I share this preamble because while I am ecstatic that this week marked the end of three cases for a client spanning three separate arrests involving a felony and numerous misdemeanors over the past five months, it was justice delayed, aka, an injustice for far too long. It gives me no pleasure saying so, but it must be said: the assigned prosecutor perpetrated an injustice against a woman victimized not only by her domestic abuser but the prosecutor himself/herself due to said prosecutor’s complicity, lack of diligence, and complete failure to do his/her job. Again, it brings me no pleasure to make such a statement, and it is not one against prosecutors in general. No, the prosecutor did not put his/her hands on my client or demonstrably lie as the “complainant” did time and time again, but the prosecutor was derelict in his/her duty despite my impassioned, fact-based efforts. I was not silent in court or in my words to the prosecutor, and I would remiss if I allowed this to simply be swept under the rug because there is a lesson to be learned for us all.

In lieu of going through the allegations, it is important to recognize that the “complainant” was first a defendant in a domestic violence case brought by my client in one District Attorney’s Office. The NYPD arrested this man before said prosecutor relentlessly pursued charges against her in another jurisdiction based on what was his retaliatory lie. Further, even before the “complainant” went to the police to pursue charges against my client, he was also a defendant in a case involving the mother of his children in the same jurisdiction where my client was a complainant. Prosecutors there charged him with crimes relating to Assault and Strangulation. Sure, it was fair to arrest my client based on New York’s domestic violence laws and the initial existence of probable cause, but once that arrest was made the prosecutor had to do his/her job and investigate. Sadly, he/she shamefully and woefully failed to do so.

As the case(s) unfolded, the complainant repeatedly contacted and called my client who admittedly replied to the “complainant”, as victims of domestic violence often do to their abusers. Disappointingly, to state it kindly, despite having call records corroborating the “complainant” had been calling my client and she had been responding, thereby violating the multiple Orders of Protection she had against him elsewhere when he initiated the calls, the prosecutor rationalized her arrest for her responses. To be clear, my client made no threats during these responsive calls and phone, WhatsApp and Instagram records would reflect that the “complainant” initiated communications and reached out dozens of times.  Instead of doing his/her “homework”, like speaking to the other prosecutor, reviewing records, or crediting the evidence of abuse I provided, he/she somewhat indifferently “offered” a plea to a misdemeanor with a final Order of Protection in favor of the “complainant”, aka, the abuser who beat my client and demonstrably continued to contact her.

Time and time again I presented evidence to the prosecutor that the “victim” was misrepresenting, the “victim” was continuing to abuse and manipulate my client as he contacted her while also committing the crime of Contempt, photographs corroborated serious physical abuse, and that the prosecutor needed to both speak to the prosecutor in the other jurisdiction where my client was the complainant and subpoena certain records. Despite my pleas, he/she never subpoenaed the records and had no conversations with the other prosecutor other than when the respective cases began months earlier after I put them in touch and on emails together multiple times. Even worse, I reached out to a supervisor multiple times for a meeting to discuss the case to no avail.

It was as if nobody was home.

Despite the fact that the “complainant” was rearrested and charged with Criminal Contempt multiple times for violating my client’s Order of Protection, the “complainant” warranted from court in the other jurisdiction because he failed to adhere to his condition of his release requiring domestic violence counseling, and the NYPD issuing two separate I-Cards for his arrest (which would be three total arrests during the pendency of the case against my client in addition to the two cases already against him in the other jurisdiction involving my client and another against his wife), the prosecutor kept the company line: he/she could not and would not dismiss the case and any disposition required an Order of Protection in the “complainant’s” favor. Yes, an Order of Protection for the man who was charged with beating his wife, beating my client, and what was at least a dozen (if not dozens of) counts of Criminal Contempt.

After unanswered emails, robotic responses about how this particular office handles cases including the need for an Order of Protection for all complainants (without ascertaining the true need for one or the continued prosecution of the case itself), an unwillingness to speak to the prosecutor in the other jurisdiction, running afoul of the “complainant’s” indelible right to counsel by discussing the violations of the Order of Protection in the other jurisdiction (and potentially making himself/herself a witness), failing to issue subpoenas, ignoring direct evidence that the “complainant” was contacting my client, demonstrable evidence that the “complaint” had beat my client on multiple occasions, and an unwillingness to dismiss the case on the merits or interest of justice, we scheduled a felony hearing for the felony matter and trial for the misdemeanor offenses. I told the prosecutor that as much as I wanted to cross-examine the “victim” there is no way he would have the courage to show up just like he/she lacked that same courage to dismiss the case.

