A Criminal Defense Attorney Who Actually Wins Trials

Verdicts / Results

Verdicts

CHARGES: 2 COUNTS OF ATTEMPTED MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE, 2 COUNTS OF ATTMEPTED MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE

Two club bouncers claimed that defendant tried to enter their club with an UZI submachine gun and then fired a shot at them. Instead of calling 911, one of the bouncers called the personal cell phone of a police officer he “knew from precinct.” Seconds later, the two police officers called by the bouncer arrive at the scene. These officers claimed at trial that defendant fired two shots at them from the UZI. The officers chased defendant and fired back, striking him 9 times but not killing him. The UZI was allegedly recovered next to the defendant with his blood and DNA later allegedly found on the trigger of the weapon. Defendant was charged with 2 counts of Attempted Murder in the First degree for firing at the officers, and 2 counts of Attempted Murder in the Second Degree for firing on the bouncers. Spent shell casings matching the UZI were recovered at the scene. Defendant faced a possible sentence in excess of 50 years to Life

An investigation by Mr. Baker revealed that the two officers who fired the shots had arrested defendant months before the shooting for allegedly assaulting them. Further investigation revealed that those charges had been dropped approximately two weeks prior to the shooting. Mr. Baker also discovered that the bouncer who had called the police had a criminal record for weapons possession and an open gun case in Brooklyn and that he had been an informant for the police. Furthermore, although the police testified that they fired 32 rounds at the defendant from a distance of no more than 10 feet away, Mr. Baker submitted forensic evidence to the jury that established that in fact, most of the shots fired at the defendant were fired from a distance of no more than three feet, with three shots fired no more than six inches from muzzle to contact. RESULT: ACQUITTAL ON CHARGES OF ATTEMPTED MURDER OF THE POLICE OFFICERS AND THE BOUNCERS KINGS COUNTY SUPREME COURT

 

CHARGES: DRIVING WHILE ABILITY IMPAIRED BY ALCOHOL (DWI)

Marco P., an attorney with a prestigious NYC law firm, was charged with Driving While Intoxicated, VTL section 1192.3, a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail. After failing a breathalyzer test, Marco was formally charged with DWI. Under cross examination by Harold Baker at trial, the arresting officer admitted he did not have Marco under direct observation for fifteen minutes prior to offering the breathalyzer, as is required by law (to ensure that suspect doesn’t regurgitate or burp or eat or drink which could impact the results). Moreover, Harold forced the arresting officer to admit that there were discrepancies in several calibration tests performed on the machines prior to Marco’s breathalyzer test, thus casting doubt on the accuracy of Marco’s breathalyzer result. In addition, Marco performed well on video-taped coordination tests offered after he provided the breath sample. On summation at the end of the trial, Harold Baker successfully argued that the evidence that Marco was intoxicated was insufficient as that the results of the breathalyzer were not reliable or trustworthy. Immediately after summations in the case, the Judge found Marco NOT GUILTY NYC Criminal Court

Eugene W. had pulled his mint 1995 Buick Le Sabre over to the side of the road because his intoxicated passenger was feeling ill. A passing police car stopped and the police approached and accused Eugene of Driving While Intoxicated. The police seized Eugene’s car and ordered the sick passenger out of the car and abandoned him at the scene at 1:00am on a deserted Brooklyn street far from home. Later, at the precinct, and while being video-taped, Eugene was offered a breathalyzer test by the arresting officer. Eugene refused and asked for his attorney. The police did not offer Eugene the coordination tests. Eugene was charged with Felony DWI due to a prior conviction for DWI. At trial, Harold successfully discredited the testifying officers’ credibility due to numerous inconsistencies in prior testimony, the inhumane treatment of the sick passenger, and significantly, because although Eugene refused the breathalyzer, the officers never offered Eugene the opportunity to perform the coordination tests. Harold successfully argued to the jury that by failing to offer the coordination tests to Eugene, the police had deprived the jury of valuable evidence that could have established whether or not Eugene was intoxicated, notwithstanding his refusal to offer a breath sample. After deliberating for an hour, the jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY in King’s County Supreme Court

