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.”

Top New York Criminal Defense Attorney Advocates Treatment Over Incarceration for Small-time Drug Felons

NEW YORK, NY (October 13, 2008) -- Ashley O’Donoghue was the victim of an unfair system that denies judges the right to judicial discretion and treats most people who are arrested for a drug offense as if they were stereotypical drug kingpins like Scarface and Pablo Escobar, according to Steven Brill, a leading New York criminal defense attorney who advocates for reform that focuses more on drug treatment as an alternative to jail sentences.

Mr. O’Donoghue, who was sentenced to serve 7-to 21-years for a drug conviction, a penalty mandated by New York's controversial Rockefeller Drug Law, is part of a petition drive and education campaign that The New York Times recently reported is aimed at generating public support to urge the State Legislature to repeal the draconian laws.

“In December of 2004,” Brill explained, “then Governor Pataki enacted the Drug Law Reform Act, which slightly lowered most drug sentences and changed the mandated minimum terms for the sale of 2-to-4 ounces of a heroin and cocaine, an A-1 drug felony. But the new law did not restore judicial discretion, which was taken away by the Rockefeller Laws, or provide funds for community based drug treatment programs.”

According to recent government figures, most drug arrests in New York City are the result of buy and bust operations that target poor neighborhoods with high drug sale rates. Court papers show that some people have been arrested and put away for years for selling no more than a couple grains.

“In these types of sting operations,” Brill said, “the NYPD ends up targeting mostly addicts who sell drugs on the street to get more money to use. For these people, jail is not necessarily the answer on how to deal with drug crime.”

“Furthermore,” Brill added, “if a defendant had been convicted of a prior drug felony and was arrested a second time, the mandatory sentence was harsher than most sentences for people who had committed violent crimes.”

And who benefits by these overcompensatory laws?

“Certainly not the drug addict or small-time user/dealer,” Brill said. “You can’t even say that communities have benefited because the individuals who received these harsh sentences were not necessarily people who were likely to ruin communities. The only real way to benefit society is to provide treatment to these individuals so their addiction subsides.”

One of the major problems with the Rockefeller Laws, according to Brill, is that a person who was merely a cog in the wheel of a much larger drug organization was treated disproportionately from the real leaders and drug king pins.

“Under the old laws,” Brill said, “judges had no discretion to sentence a small-time dealer and user to a non-jail sentence like a drug program unless the district attorney gave it their blessing. The DAs office is a political branch of government and sometimes decisions and policies are made for political reasons and not to meet the ends of fairness and justice.

“This lack of discretion,” Brill charged, “is a slap in the face to our legal system. Judges are the only independent and objective body in a criminal case. It is more important in drug cases that judges be free to deal with defendants with a strict eye toward justice and fairness.”

Many studies have shown that drug reform since the adoption of the Rockefeller Laws has not produced a major change in prison population and it has resulted in the release of a smaller number of A-1 felony offenders than was anticipated. The legislature,” Brill advises, “should focus on taking some discretion out of the hands of the DA and set a quantity requirement for B felony sale cases, similar to federal law, so that small time sellers are not subject to disproportionately severe mandatory jail sentences.”

As a leading criminal defense attorney in New York who spends the majority of his time in court defending the rights of individuals who run afoul of the law, Brill once represented a woman who was charged with selling $40 worth of crack cocaine -- about four hits. It was her second similar offense in five years, and as a result she was facing a mandatory 31/2 -12 years.

“The woman was clearly an addict,” Brill said, “and her family had retained us to help. Our first task was to convince the DA that she was an appropriate candidate for treatment, not jail. After weeks of negotiations, we were able to present to the DA our client's job and education history, her family background and her clear substance abuse problem. The District Attorney, who basically wanted to lock her up and throw away the key, ultimately was persuaded by our argument and as a result we were successful in negotiating a deal where the client entered a drug treatment facility.

Upon successful completion of the treatment, the DA agreed to allow her to come back to court where her guilty plea would be replaced with a reduced charge. She got the help she needed, her family was happy and she stayed out of prison.”