Ultimately, on the day of the felony hearing and trial, the “complainant” failed to appear. Shocked was no one, and only then did the prosecutor dismiss the cases against my client.

I share the above not because I want to stand on a soapbox and rail against prosecutors. In fact, those who know me know that is not who I am, and such an attack would be undeserving. Instead, we must all recognize that it is sometimes easy to forget that people caught up in the system are not nameless and faceless, but they are no different than anyone one of us. If you fail to do your job and allow injustice to occur as you cavalierly disregard the trauma you are causing them, then you are part of the problem and do not get a pass.

We can disagree on outcomes and decisions, but it is important that no matter your role in the criminal justice system – judge, prosecutor, defense attorney, and even juror – you do what is required of you and you do so with sincerity and urgency to ensure the rule of law is upheld and justice is served. While I could not be happier for this client and that I could provide her some closure, her battles are not over. It will take time for her to heal and move forward as she still contends with her victimization at the hands and actions of her abuser, manages her cases as a complainant, regains her trust in law enforcement, and can feel safe once again.

Founded by Jeremy Saland, a former Manhattan prosecutor, Saland Law is a New York criminal defense firm representing defendants and complainants in criminal cases throughout all stages of the criminal justice process.

Prosecutors Failed Discovery Obligations: Certificate of Compliance Invalid

Whether online or off – an ongoing in-person affair, a one-nighter or long-term relationship, a meet-up from Grindr, Seeking Arrangement, Eros, or one of countless other websites, or even a person posing as a teen who targets other teens on Snapchat and Instagram, seizing the upper hand routinely starts with seizing control of the power dynamic and gathering as much information as possible. With this in mind, I share two recent matters below that are indicative of our many success stomping out violators’ conduct and returning clients to the normalcy of life they need and deserve.

Online & Foreign Blackmailer

Arm’s length social engagement is the new norm, and with it so is Extortion by unknown assailants. Bad actors engaged our client on the web and purportedly hacked his computer and online social media and personal email accounts. While it was debatable whether they in fact did so, before retaining Saland Law, our client believed that was the case. At the same time, because our client failed to protect his social media, the Extorters were able to infiltrate his network. Demanding money and payments due to our client’s embarrassing online activity even if legal, though asserting it was not, the criminals demanded payment through numerous apps and other means. Otherwise, they threatened to expose our client and even make false claims to the FBI and NYPD. In fact, before we got involved our client had made significant payments that never satiated his abusers, and after we put an end to these payments they told our client a criminal report was made with the FBI because he stopped paying. Though it did not come to fruition as we “took over” our client’s communications and called their bluff, the harassers did report a false in-the-moment suicide to the NYPD in an effort to “swat” our client. Fortunately, however, upon speaking with a lieutenant, nothing came of that line of attack.

Ultimately, though Blackmailers became more belligerent, Saland Law, along with Sage Intelligence Group’s Herman Weisberg, took the steps to shut down the fraudsters, stopped our client from paying even one more penny, and ended the overseas abuse. Stated simply, our client was beyond relieved and grateful, and his Extorters went on their way.

Long-Term Affair Sextorter

In a far more common scenario, Saland Law, once again with Sage Intelligence Group, represented a client who terminated a long-term affair with a woman of far less financial means and one that was treated as if she was more a “sugar baby” than a regular intimate partner. Though this is “normal” work for both Herman and I in the world of Blackmail, we nonetheless recognize that this is the most frightening and potentially debilitating experience for any Sextortion victim. Again, seizing control of the power dynamic, we became the client’s voice in terms of how and when to respond to his abuser. Ultimately, relying on skills we honed in law enforcement, we prepared for and arranged for controlled calls to lock down our target into her criminality before confronting her with what was in store for her from a legal perspective should she continue on her illegal trajectory. Though quite displeased, she was no fool and recognized her immediate criminal exposure and what it meant to her life and future long-term.

Protecting Victims of Sextortion, Blackmail & Extortion

Whether you are a teen duped into sharing an intimate image with another person online, or even a young adult or a person who is far too old to make such foolish mistakes, engaged in a long-term extramarital relationship with a scorned or jealous lover, or find yourself targeted by a sugar baby, prostitute, or escort you met online or elsewhere, when the consequences are grave in terms of dollars, career, and family, seizing control and implementing the right strategy can make the difference between a divorce, humiliation, and the end of a career, and walking away a bit ashamed and even wounded, but healthy and intact.