CHARGES: ASSAULT IN THE FIRST DEGREE, CRIMINAL CONTEMPT IN THE FIRST DEGREE

During a recent New Year’s Eve Chris P. was enjoying a small family party at his new girlfriend’s apartment. Also present were his girlfriend’s mother, five sisters and 7 children all under the age of 4 including his girlfriend’s 16 month old daughter from a prior relationship with Ricky H. Chris P. had learned from his girlfriend that Ricky was a violent abusive guy with a jealous streak and a bad temper. A little after midnight on January 1, 2008, Ricky H. shows up unannounced and uninvited. One thing leads to another and Ricky H tires to push his way into the apartment to attack Chirs P. The women try to push Ricky back but he is much bigger and stronger than everyone present. In seconds the struggle escalates when Ricky P pulls out a box cutter. Chris P. then rushes into action and disarms Ricky. Ricky however, grabs Chris P and struggles to get the blade back. During the struggle, Ricky receives two deep long gashes in his head and under his arm. Eventually the melee is broken up. When the police arrive, they see Ricky cut badly and Chris P. without a scratch. Without conducting a thorough and proper investigation, the police arrest Chris P. The district Attorney’s office moves to indict Chris P for assault. Chris P.’s lawyer at the time (not Mr. Baker) gambles and allows Chris P. to testify before the grand jury. Unfortunately, due to a lack of proper investigation and preparation, Chris P. badly fumbles his testimony and is indicted for Assault in the first degree, a violent felony carrying a potential twenty five year sentence. Harold Baker took the case over from Legal Aid, conducted an in depth investigation, located and secured the cooperation of witnesses, and developed a winning strategy involving self defense and the defense of others. Mr. Baker utterly destroyed the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and presented a defense case centered on the well prepared and credible testimony of several eyewitnesses and furthermore utilizing a key recording of a 911 telephone call to help prove Chris P.’s innocence. RESULT: ACQUITTAL ON ALL CHARGES

Results In Cases That Did Not Go To Trial

Queens County - Case 1

Queens County: Client charged with gun-point robbery-identified on the street by the complainant only ten minutes after the crime occurred. Result after Harold Baker investigated the case, arranged for lie detector test and negotiated with the prosecutor: CHARGES DISMISSED

Queens County - Case 2

Queens County: Client pulled over by the police after he pulls out of a restaurant parking lot-charged with DWI-result after Harold Baker negotiated with the prosecutor: misdemeanor charges dismissed and defendant permitted to plead guilty to a TRAFFIC INFRACTION which is not a crime.

Queens County - Case 3

Queens County: Client, a teenage girl, and boyfriend, a Macy’s Department store employee, are jointly charged with felony Grand Larceny for stealing merchandise and gift cards from Macy’s. Crimes caught on video surveillance, property recovered from client and client makes a full video-taped confession. Investigation by Harold Baker revealed that boyfriend coerced client into committing crimes. Result after extensive investigation by Harold Baker and intense negotiation with prosecutor: Felonies and misdemeanors dismissed, client granted a VIOLATION, which is not a crime, with community service performed at a local hospital.

New York County - Case 1

New York County: College student who blows red light in front of police-not wearing shoes while driving, supposedly reeking of alcohol- refuses to submit to a chemical test. Result after Harold Baker negotiated with the prosecutor: Misdemeanor dismissed-defendant permitted to plead guilty to a VIOLATION, which is not a crime.

New York County - Case 2

New York County: Architect arrested and accused of Grand Larceny for leaving Whole Foods Grocery Store without paying for merchandise. Client apprehended by store security outside store with grocery cart full of high end products and no receipt. Investigation by Harold Baker revealed client experiencing a nervous breakdown over various social pressures and personal emotional issues. Result after Harold Baker negotiated with prosecutor and brought client in for meeting with prosecutor: Charges reduced from felony to misdemeanor, and thereafter, client granted an ACD

New York County - Case 3

New York County: Carpenter charged with Domestic Violence assault against his daughter and wife. Complainants alleged that client punched both his teen age daughter and wife in the face and body and broke bottles during alleged intoxicated rampage inside apartment. Investigation by Harold Baker revealed wife’s motive to lie. Furthermore, following Harold Baker’s investigation, daughter recanted story and refused to press charges. Result after investigation by Harold Baker and intense negotiations with prosecutor: Felonies and misdemeanors dismissed and defendant permitted to plead guilty to a VIOLATION, which is not a crime.

