DID GREED SHADE HER JUDGMENT?
After she was convicted of “unlicensed general vending,” by the Criminal Court of the City of New York (New York County), A.L. appealed.
And on its review of the case, the Appellate Term, First Department, thought the verdict was based on “legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence,” particularly given the deference accorded trial judges when making credibility assessments and related determinations.
Apparently, A.L. was observed by a police officer selling sunglasses to various individuals on the corner of Broadway and Canal Street (Manhattan). The officer is reported to have seen three individuals approach A.L. who showed them the merchandise and engaged in a conversation with the passersby; conduct which the AT1 thought supported the “sale or offer for sale” element of the crime.
Did the AT1 throw shade here?
# # #
DECISION