Muzzammil "Mo" Hassan: Guilty

Muzzammil "Mo" Hassan, 45, was convicted of second degree murder, Feb. 7, 2011, in the death of his wife Asiya Zubair Hassan who had filed for divorce just one week before her untimely death. The jury deliberated for just one hour after being handed the three-week long trial. The case generated interest because of the brutality of the crime and because of who the couple were.

On February 12, 2009 Muzzammil “Mo” Hassan stabbed his wife some 40 times before decapitating her in their Bridges TV studio located in Orchard Park NY. Hassan was the chief executive officer of the network and his wife, Asiya Zubair Hassan, was the general manager. Bridges TV was started in 1994 by Hassan and his wife in hopes of dispelling the negative image of Muslims after the 9/11 attacks. It was billed as the first English-language cable channel aimed at Muslims in the United States. The irony is of course how someone who wished to promote interfaith acceptance and tolerance could be involved in such a brutal crime.

According to reports, Hassan was having marital problems and had moved out of the house he shared with his wife and children. On the day of her death, Hassan had asked his wife of nine years to bring some of his clothes over to the TV studio. He had promised her he would not be there.....but he was.

"The defendant viciously killed ... and desecrated her (Aasiya's) body because six days earlier she had dared to file for divorce. Dared to seek a better life for herself and the children," Assistant District Attorney Paul Bonanno said in the prosecution's opening statement.

On Feb. 12, 2009, after killing his wife, Hassan went to the Orchard Park Police headquarters and told police what he had done. He was arrested and has been incarcerated ever since.

During the trial, which had been posponed several times in the ensuing two years, the prosecution said that Asiya Zubair Hassan had filed for divorce because of a history of physical and psychological abuse she had suffered at the hands of her husband. She had filed numerous complaints with the police but had failed to press any charges. She accused him of causing her to have a miscarriage four years ago by dragging her and sitting on her.

She also accused him of "flaunting another woman in her face". Just two days before her death she sent an email to this woman telling her how abusive her husband had been, providing photos of her battered face and destroyed belongings.

Asiya Hassan had tried to leave her husband before, fleeing to South Africa - where she underwent surgery for injuries suffered at his hands - and her native Pakistan but eventually returned to her husband, fearing he would find her no matter where she went.

At the trial Muzzammil Hassan's two adult children, Michael and Sonia Hassan, from a previous marriage also testified for the prosecution against their father. On the day of the murder they were both outside the studio where their step mother was killed, waiting for her in a car. See the video below.

Son and daughter testify against Hassan: wivb.com

In his defense Muzzammil Hassan tried to cast himself in the role of an abused husband. After gaining permission from the judge, he acted as his own attorney. He claimed that his side of the story was never heard and he was being judged "guilty until proven innocent". In a two-hour summation he explained that he was the victim and merely killed his wife in self defense. Showing just how much he did not see himself as a defendant in a murder trial, he ended with the words: "I don't blame my wife". See a portion of his summation below. For more click here.

VIDEO: Hassan defense closing argument: wivb.com

The Prosecutor, Curtin Gable, started the summation by saying:

"Self defense? Not a chance, not even close....this is intentional murder, plain and simple. Beyond a reasonable doubt, quite frankly beyond any doubt. The evidence is crystal clear and when you focus on the credible and relevant evidence your verdict will be clear as well."

To see more click here:

VIDEO: Hassan prosecution closing argument: wivb.com

After the two sides had concluded it was the jury's time. They spoke loud and clear. The did not waste any time in coming to their decision. In less than one hour they returned a verdict of guilty.

Jury takes one hour to convict Hassan: wivb.com

Kelly Williams-Bolar: Discrimination or Justice?

Kelly Williams-Bolar, 40, was sent to jail for 10 days and placed on probation for 3 years.

Judge Patricia Cosgrove handed down the sentence after Kelley was convicted on two felony counts of tampering with court records. Her crime - sending her two daughters to a better school district than the one in which she lived.

Kelly Williams-Bolar lived in the projects in Akron, Ohio. Her father, Edward L. Williams, lived in nearby Copley Township - a distance of about 7 miles. She registered her two daughters using their grandfather's address so that they could attend the better schools.

