Skip to main content

DISTRICT ATTORNEY VANCE ANNOUNCES CONVICTION OF LONDELL SQUIRE FOR MURDER OF PARTY BOAT PROMOTER

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., today announced a guilty verdict against LONDELL SQUIRE, 23, for the 2009 murder of Omar Trent, a party promoter on a boat anchored at South Street Seaport. A jury found SQUIRE guilty of Murder in the Second Degree and Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree. On May 17, 2011, SQUIRE will be sentenced in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan.

"The defendant made a calculated decision to shoot and kill Mr. Trent," District Attorney Vance said. "I commend the jury for its careful attention and service in this case."

As proven at trial, on August 22, 2009, Omar Trent was at a party on a boat docked at the South Street Seaport when several fights broke out and caused many of the 400 guests to rush off the boat. SQUIRE also ran off of the boat, but went to his car to retrieve his gun. He was heading back toward the boat when he encountered Trent, whom he recognized as having been involved in the fight. After recognizing Trent, SQUIRE immediately pulled out his gun and shot Trent once in the head. Trent was pronounced dead at the scene by EMTs. Witnesses to the shooting saw SQUIRE fleeing in a Dodge Caravan and were able to get the license plate number, which was registered to SQUIRE.

Initial efforts by Detectives of the First Precinct and the Manhattan South Homicide Squad to locate SQUIRE at his home in the East Flatbush section of Brooklyn were unsuccessful, but police later learned that SQUIRE was hiding out in Petersburg, Virginia. He was located and arrested there in October 2009.

District Attorney Vance thanked Assistant District Attorneys David Drucker and Mao Yu Lin, who prosecuted the case under the supervision of Warren Murray, Chief of Trial Bureau 50.

Defendant Information:

LONDELL SQUIRE, D.O.B. 12/12/1987
Brooklyn, NY

CONVICTED:

Murder in the Second Degree, a class A felony, one count
Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree, a class C felony, two counts

A class A felony is punishable by up to life in prison, and a class C felony is punishable by up to 15 years in prison.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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.
Post a Comment
Read more

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...
3 comments
Read more

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 ...
Post a Comment
Read more