Robbery Charge Defense Case | Acquittal After Pretrial Detention

After finishing work late in the evening, the client joined an acquaintance at a nearby restaurant where several individuals were playing a casual card and tile based gambling game.

A bystander who had been watching the game eventually joined in and began wagering money against the group.

When the bystander won a significant amount, a verbal confrontation occurred, during which the client angrily grabbed a stack of cash from the table and left the premises.

No weapon was displayed, no physical injury was inflicted, and no explicit threat of immediate physical harm was made at the time of the incident.

Following the incident, the alleged victim reported the matter to law enforcement and characterized the event as a forcible taking, prompting prosecutors to pursue a robbery charge under New York Penal Law Article 160.

The client was arrested, charged, and ultimately indicted, with bail denied based on prior convictions and the seriousness of the charge.

Prosecutors relied heavily on the complainant’s statements and a companion witness who had been present during the gambling activity.

At the time of consultation, the client remained detained and was experiencing significant anxiety due to a lengthy history of prior violent convictions, which increased sentencing exposure if convicted.

The prosecution emphasized this history at every stage, arguing that the alleged conduct fit a pattern of violent behavior and justified continued incarceration pending trial.

Compounding the risk, the client had provided statements during initial police questioning that were partially inculpatory and consistent with the prosecution’s narrative.

Additionally, a witness aligned with the complainant had already given testimony that appeared to support the robbery charge, making outright dismissal at an early stage highly unlikely under New York criminal procedure standards.

Defense counsel conducted a meticulous review of discovery materials, followed by multiple in depth jail consultations with the client.

Counsel personally visited the restaurant, reconstructed the physical layout, and located additional witnesses who had observed the interaction but were not initially identified by law enforcement.

These witnesses provided detailed accounts showing that the confrontation involved verbal hostility only, without the level of force or intimidation required for a robbery charge under New York law.

Under New York Penal Law, a robbery charge requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that physical force was used or threatened for the purpose of compelling property surrender or preventing resistance.

Defense counsel demonstrated through cross examination that any alleged force occurred, if at all, after the property had already been taken and did not rise to the level of force necessary to overcome resistance.

Even accepting the prosecution’s version, the conduct amounted at most to a non forcible larceny, not robbery, as defined by controlling New York case law.

During trial, defense counsel conducted rigorous cross examination of both the complainant and the supporting witness, exposing internal contradictions and inconsistencies with physical evidence and prior statements.

The testimony revealed exaggerations regarding alleged threats and clarified that no immediate fear of physical injury had been induced at the time the money was taken.