As a former prosecutor who earned his stripes leading the case against a crew Extorting a then-NBA Allstar and an attorney who has shut down countless Sextortion attempts at home and abroad -even putting “boots on the ground” overseas to knock on a Blackmailer’s door (much to her shock!), Saland Law has the experience and knowledge to limit your exposure and end the terrifyingly violative conduct these victimizers cavalierly wage.

Don’t be a victim. Don’t jeopardize your family. Don’t destroy your career. Be smart and get the help you need before it is too late.

To learn more about our services, including Sextortion, Blackmail and other victim representation in New York and elsewhere, follow the links above and contact former Manhattan prosecutor and Extortion lawyer, Jeremy Saland.

As a New York firearm criminal lawyer who regularly represents clients in gun related arrests, indictments and trials, I know from experience that it is not atypical for individuals visiting New York to either inadvertently take their firearms with them or knowingly bring them to New York because they are unaware of our permitting and licensing laws. In fact, Saland Law frequently represents individuals arrested by the Port Authority at either JFK Airport or LaGuardia Airport after they attempt to lawfully declare and check their broken-down revolver or pistol before checking into their flight. In each and every one of these airport gun cases, either our client travelled with their weapon to other cities and states without issue before or believed they were compliant with the law in New York when they attempted to check their firearm at the airport.

The above said, whether you are unfamiliar with the law at the airport in Queens, thought you could bring your pistol with you on a trip to Manhattan, or you knew you could not legally possess the revolver tucked into your waistband as you walked down a Brooklyn street, the consequence is the same. That is, if convicted of Second Degree Criminal Possession of a Weapon our client faced a mandatory term of 3.5 years in prison and a ceiling of 15 years “upstate”. Without the ability to challenge the stop and search, but having a reasonable argument, albeit a difficult one, that our client did not knowingly possess the weapon in the large bag she grabbed before making the trek to NYC, we believed the best defense was to mitigate our client’s alleged criminal conduct. As such, to avoid any criminal conviction or even a day in prison, we provided evidence to prosecutors and engaged in a proffer with the District Attorney’s Office to demonstrate that our client did not bring the pistol to New York intentionally or to perpetrate a violent act, and that our client was a woman worthy of a drastic downward departure not just from a felony but even from a misdemeanor as well. Thanks to the consideration of prosecutors – from the line assistant to the “Eighth Floor”, aka, the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office executives and bosses, the People ultimately offered our client a non-criminal Disorderly Conduct, Penal Law 240.20. As a result, our client will not have a criminal record, can continue her life and pursuing her livelihood, and support her growing family without the direct or collateral consequences of a criminal conviction.

The Crime: Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree

A class “C” violent felony, Penal Law 265.03 makes it a crime to unlawfully possess a loaded firearm outside your home or place of business regardless of whether the firearm would otherwise be lawfully possessed in another jurisdiction. Further, “loaded” under the Penal Law does not require the ammunition to be physically in the chamber or in a clip within the gun, for example. A weapon is legally loaded even if the bullets are within a case where the firearm is stored. If there is no ammunition and the gun is not loaded, the police can still charge Criminal Possession of a Firearm, Penal Law 265.01-b(1), a class “E” non-violent felony.

The Penalty & Potential Sentence: Mandatory Incarceration

All class “C” violent felonies require incarceration even where an accused has no prior criminal history. Though a predicate felon elevates the mandatory minimum, a first-time offender faces 3.5 to 15 years in prison. Where a gun is not loaded and the charged crime is Criminal Possession of a Firearm as referenced above, the penalty does not necessitate incarceration, but that same first-time offender could still face up to 1 1/3 to 4 years in a New York State prison.

To learn more about New York weapon crimes codified in Penal Law Article 265, from misdemeanor possession of switchblades, brass knucks, batons, and other per se weapons to the vastly more serious felonies involving firearms and other guns, review the highlighted links found here or at SalandLaw.Com.

Jeremy Saland is a criminal defense attorney and former Manhattan prosecutor representing clients in gun and weapon related arrests, indictments and trials throughout New York City and elsewhere in the state. Last year, Jeremy secured a mistrial after multiple days of jury deliberation for a client charged with Second Degree Criminal Possession of a Weapon where the client’s DNA was allegedly found on the trigger and elsewhere.

