Criminal Litigator Secures Suspended Sentence for Trespass

After ending a six month relationship, the defendant attempted to reconnect with the complainant but received no response.

Driven by emotional distress, he went to her apartment, waited for hours, and tried random keypad combinations. When the door unexpectedly opened, he entered and collected old letters, photos, and other sentimental items.

He repeated this conduct on several occasions, indicating a pattern rather than a single impulsive act.

New York courts tend to view repeated residential intrusion as particularly serious because it interferes with the security and privacy associated with one’s home.

For a criminal litigator, this pattern required the development of a mitigation strategy rather than a contest of guilt.

The complainant later discovered the missing items and a small recording device left inside her home.

She reported anxiety, sought clinical evaluation, and replaced locks and security systems.

In New York practice, documented emotional impact especially when supported by medical or psychological reports can strongly influence prosecutors and judges, often leading them to consider stricter penalties.

This created a genuine risk of incarceration at the outset.

The criminal litigator guided the defendant through a structured process to create credible mitigation materials, including:

ㆍA detailed written statement expressing remorse and full responsibility

ㆍA reoffense prevention pledge supported by mental health documentation

ㆍEmployment verification and records showing consistent community involvement

Such materials are routinely weighed by New York judges when determining whether incarceration is necessary or whether rehabilitative measures may be sufficient.

Defense counsel coordinated psychological evaluation and recommended ongoing counseling.

Courts in New York often consider verified treatment participation as a strong indicator of rehabilitation.

This helped reframe the defendant’s behavior as a temporary emotional crisis rather than an ongoing threat to public safety, supporting the argument for a community based sentence.

Direct communication from the defendant was prohibited, so the criminal litigator worked with civil practice colleagues to pursue lawful, trauma informed outreach.

Although the complainant initially declined all contact, persistent but respectful communication eventually led to a settlement letter and a written statement indicating no objection to leniency.

While such agreements do not bind prosecutors in New York, they significantly influence sentencing by demonstrating reduced risk and victim reassurance.

Counsel compiled a comprehensive sentencing memorandum highlighting:

ㆍVerified remorse and psychological progress

ㆍParticipation in counseling and commitment to continued treatment

ㆍThe complainant’s statement regarding leniency

ㆍEvidence of stable employment and a structured daily life

These elements aligned with New York sentencing considerations and presented the defendant as suitable for a non custodial sentence.

The judge acknowledged the gravity of entering someone’s home repeatedly and the emotional harm caused. However, the court also recognized:

1. The defendant’s consistent acceptance of responsibility

2. Verified engagement in mental health treatment

3. The complainant’s formal position supporting leniency

4. The defendant’s stable employment and structured lifestyle
 

Balancing these factors, the court determined that incarceration was not necessary.

Instead, it imposed a suspended sentence with conditions such as continued counseling, a no contact order, and compliance reviews.

This outcome reflected the criminal litigator’s ability to redirect the case from punitive focus toward rehabilitation and community based supervision.