Skip to main content

Evan Sachs Pleads Guilty to Attempted Murder for Stabbing 8-Year-Old Boy in the Back Judge promises Sachs a sentence of 14 years in prison

MINEOLA, NY – Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice announced today that a Merrick man who stabbed an eight-year-old boy in the back at a Westbury arcade has pleaded guilty to attempted murder and assault charges.

Evan Sachs, 23, pleaded guilty to Attempted Murder in the Second Degree and Assault in the Second Degree after the court promised to sentence him to 14 years in prison. He will be sentenced on September 8. The DA’s Office recommended the maximum allowable sentence of 25 years in prison.

Rice said that at approximately 8:25 p.m. on October 8, 2010, Sachs used a folding knife to stab an eight-year-old boy in the back five times as the boy stood in front of a video game at Dave & Buster’s in Westbury.

Sachs then ran into the bathroom where he was subdued by the victim’s father and another witness until police arrived. A note that Sachs had written and put in his pocket before the attack indicated that he had been planning to kill a child. The victim, now nine years old, suffered a partially-collapsed lung in the attack but has since recovered from his injuries.

“This brutal attack could have turned out much worse if the defendant’s true intentions had been realized,” Rice said. “Luckily they weren’t, and this brave young boy has a long life ahead of him. My office will continue to push for Mr. Sachs to serve the maximum allowable prison sentence.”

Chief Mitchell Benson and Assistant District Attorney Melissa Lewis of the Major Offense Bureau are prosecuting the case for the DA’s Office. Sachs is represented by Michael Soshnick, Esq.

Comments

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.

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 ...