Sexual Intercourse: Replaced by Vaginal Sexual Contact

A fairly simple place to start, this term was repealed from the criminal code and substituted with “vaginal sexual contact”.

Vaginal Sexual Contact: The Touching of Intimate/Sexual Parts

Equally straight forward and simple, this type of conduct involves the touching, even slightly, of a penis with either the vulva or the vagina.

Anal and Oral Conduct: Conduct Replaced by Contact

Similar to the definition above, this touching is between either the penis and the anus or the mouth and the penis, anus, vulva or vagina respectively.

Broadening Rape: Criminal Sexual Act Repealed & Incorporated Into Rape

Prior to September 1, 2024, the New York Penal Law considered Rape a distinct crime from committing a Criminal Sexual Act. While the former was viewed as the vaginal penetration between the penis and vagina, regardless of the degree or depth of that penetration, the latter involved contact between the penis and the anus or mouth. As such, if a man forced oral sex upon a woman or did not have her consent to place his mouth on her anus or vagina, the offense would not be considered Rape. With Criminal Sexual Act no longer a crime and the conduct placed under the umbrella of the Rape statute, non-consensual anal sex, oral sex, or unwanted touching in that capacity is now a violation of the redrafted Rape statutes found in Penal Law 130.25, 130.30, and 130.35.

Third, Second & First Degree Rape: The Same But Different

While the varying degrees of Rape kept the same strength in terms of their potential punishment and the statutory language didn’t alter what was formerly a Rape crime to something that now is different, what it did was greatly expand and break out additional misconduct and actions that violate the law. Though a separate blog entry will address these new and expanded subsections, setting aside how a person committed the offense in terms of force, compulsion, violence, or the capacity of the other person to consent due to age or some other infirmity, the law also sets the sexual or intimate area as a relevant factor too.

Third, Second & First Degree Rape: A Brief Look

As a preliminary matter, statutorily the laws governing Rape in New York are Broken Down as follows:

Third Degree Rape: Now with nine distinct subsections, Penal Law 130.25(1) through (9) remains a class “E” non-violent felony with a potential sentence of up to one and one third to four years jail.

Second Degree Rape: Now with six separate subsections, Penal Law 130.30(1) through (6) is still a class “D” violent felony with a presumed mandatory minimum of two years and maximum of seven years incarceration.

First Degree Rape: Now with twelve separate subsections, Penal Law 130.35(1) through (3), further broken down from (a) to (d), is still a class “B” violent felony requiring a mandatory sentence of five years and as long as twenty-five years in prison.

A conviction for these crimes will expose you to New York’s Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA).

Again, the biggest change to these crimes is absorbing the anal and oral contact language and breaking out the separate offenses based on the intimate area or type of touching. What still remains are the elements specific to these degrees involving forcible compulsion, physical helplessness, a child victim’s age, mental disability, and some other factors.

To learn more about New York’s Rape laws and those involving other sex crimes such as Sexual Abuse, Sexual Misconduct, and Forcible Touching, follow the highlighted links above or go to Saland Law’s New York Sex Crimes information page.

Founded by former Manhattan prosecutor Jeremy Saland, Saland Law represents those investigated and arrested for sex offenses in the New York City area. Saland Law has secured acquittals at trial, non-prosecutions, and non-criminal convictions for those accused of violating the Penal Law including Article 130 sex crimes.

No reasonable nor rational person could argue that Domestic Violence is not a very real issue and concern, especially for actual abuse victims. However, whether one wants to hear it or not, there are ample times when an accused has committed no crime nor violated the Family Court Act in any way, shape or form but criminal complaints are made, and Family Court Article 8 petitions are filed. Unfortunately, people accused of Domestic Violence offenses are routinely presumed guilty as opposed to innocent even when the evidence against them is weak, not credible, and at times non-existent. Remember, as a practical matter, the NYPD and other police officers will arrest first and [not even] ask questions later due to policy and law.

While there are legitimate reasons to arrest and issue Orders of Protection before deciphering what transpired, many people might be surprised how often the system is weaponized. Due to mandatory arrest policies and laws, along with ex-parte applications for Orders of Protection in Family Court where petitioners are able to make uncontested allegations and a court follows a standard of a preponderance of the evidence, many defendants/respondents find themselves locked out of their homes, separated from their children or family, jobs in jeopardy, and shouldering a presumption of anything but innocence. Again, political correctness and recognizing the need to protect victims aside, until you or a loved one find yourself on the receiving end of a false claim, you likely cannot appreciate the gravity of such an accusation.

