Robert Nunez Charged With Murder Of Three People In Car

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., today announced the indictment of ROBERTO NUNEZ, 30, on charges of Murder in the First Degree and Murder in the Second Degree for the shooting deaths of three men in Harlem last month.[1] The victims’ bodies were found inside a parked car in Harlem. Sixteen days after the shooting, members of the NYPD apprehended the defendant in the Bronx.

“The defendant has now been indicted for shooting three people point-blank while sitting beside them in a car, and leaving their bodies on display for all to see,” said District Attorney Vance. “This violence shocks the conscience and is unacceptable. My Office will continue to aggressively prosecute violent crime and the drug trade that fuels the proliferation of guns on our streets.”

According to the charging documents filed in court and statements made on the record in court, on June 7, 2012, NUNEZ was seated in the backseat of a BMW parked on West 122ndStreet between Broadway and Claremont Avenue in Harlem when he shot three people with a .38-caliber revolver. The car’s owner, Heriberto Suazo, was seated in the front passenger seat and struck once in the head. Amaury Rodriguez, who was in the driver’s seat, was shot once, and Luis Catalan, who was seated next to the defendant in the back seat, was shot three times.

Assistant District Attorneys David Drucker, Senior Trial Counsel, and Tiana Walton are prosecuting the case under the supervision of Warren Murray, Chief of Trial Bureau 50. District Attorney Vance thanked the New York City Police Department and the New York City Office of the Chief Medical Examiner for their work in this investigation.

Defendant Information:

ROBERTO NUNEZ, D.O.B. 9/30/81

Bronx, NY

Charges:

Murder in the First Degree, a class A felony, three counts
Murder in the Second Degree, a class A felony, three counts

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