a) if such weapon, instrument or appliance is found upon the person of one of the occupants therein; (b) if such weapon, instrument or appliance is found in an automobile
which is being operated for hire by a duly licensed driver in the due, lawful and proper pursuit of his or her trade, then such presumption shall not apply to the driver; or (c) if the weapon so found is a pistol or revolver and one of the occupants, not present under duress, has in his or her possession a valid license to have and carry concealed the same.
(3) The possession by any person of a defaced machine-gun, firearm, rifle or shotgun is presumptive evidence that such person defaced the same.
It is important to note that the above-presumptions are just that...presumptions. A Grand Jury or jury at trial is not required to agree with the presumption, but they are legally permitted to do so. Whether these presumptions will have an impact on your particular case must be addressed on an individual basis. At a minimum, however, they certainly have the potential to be devastating. Therefore, it is imperative that you seek experienced criminal counsel to represent you to ascertain and implement the strongest criminal defense to protect your rights, freedom and integrity.
The former prosecutors at Crotty Saland, LLP know that Criminal Possession of a Weapon as it relates to guns and other firearms is a very serious offense. Fortunately, our clients have benefited from our experience in law enforcement and as criminal defense attorneys. If you are charged with an offense related to possession of a weapon it is critical to retain criminal counsel that will not only fight to protect your rights and freedom, but your integrity and livelihood.
For further reading:
Gun Possession and Weapon Possession Legal Blog
]]>