Now that I have pontificated plenty and climbed down from my soap box, albeit not a big one, the above scenario is what recently happened to a client accused by his ex-girlfriend of harassing her. While the facts and details are too much and fairly uneventful to share here, suffice to say that after much back and forth with the detective regarding the evidence, allegation and charges, the detective agreed not to drop an “I-Card” on our client nor arrest him. Taking the matter a step further, in response to the same complainant’s dishonest petition, we filed a strong motion to dismiss and alluded to the actual facts and evidence that would be forthcoming by way of our client’s own petition. My client’s petition would not merely call into question the petitioner’s assertions but make her subject to our client’s Order of Protection as well.

Ultimately, at our first appearance in Family Court, the petitioner withdrew her complaint against our client and with it all allegations of any wrongdoing against him. A victory for our client? Absolutely. Did it come with emotional costs and disrupt his life unjustly with anxiety and terrible stress? Sadly, and unnecessarily, yes, even if the whole charade would have been unnecessary if law and policy provide real opportunities for an accused to exonerate, protect, and vindicate him or herself far earlier in respective legal process.

To learn more about New York Domestic Violence crimes, laws, policies and defenses, as well as Family Court Article 8 petitions for Orders of Protection, follow the associated links.

Saland Law is a criminal defense and Family Court law firm representing clients in Domestic Violence arrests, investigations, indictments and trials and Article 8 proceedings as both petitioners and respondents throughout the New York City area.

With this in mind, Saland Law is pleased to share that a recent client accused of First Degree Assault after allegedly stabbing her then-boyfriend in the upper shoulder/chest area, was completely exonerated after finding herself in the crosshairs of a such a prosecution. Facing a five-year minimum prison term if convicted, Saland Law’s client was nonetheless rightfully unwilling to accept a plea offer to any crime. Through months of uncertainty as the case slowly moved through the court process, our client, the real victim, stood firm until prosecutors exonerated her by dismissing all the charges upon Saland Law’s application even before the case reached the speedy trial threshold.

The police arrested our client after her now ex-boyfriend claimed that during a dispute, she grabbed a knife from the kitchen and plunged it into his shoulder area. Prosecutors believed that she did this possibly out of frustration or anger towards the complainant during the heat of their argument. Despite the allegations, we contended, and vehemently so, that our client was in fact the victim of an aggressive and violent boyfriend who had been violent in the moment just as he had been physically abusive in the past. Though our client never sought to hurt nor assault her ex-boyfriend, she stabbed him in self-defense as he cornered her and grew increasingly menacing toward his much smaller girlfriend. Simply stated, either she was going to wait to be potentially overpowered and assaulted in some manner, or our client had no choice but to grab the knife next to her on the kitchen counter when she could no longer retreat.

Without going into the details of the case nor defense, the prosecution’s theory of First Degree Assault was that our client stabbed her then-boyfriend and did so intentionally along with the intent to cause a serious physical injury due to the depth and location of the puncture. Our defense was twofold: self-defense, aka, justification, should lead the District Attorney to a dismissal and, to a lesser extent, the nature of the injury was not as severe as prosecutors portrayed. Therefore, they could not satisfy the legal definition and element of “serious physical injury” to prove their charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

Addressing the secondary defense first for the purpose of this blog entry, prosecutors alleged that the injury inflicted by our client rose to a “serious physical injury” as defined by law. This is an injury that could cause death or caused some protected impairment of health. As such, our client violated Penal Law 120.10(1), First Degree Assault. While we certainly felt from a legal point of view that the nature of the injury was a less significant “physical injury” that only called “substantial pain” (a legal term) and warranted a lesser criminal charge, even if we were successful, we recognized that our client could still face Attempted Assault in the First Degree, Penal Law 110/120.10(1) or Second Degree Assault, Penal Law 120.05. Because convincing the District Attorney of this lower-level injury would be a hollow victory leaving our client exposed to these other offenses, we used this line of attack to demonstrate that prosecutors’ case was weak in totality and had holes on multiple fronts even if this particular defense was not a home run in and of itself.

