DISTRICT ATTORNEY VANCE ANNOUNCES INDICTMENT IN TIMES SQUARE SHOOTING

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., today announced the indictment and arraignment of RAYVON GUICE in New York State Supreme Court on charges relating to a shooting in Times Square earlier this month. GUICE is charged with Attempted Murder, Assault in the first and third degrees, and two counts of Criminal Possession of a Weapon[1].

“The first job of the District Attorney is to ensure safety in our streets,” said District Attorney Vance. “Intentionally firing a gun into a crowd was a dangerous and deplorable act, with potentially fatal consequences. Although the overall crime rate in the city remains low, any outburst of violence will be handled seriously.”

According to the criminal court complaint, on April 5, 2010, RAYVON GUICE fired approximately two shots from a handgun into a crowd of at least fifteen people at West 34th Street and 7th Avenue. Two women suffered gunshot wounds—one was struck in her thigh and the other was struck in her arm.

Defendant information:

RAYVON GUICE, 9/19/89

18 Metropolitan Avenue

Bronx, NY

Charges:

• Assault in the First Degree, a class B felony, punishable by up to 25 years in prison

• Attempted Murder in the Second Degree, a class C felony, punishable by up to 15 years in prison

• Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree, a class C felony, punishable by up to 15 years in prison

• Assault in the Third Degree, a class A misdemeanor
[1] The charges contained in the indictments are merely allegations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

Comments

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...

New York Paralegal Blog

Search This Blog