DEFENDANT RENATO SEABRA INDICTED ON MURDER CHARGE IN THE DEATH OF CARLOS CASTRO

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., today announced the indictment and arraignment of RENATO SEABRA, 21, in Manhattan Supreme Court on one count of Murder in the Second Degree [1] in connection with the death of Carlos Castro. The indictment alleges that SEABRA intentionally murdered his victim.

According to documents filed in court, SEABRA traveled to New York City with the victim from their native Portugal on December 29, 2010. Castro had been staying at the Hotel InterContinental on West 44th Street in Manhattan. On January 7, 2010, a hotel employee discovered the victim unclothed on the floor of his hotel room, with visible injuries. The defendant was not present.

Emergency medical personnel at the scene pronounced the victim dead at 7:18 p.m. The Office of the Chief Medical Examiner of the City of New York ruled that the cause of death was blunt injuries to the head and neck compression, and the manner of death was homicide.

Assistant District Attorney Maxine Rosenthal, Senior Counsel for Trial Bureau 80, is prosecuting this case under the supervision of Assistant District Attorney Kerry Oâ€™Connell, Chief of Trial Bureau 80, and Executive Assistant District Attorney Karen Friedman Agnifilo, Chief of the Trial Division. Members of the NYPD's Midtown North Precinct assisted in the investigation, including Lieutenant James West and Detective John Mongiello.

Defendant Information:

RENATO SEABRA, D.O.B. 09/10/1989
Cantanhede, Portgual

Charge:

Murder in the Second Degree, a class A felony, one count

A class A felony is punishable by up to 25 years to life in prison.

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