The better and more complete strategy, and the one we advocated for more aggressively, was that of justification as a matter of law. In doing so, the first step in implementing this defense was to slow the process down to prevent prosecutors from rushing to the Grand Jury. At the same time, we served notice of our client’s intent to testify before that body if prosecutors proceeded. All of this provided Saland Law time to obtain corroboration of the complainant’s past abuse of our client and to help establish the self-defense and justification framework. Without any witnesses on either side, we leaned heavily on a prior injury sustained by our client where medical notes reflected slightly on what occurred at the time of this earlier incident. With this in hand, we argued that our client’s ex’s past abuse and his current conduct was consistent with our justification defense. After all, our client, a far smaller woman, could have very well found herself in the frightening position where she had to make a split decision to protect herself. This reasonable doubt, along with a practical and layperson examination of the evidence, should title the scales in favor of our client and away from her abuser’s narrative.

Ultimately, when it came to proceed with the charges and for prosecutors to either present the case to a Grand Jury or conduct a Felony Hearing, we steadfastly maintained our client would testify and refused any offer. Despite the “speedy trial clock” not yet ticking to its lawful end, prosecutors agreed to dismiss.

A harrowing experience and one where our client faced mandatory incarceration, a reasonable and strong legal and factual self-defense claim, a questionable complainant, our client’s willingness to testify in the Grand Jury and later at trial if needed, and Saland Law’s advocacy, all pushed this case to a just end and another to add to the list of Saland Law’s successful case results.

Founded by former Manhattan prosecutor Jeremy Saland, Saland Law represents clients accused of Domestic Violence and other offenses in the boroughs of New York, Westchester County, and other New York City suburban counties and municipalities.

With the above in mind, Saland Law is please to share that over this past summer, north of ten different clients charged with Second Degree Criminal Possession of a Weapon (Penal Law 265.03), Criminal Possession of a Firearm (Penal Law 265.01-b(1)), Fourth Degree Criminal Possession of a Weapon (Penal Law 265.01), and Unlawful/Criminal Possession of Ammunition (NYC Administrative Code 10-131) all had their cases dismissed or walked away with non-criminal violations. What started as a missed flight and trip to Queens County Central Booking, being printed and released with a Desk Appearance Ticket (DAT), or finding themselves with a pink criminal summons in hand, not a one of these men and women ended up with a criminal record. Instead, each of them moved forward in their respective lives and careers without a blemish.

As unique as any criminal case may be, there are some common themes why and how these defendants found themselves before a judge of the Queens County Criminal Court: they didn’t know it, whatever “it” may be, was illegal to possess, they were unaware the item in their possession was considered a weapon in the eyes of New York State, they thought they were following the law when they declared their firearm, and/or they didn’t know the weapon was in their bag.

Because ignorance of the law is not a technical defense, though often relevant to it, the below demonstrates how these latter two themes can still form a viable and successful defense when implemented and presented in a compelling manner.

Common Theme Number One: I Thought I was Following the Law

More often applicable to individuals with firearm licenses and conceal carry permits in their home state who travel through JFK and LaGuardia Airport, a routine scenario occurs when a resident of Arizona, California, Texas, Florida or Washington, for example, declares his or her pistol or revolver at the airport before boarding the plane. After all, that is exactly what they did when they left their departure airport. Though locked in a hard sided case, and despite having no issue transporting the firearm into New York, the Port Authority Police arrest the defendant solely for possessing the gun. Why? Simply, New York does not recognize your concealed carry permit or other lawful ownership here and requires that you have a specific permit to possess the weapon in this state. Making matters worse, even if the firearm is not capable of being discharged because it is boxed up or taken apart, if there is ammunition accompanying the gun in the hard side case, the law considers the gun loaded and elevates the offense from the class “E” felony of Criminal Possession of a Firearm to the class “C” felony of Second Degree Criminal Possession of a Weapon.

Having represented multiple, multiple dozens of people facing these crimes and obtaining dismissals or non-criminal violations for them in the past few months and years, Saland Law recognizes that as bleak and frightening it may initially be, the right guidance and steps can make a difference in the trajectory and outcome of even the most serious airport gun arrest. Case in point, last month, Saland Law secured a dismissal for a client charged with Penal Law 265.03 and Penal Law 265.01-1(b)(1) in this precise scenario. Facing a mandatory three and one half to fifteen years in prison, we successfully argued that our client’s legal ownership in his home state, efforts to comply with the law at JFK, corroboration of his upstanding character, and numerous other mitigating factors made him worthy of not a permanent, even if lesser, misdemeanor conviction nor even a non-criminal violation but a pathway to a completely clean record and a dismissal.