The school district became suspicious of the two girls' residence and hired a private detective, at a cost of about $6,000, to determine where they really lived. When the report came out, indicating that the girls did not actually live in the school district, their mother was arrested and brought before the court.

View Larger Map

Edward L. Williams and his daughter Kelly were also charged with a fourth-degree felony of grand theft. They were jointly accused of defrauding the school system for two years of educational services. The court determined the cost at $30,500 in tuition fees.

In handing down the sentence, Judge Patricia Cosgrove, said that her sentence was appropriate ''so that others who think they might defraud the school system perhaps will think twice.''

To add insult to injury, Kelly had been studying to become a teacher, taking night classes at the University of Akron, so that she and her daughters could have a better life. Now that will not happen. That opportunity was forever closed to Kelly with her felony conviction.

''Because of the felony conviction, you will not be allowed to get your teaching degree under Ohio law as it stands today,'' the judge said. ''The court's taking into consideration that is also a punishment that you will have to serve.''

 Although there are obvious differences, back in 1954 the Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education that in order to achieve racial integration in schools, blacks were bused into white schools where the standard of education was much higher. In many cases federal troops were sent in to protect the black students from harassment.

Kelly Williams-Bolar, was trying to achieve, albeit illegally, her own personal quest to afford her kids a better education. Her quest failed, most spectacularly, and not only did she receive jail time and a felony conviction to boot, but she also sacrificed any chance she had at earning a teaching degree to improve her own personal situation. Was it worth the effort?

On the other hand one has to speculate on the "diligence" with which the Copley Township school district pursued this case in hiring a private detective and prosecuting Kelly Williams-Bolar to the fullest extent of the law. Did they do the right thing?

If you would like to find out more about this situation or lend your support click here and also here.

Baggy Saggy Pants now Illegal in Dublin, Georgia

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-09-05/justice/georgia.baggy.pants.law_1_baggy-pants-dublin-residents-indecent-exposure?_s=PM:CRIME http://articles.cnn.com/2010-09-05/justice/georgia.baggy.pants.law_1_baggy-pants-dublin-residents-indecent-exposure?_s=PM:CRIME

Should wearing baggy pants be made illegal? Yes! According to the mayor of Dublin, Georgia, Phil Best and presumably many of its residents, it is now a crime punishable by up to 200 dollars in fines.

The amendment to the municipality's indecent exposure ordinance prohibits the wearing of pants or skirts "more than three inches below the top of the hips exposing the skin or undergarments." Patrolling for offenders will be left to local police in the town about 140 miles southeast of Atlanta. Violators could face fines ranging from $25 to $200, or court-mandated community service.

"That's not our intent, we'd (rather) not fine anybody but we are prepared to," Best said.

The mayor said after about a year of fielding complaints, he put the city attorney to work researching how other localities have dealt with the derriere dilemma. The result was that council members decided to put exposure due to baggy clothing in the same category as masturbation, fornication and urination in public places.

Personally i think it's a trend that has captured the youth of today. It is for all practical purposes a fashion statement, a way for young people to express themselves among themselves.

However, many people especially older people find it offensive to display your underwear in public. Many schools have banned this dress style but it is prevalent on the streets of any town in America. It transcends race and economic status.

It may be offensive to some people but is it illegal? Are laws against public indecency to be decided by local ordinances or is there a national standard for indecency?

Is it a generational thing or is there something more sinister to it? Is it a way for young people to rebel against society? Are our morals under attack?

These are some of the questions that lawmakers and parents as well have to consider. Parents especially have to ask themselves is it okay for my child to dress like this? In the end however, the way one dresses is their own business. I find it hard to equate showing underwear with "masturbation, fornication and urination in public places" as laid out in the Dublin ordinance.

It may be offensive to some people but if no "private parts" are exposed how can it be considered "indecent"? Is there a basic difference between a bra and panties and a bikini? At the beach a bikini is completely acceptable attire. What if someone wore that same bikini and walked down the middle of main street, would that be considered indecent exposure? Or if someone stripped down to bra and panties at the pool, would that be considered indecent exposure?

I think there needs to be a distinction between "indecent" and "inappropriate". When schools and businesses set a dress code policy, they are well within in their rights to do so. When government tells people how they should dress in public, they are, in my opinion, trampling on people's right to free speech, protected by the Constitution. Just because you don't like how I dress does not give you the right to legislate away my right to dress as I see fit.