New York County - Case 4

New York County: Client, an illegal immigrant and a worker in a Diamond District Jewelry Store, is accused of Grand Larceny for allegedly smuggling thousands of dollars worth of jewelry out of the store by secreting the items in a bucket of mop water. Jewelry recovered from bucket in client’s possession. Client faced not only jail time but deportation if found guilty of crime. Result after investigation by Harold Baker and after Harold Baker presents client to prosecutor during meeting at DA’s office and after intense negotiations with prosecutor: Felonies and Misdemeanors dismissed, client permitted to plead guilty to a VIIOLATION, which is not a crime.

Kings County - Case 1

Kings County: Client arrested and charged with armed commercial robbery after being identified by one of the victims in a lineup. Investigation by Harold Baker revealed that client did not match physical description of perpetrator given by identifying witness. Furthermore, Harold Baker tracked down numerous similar robberies occurring in New York area at same time. Some of those robberies had been captured on video surveillance and revealed a perpetrator that resembled defendant in some ways but was very different in others. Harold Baker assisted client in presenting air tight alibi to prosecutor. Result after Harold Baker negotiated with prosecutor: CHARGES DISMISSED.

Kings County - Case 2

Kings County: MTA token booth clerk charged with assault, menacing and criminal possession of a weapon. Disgruntled straphanger falsely accused trans-gendered token booth clerk of assault with a pipe and menacing with a handgun following a dispute regarding a fare. Client faced jail time and loss of job with MTA. Harold Baker discovered significant inconsistencies in witness’ statements, motives to fabricate incident and vendetta against client. Complainant adamantly refused to drop charges and pressured DA to prosecute. Result after Harold Baker’s intense negotiations with prosecutor and with MTA management: Client granted an ACD, reinstated to good standing within MTA.

Kings County - Case 3

Kings County: Young lady accused of Robbery and Assault of an acquaintance outside a bar. Client also charged in a subsequent indictment with tampering with the witness for allegedly making threatening phone calls to the complaining witness. Investigation by Harold Baker revealed that accuser had made false reports against others in the past. Furthermore, through Harold Baker’s investigation of telephone records, it was discovered that telephone call which was subject matter of indictment charging tampering could not have happened because it was made while client was at police precinct with detective. Result after Harold Baker’s investigation and intensive negotiations with prosecutor: CHARGES DISMISSED.

Kings County - Case 4

Kings County: Client, an illegal immigrant, is charged with Criminal Possession of a Weapon and Criminal Possession of Marijuana. Police officer testified at a pre-trial hearing that he observed defendant at 9:00 p.m. at night from a distance of fifteen to twenty feet while defendant standing in the dimly lit vestibule of a building, exchange a one inch by one inch plastic bag of green leafy substance for money given by an unapprehended person. Police pursued defendant through the vestibule, into the building, down a hall and into an apartment. There, they found defendant and allegedly recovered a loaded hand-gun from his waist band. Following an extensive investigation of the crime scene lay out, and exhaustive preparation for the pre-trial hearing, Harold Baker successfully impeached the credibility of the police officer and his testimony regarding his ability to observe all the facts he testified to. Result after intensive cross examination of officer by Harold Baker and comprehensive legal argument for suppression of gun: weapon suppressed by Court for police violation of client’s fourth amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, Court found officer’s testimony incredible thanks to Harold Baker’s intense cross examination. Indictment dismissed by Court.

If you or someone you love has been arrested or is facing criminal charges, the single most important thing to do is get the right attorney-right away. How fast you act and who you choose for representation can make the difference between jail or bail, misdemeanor or felony, indictment or dismissal, conviction or acquittal. If the opportunity exists, Defense Attorney Harold C. Baker will make that difference. Harold C. Baker is available to fight for you 24-7, 365 days a year.