Common Theme Number Two: I Didn’t Know It Was in My Bag

Yes, people do sometimes forget they left their legally owned firearm in the bag they screened through TSA before getting on their flight. We know this because Saland Law has obtained non-criminal dispositions in these felony firearm arrests as well. However, more often the crimes charged in the “I didn’t realize it was there” scenario for carry-on bags, as opposed to checked luggage, are the misdemeanor offenses of Fourth Degree Criminal Possession of a Weapon, Penal Law 265.01, or Criminal/Unlawful Possession of Ammunition, Administrative Code (AC) 10-131. That is because the weapon in question is not usually a gun, but something deemed “per se” or automatically a dangerous instrument, weapon, or otherwise illegal because New York deems so. As such, an accused had no reason to believe he or she couldn’t have it in the first place even if they also forgot or did not know it was in the carry-on bag at all. While the reason the person had the baton, switchblade, brass knuckles, bullets or other contraband often includes for self-defense, as a gimmick, joke or gift, or, in the case of bullets or a magazine, because ammunition was stored in the bag or transported in the pack to and from a firing range, for example, the charges are nonetheless criminal and amount to either a class “A” misdemeanor or equivalent with a potential sentence upon conviction of up to one year.

With the above in mind, over this past summer alone, Saland Law secured outright dismissals, six-month adjournments for dismissal (ACDs), and non-criminal violations across the board for approximately ten plus clients, most of whom we appeared on their behalf and in their absence as they remained in their home state or outside the United States. While disputing the search of their respective bags was a non-starter, like with more serious offenses involving revolvers and pistols, the right mitigation was the path to avoid any blemish on their clean records.

Your Case, Your Rights, Your Future

No attorney should be calling him or herself an expert in airport criminal defense, gun defense, or weapon defense, but experience and knowledge speaks for itself. No, a dismissal in one case does not guarantee the same result in another, but knowing the process, finding the right mitigating factors, and challenging the law where appropriate, even if it is far more difficult at airports than in car stops and other searches, can and does make the difference between a permanent criminal record, a violation, and even a dismissal.

Educate yourself on the types and degrees of New York weapon crimes found in Article 265 and the NYC Administrative Code, retain the right counsel you believe is best suited to assist you, and take the steps to put your airport nightmare behind you to best ensure your future and life remains as untarnished as it did before you stepped foot in JFK or LaGuardia.

Founded by Jeremy Saland, a former Manhattan prosecutor serving under Robert Morgenthau from 2000 to 2007, Saland Law is a criminal defense firm representing clients in all criminal matters at JFK and LaGuardia airports as well as all weapon crimes throughout New York City’s boroughs and suburban counties.

Though Title IX rules prevent me from sharing the facts and allegations, generally speaking, a party in a college investigation maintains the ability to pursue his or her case in a Criminal Court, Family Court, or both, assuming the allegations and evidence warrants the same. Again, without discussing the particular school case, Title IX does not somehow trump or override a party’s rights in a separate court. Instead, among other relevant statutes, the state’s criminal procedure law and Family Court Act control respectively. As such, if for, example, a party files a Family Court petition for an Order of in New York, and does so pro se, without an attorney, the law allows the attorney for the respondent, aka, a defendant, to communicate with the other party in their capacity as their own attorney. Though there are certain ethical and professional rules that always apply, assuming the attorney for the receiving party, again, called a respondent in a Family Court Article 8 Order of Protection proceeding, conducts himself or herself within the parameters of the law, he or she can communicate with the pro se petitioner as he would an attorney. Therefore, if an attorney sought service of the petition containing the allegations from the pro se litigant, discussed the Family Offense case, served motions, or even attempted to work through to a disposition should either party want to do so, a college or university could not preclude or prevent an attorney from doing so because the subject matter is similar, and a collegiate no-contact order is in place. In other words, Title IX does not bestow some magical rights upon administrators at a college to strip away either litigants’ rights and, in the realm of an accused respondent, defend him or herself in court.

With the above in mind, it would be wrong for a college to find that defendant or accused violated his or her prohibition against third party contact with his or her accuser in a Title IX proceeding because his or her advisor reached out to his or her accuser in his or her capacity as a pro se litigant in the distinct and separate Family Court case (dang, that is a lot of “his or her[s]”!). Simply, a college or university has no authority over a judge, no right to dictate strategy, and no ability to control the conversation between a Title IX advisor-Family Court attorney for one party and a Title IX accuser-Family Court pro se litigant petitioner in a case under the umbrella of the New York State Courts. Assuming conduct of the advisor-attorney adhere to all ethical, professional, and legal regulations, very simply, and to put it nicely, a college or university has zero business sticking their proverbial nose in and attempting to control a court proceeding.

