Noted New York Defense Attorney Warns Assault Victims like Subway Motorman Maurice Parks to Keep their Mouths Shut

NEW YORK, NY, (October 13, 2008) -- If a mugger assaults you on a city street, or a robber breaks into your home, or car, while you’re in it and you defend yourself and your family with deadly force, you could end up in more trouble with the law than your attackers, warns Steve Brill, a noted criminal defense lawyer in New York City. Brill was commenting on a highly-publicized situation recently involving Maurice Parks, a New York City subway motorman who was mugged in January on his way home from work and is now facing a grand jury indictment for second-degree murder that could land him in prison for the rest of his life.

Brill, a partner in the law firm of Sullivan & Brill in New York City, explained that in the case against Mr. Parks it is all about timing.

“In situations like these,” Brill said, “the law states that deadly physical force used against a victim must be imminent in order for that victim to be justified in using physical force in return.”

Prosecutors claim that Mr. Parks chased and stabbed to death an innocent bystander after Parks’ attackers had fled the crime scene and seconds after he had made a call to 911. Although police had originally ruled out filing homicide charges against Parks in the January episode, ruling the killing as an act of self-defense, prosecutors later presented their case to a grand jury claiming that Mr. Parks misled the police by saying he acted in self-defense.

The district attorney’s office,” Brill explained, “may conduct its own investigation about an event at any point in time and come to a different conclusion from a police officer as to whether a crime has been committed.

“When the case turned against Parks,” Brill added, “he was placed at an extreme disadvantage given the amount of admissions he made. These admissions are now fair game for the district attorney to use against him.

Brill, who has handled numerous cases where clients have been justified using some level of force in order to protect themselves, warns victims of an assault to keep their mouths shut when speaking to the authorities until they speak to an attorney.

“In cases like these it is difficult to remain silent,” Brill said. “The defendant always has the tendency to explain why they reacted the way that they did. Invariably, however, a defendant will say something, or be misunderstood to say something that could easily compromise a claim of self-defense.

“Defense of self-defense is so extremely fact sensitive, “ he added. “Any statement by the defendant carries enormous weight and attention. It is always better for the victim to speak with an attorney first.”

Brill conjectured that if he were defending Mr. Parks in this case he would need to establish that in Mr. Parks mind he believed that in order to save his life he had to use deadly force despite the fact that his actions against the alleged bystander occurred after the initial attack.

“The first question I would ask my client,” he added, “is to describe for me, in detail, the way in which he felt his life was in jeopardy when he was robbed.”

Brill explained that laws regarding self-defense in New York State, and in all other jurisdictions throughout the US, prohibit the use of deadly force for revenge or retribution. Deadly force can only be used for self-protection.

“The saying, “An Eye for an Eye and a Tooth for a Tooth,” Brill added, “is a saying based on the idea of retribution and revenge, which is exactly what the law of justification attempts to prohibit.”