It may not be appropriate in some people's mind to expose your underwear but there is no indecency in doing that. I consider the KKK an inappropriate organization to join but it is protected under the Constitution.

Riviera Beach, Florida passed a ban against sagging pants in recent years, but the legislation was later declared unconstitutional after a court challenge. It remains to be seen if this ordinance in Dublin, Georgia gets challenged in court, but if it does, it will be the case to watch.

Court Drama: Attempted Suicide on the Stand

What do you do if a judge gives you a sentence that you consider overly harsh?

Beg, Plead, Cry, Get Angry? Not if your name is Marcial Anguiano.

What you do is try to commit suicide! In court, on the stand, in front of the judge. 

Marcial Anguiano, 47, of Duncanville, Texas had an extensive criminal history, in fact he had previously served five separate prison terms. He had just pleaded guilty in front of state District Judge Larry Mitchell, to aggravated assault for cutting his niece with a butcher knife.

He had hoped to be sentenced to probation for the charge. Instead Judge Mitchell, perhaps influenced by Anguiano's criminal past, sentenced him to 40 years in prison.

"He looked up at me kind of quizzically and said, '40 years?'" Mitchell told The Associated Press in a telephone interview. "And I said, 'Yes, 40 years.'"

What happened next was a complete surprise to everyone. Marcial Anguiano pulled out a razor blade and "put it to his throat hard, and blood started gushing out." The courtroom bailiffs rushed the defendant, handcuffed him and led him to the holding cell adjacent to the courtroom, where he waited until paramedics arrived.

Dallas County sheriff's spokeswoman Kim Leach said the blade cut into muscle but did not strike an artery. Anguiano was taken from the Dallas County courthouse on a stretcher with his neck covered in bandages. He was talking as he was carried out and was hospitalized in stable condition.

Anguiano bled on the railing that separates the courtroom audience from the front of the court, and on the first row of benches. Mitchell's court shut down for about 30 minutes while custodians cleaned up the mess.

"If the bailiffs hadn't intervened, he was certainly capable of causing his own death," Mitchell said.

It looks as if Anguiano tried to sneak two razor blades into the courtroom. Before the hearing began, a bailiff noticed Anguiano holding something in his hand. The bailiff ordered the defendant to put the object down on the defense table. He complied, and the bailiff confiscated one blade. But a second blade went undiscovered.

"We have great safety procedures and policies in place, but we are looking to see how this happened," Leach said. "If there was human error involved, there could be possible disciplinary action."

What is not known is if Anguiano will faces additional charges related to his suicide attempt. Judge Mitchell said his actions were almost certainly illegal but speculated that the "40-year sentence is probably more than enough for him."

Follow me on Twitter

Christopher Dudus Coke: Arrives in US

Christopher Dudus Coke the "Don" of Tivoli Gardens, Jamaica went before a Manhattan, NY court to plead not guilty to various drugs and illegal gun trafficking charges that could see him spending the rest of his life in prison. 

It was almost a year ago, on August 28,2009 that an extradition request was issued and presented to the Jamaican authorities. See the details here. 

The government of Jamaica and in particular the Prime Minister, Bruce Golding, delayed granting the request, resulting in strained relations between the U.S. and Jamaica.

In the end, bowing to political pressure, the Prime Minister signed the warrant for the arrest of Christopher Dudus Coke. When the police moved to execute the warrant they met stiff resistance from the Tivoli Gardens community where Dudus was believed to be staying, resulting in the government declaring a State of Emergency. 73 civilian died during this operation. Christopher Dudus Coke went into hiding.

Finally, after a month-long manhunt, Dudus decided to give himself up. He solicited the help of a well-known pastor and while en route to the U.S. embassy was captured in a roadblock on June 22,2010.

Christopher Dudus Coke was remanded in custody by U.S. District Judge Robert Patterson after his not guilty plea in the Manhattan courtroom. He is being represented by a team of lawyers, including Frank Doddato and Russel Newfeld, who plans to seek bail even though prosecutors want to keep him in jail.

Judge Robert Patterson set a new hearing for June 28,2010 at which time a decision will be made on whether to grant bail or not. 

Follow me on Twitter