Ultimately, without addressing the facts, allegations, nor evidence of our client’s situation, nor his or her appeal, the rule of law won the day. Though our client unfortunately and unnecessarily needed to challenge a finding that should never have – unjustly – found a home upon his or her shoulders, our client’s well-deserved exoneration upon appeal reaffirmed, at least for now, his or her faith that schools, where a full understanding of the meaning and import of words such as “due process”, “justice” and the “rule of law” is sometime lost, can be held to and live up to those standards.

Founded by former Manhattan prosecutor Jeremy Saland, Saland Law is a law firm representing students as complainants and defendants in Title IX and Student Misconduct proceedings, as victims and defendants in criminal investigations and arrests, and as petitioners and respondents in New York Family Court Article 8 Order of Protection proceedings.

To learn more about the Title IX process and investigations involving Student Codes of Conduct, follow the highlighted links.

Despite prosecutors offering the defendant an opportunity at a misdemeanor with a conditional discharge, aka, no jail nor probation, he faced a 3.5 year minimum prison sentence and as much as 15 years incarceration, our client refused the offer. Compounding matters in terms of reaching a disposition, our client, as shared in open court, would not communicate with me, his criminal defense attorney. Instead, the defendant left during jury selection only to come back another day to interrupt me as I was about to open. Taken off guard, our client stated in front of the jury that he would give his own opening. Though he did not do so, our client decided to leave his trial all together, along with his witness who was the owner of the vehicle and purchased the gun, leaving the cards stacked against us both to pile up.  Left with no defense witnesses, even if it might have been possible to establish temporary lawful possession if the defendant and firearm owner/vehicle owner testified, all I was left with was my cross-examination of the People’s witnesses and summation to convince the jury that the prosecution did not and could not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

I will not delve into the evidence presented at the trial other than to say as follows: credibility means a lot to a jury. To that end, when an officer, who was not up front about his own conviction for Criminally Negligent Third Degree Assault where he broke a Little League official’s nose and left over 80 staples in his head, minimizes numerous findings against him both internally by the NYPD and Civilian Complaint Review Board, he handcuffs prosecutors. Making matters worse, his claims that just after he conveniently turned off his body camera his elbow struck the center console inside the defendant’s vehicle before he parked it at the precinct, popping it open to reveal a gun, likely left many scratching their heads and questioning his veracity.

When you combine officers’ credibility, or lack of the same, by questioning the accuracy of their testimony, the odor of mendacity (thank you, Judge McAffee) surrounding their purported actions during their investigation, their recorded violations of an accused rights on their body cameras despite his repeated requests for counsel (this, along with the search, somehow survived suppression by a prior court’s acrobatic analysis), and their basic truthfulness based on their collective disciplinary history for unlawful car searches and coerced “voluntary consent” to search an apartment, juries begin to question the case as a whole. Whether that means nullification or giving an extra-hard look at proof beyond a reasonable doubt, all that is needed is one juror to disagree with the others to upend the People’s case. For proof of this fact, we need not look past this case as a shining example. After two Allen charges by the Court to send the split jury back to deliberate, the 12 fact-finders did not get an opportunity to come to a verdict. Though I do not believe they could do so, the judge granted Saland Law’s request for a mistrial.

Ultimately, what each juror believed and how many were for conviction versus acquittal I do not know, but there are a few things that are certain. As was demonstrated in this case, there is no substitute for preparedness, and both the defense and the prosecution were well prepared. Second, being adversaries in a courtroom does not mean lawyers have to be adversarial. Both sides can advocate without unnecessary friction. Lastly, if you concentrate on the evidence and witnesses, and stick to the four corners of the indictment and courtroom, hard work and diligence can pay dividends. What ultimately happens with this case going forward, I cannot say, but the foundation has been laid for a defense if and when the prosecution tries the case again.

Saland Law is a criminal defense firm founded by Jeremy Saland, a former Manhattan prosecutor. To learn more about Criminal Possession of a Weapon crimes in New York, including firearms, knives, brass knuckles, batons, and other per se weapons, follow the highlighted links.