Video: New School Protesters Beaten, Arrested (Again)
Restaurant Owner's Email to Staff Belongs in Tyrant Hall of Fame
Dude, Huge Cocaine Bust in Williamsburg Right Before the Weekend!
Foot Model Who Married Doorman Sues Co-op Over Harsh Treatment
Murder For A Seat On The D Train
State Sen. Hiram Monserrate was found guilty of misdemeanor assault, but he was acquitted of more serious felony assault charges after slashing his girlfriend's face during a Dec. 9 dispute. In a bench trial, Monserrate was found guilty of "recklessly causing physical injury to his companion, Karla Giraldo, by dragging her though his lobby after she was cut," the New York Times reports. If he had been found guilty of the felony charges — which each carried up to seven years in prison — he would have been forced to step down from his Senate seat.
Justice William M. Erlbaum found the 42-year-old former police officer and Marine not guilty of two felony counts of causing Giraldo serious injury, one citing the glass as “a dangerous weapon," and he acquitted the embattled Dem of a misdemeanor charge of intending to cause physical injury to Giraldo when he cut her with a drinking glass.
With the misdemeanor conviction, Monserrate could face up to one year in jail — making his Senate future uncertain. According to Politicker , "there is no standard of conduct (relating to these kinds of offenses) for a senator codified anywhere — not in the Senate rules, not in the Public Officers law, not in the Legislative Law." But a clause in the Legislative Law gives the senate the "power to expel any of its members, after the report of a committee to inquire into the charges against him shall have been made."
Monserrate, who is free on $5,000 bail, will be sentenced on Dec. 4.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
well this verdict really blew my hair back.
I can't believe this scumbag wasn't put away. This should have been a homerun case. I hope Giraldo is happy - she's going to live a life full of abuse, covering for this (and perhaps other) monsters.
While I would have been just as happy as anyone to see Monserrate lose his seat and be behind bars, the case was nowhere near a homerun.
The victim was uncooperative and insisted it was all an accident; with no complainant, how is the prosecution supposed to convict? Assault cases are he-said, she-said unless caught on tape. The portion caught on tape Monserrate was convicted for, the other parts of the assault were not.
Yes but the Prosecutor caught her on many lies at the stand and the Judge should have known better and the doctor testify that she stated Monseratte attacked her.
Reasonable Doubt is not just the name of Jay-Z's best album.
Cases are often tried without a complainant, especially in cases of domestic abuse. It's a well-known fact that many abused men, women and children are reluctant to honestly testify against their attackers. In fact, Giraldo's testimony served a purpose to both sides - the defense with her story and the prosecution with her inconsistencies.
I suppose a "home run" isn't the right word, but I certainly though he's get thrown in the slammer with the egregious amount of evidence available. Anyone with half a brain would watch that surveillance tape and immediately conclude that something was very, very wrong.
I'm not saying he didn't do it - I'd put money on the fact that this guy slashed her face out of anger. What I'm saying is that in a typical assault case there is a victim who complains that a defendant physically assaulted him/her. While there are rare cases where the DA will go to trial without a complainant for an assault case, to have a complainant state that the defendant did not do what the prosecution says he did makes it very difficult to convict.
I don't doubt assault cases have been tried without complainants, but what I would be interested to see is the conviction rate of those cases.
I also disagree with the "egregious" amount of evidence. Was there a lot of circumstantial evidence? Sure. But when two people give you conflicting stories, one based on what Monserrate did having been there and one based on what he did having heard Giraldo say it after the fact, you have to go with the person who was there when the incident happened, unless there is incontrovertible proof that she is lying.
The one charge that stuck stemmed from the videotape, which was a clear indication of what happened at that moment. While we all think we know what happened behind closed doors (and in my opnion it's gotta be pretty damn close to what the prosecution alleges), the court cannot assume what those actions were based on that videotape.
If anyone should be blamed for Monserrate getting off it is the girlfriend, because had she told the court what she told those doctors, Monserrate would be up shit's creek without a paddle.
this is disappointing
http://www.nycourtsystem.com/Applications/JudicialDirectory/Bio.php?ID=7012891
The judge that acquitted him.
Is there some reason why you think we should know this?
This Judge made this non guilty verdict.
Yes, I read what you wrote in your first comment. I was hoping you would explain why you felt the need to post this information.
why not?
in other words, Monserrate (D,WF-Corona) will keep his taxpayer-funded job.
Bitch got what she deserves, and so do the dumb ass citizens of Queens who voted him in office.
Oh what a surprise, he was a criminal defense attorney before becoming a judge.
New York City...I'm Lovin' It!
http://www.sglawny.com/CM/Articles/Profile-of-the-Hon-William.asp
I love it!
All the "rush-to-judgment" trolls get it handed to them.
Domestic abuse....supwitdat?
I know law student that could have gotten a conviction in this case.
representative government assures this guy will be in office for years to come........