Spodek Law Group handles tough cases
nationwide, that demand excellence.
Covered by NYDaily News. Las Vegas man accused of threatening a prominent attorney and making vile remarks.
Covered by New York Times, and other outlets. Fake heiress accused of conning the city’s wealthy, and has an HBO special being made about her.
Accused of stalking Alec Baldwin. The case garnered nationwide attention, with USAToday, NYPost, and other media outlets following it closely.
Juror who prompted calls for new Ghislaine Maxwell trial turns to lawyer who defended Anna Sorokin.
Clients can use our portal to track the status of their case, stay in touch with us, upload documents, and more.
Regardless of the type of situation you're facing, our attorneys are here to help you get quality representation.
We can setup consultations in person, over Zoom, or over the phone to help you. Bottom line, we're here to help you win your case.
The Spodek Law Group understands how delicate high-profile cases can be, and has a strong track record of getting positive outcomes. Our lawyers service a clientele that is nationwide. With offices in both LA and NYC, and cases all across the country - Spodek Law Group is a top tier law firm.
Todd Spodek is a second generation attorney with immense experience. He has many years of experience handling 100’s of tough and hard to win trials. He’s been featured on major news outlets, such as New York Post, Newsweek, Fox 5 New York, South China Morning Post, Insider.com, and many others.
In 2022, Netflix released a series about one of Todd’s clients: Anna Delvey/Anna Sorokin.
Why Clients Choose Spodek Law Group
The reason is simple: clients want white glove service, and lawyers who can win. Every single client who works with the Spodek Law Group is aware that the attorney they hire could drastically change the outcome of their case. Hiring the Spodek Law Group means you’re taking your future seriously. Our lawyers handle cases nationwide, ranging from NYC to LA. Our philosophy is fair and simple: our nyc criminal lawyers only take on clients who we know will benefit from our services.
We’re selective about the clients we work with, and only take on cases we know align with our experience – and where we can make a difference. This is different from other law firms who are not invested in your success nor care about your outcome.
If you have a legal issue, call us for a consultation.
We are available 24/7, to help you with any – and all, challenges you face.
Attorneys file several different sorts of motions throughout trial. A motion to dismiss in the interest of justice may be made when one or more factors indicate that the prosecution and conviction of the defendant would result in injustice.
The possible of injustice usually arises from the defendant’s personal situation, or misconduct in the state’s investigation. A clear demonstration that an injustice would result on the defendant must be shown in order to make a motion to dismiss. The judge will only grant the motion when there has been a compelling factor that clearly demonstrates that the prosecution of the defendant, or the conviction of the defendant would result in an injustice. In order to prevent an injustice, a motion to dismiss an indictment is also possible. The right is codified in CPL 210.40.
In certain cases involving minors that occur in family court, a motion to dismiss based on statutory ability is available. The Family Court Act 315.2 omits certain CPL criteria. This family court section does not require consideration of evidence of guilt. The motion to dismiss may be made based on the needs and best interests of the minor.
Though it is possible to make a motion to dismiss, the likelihood of the motion being granted is uncommon. Judges try to grant the motion as sparingly as possible. A judge looks at many factors before granting a motion to dismiss.
The judge will consider the defendant’s history, character, and condition. The judge also weighs the defendant’s previous convictions and the possibility of the defendant’s rehabilitation. The judge considers the possibly of the defendant becoming a model citizen. Defense counsel should try to place before the court evidence of the defendant’s rehabilitation, and that the defendant is worthy of consideration for a grant of motion.
A judge may also look at the defendant’s age. Earlier above it is mentioned that a motion to dismiss in family court when dealing with minors holds a different standard. A similar consideration is taken when dealing with defendants of an advanced age. While a defendant’s advanced age is not in and of itself a consideration that would compel a dismissal, it can affect the severity and the possibility of the judge granting the motion.
Along with the age of the defendant, the mental capacity of the defendant is also considered. The defendant’s mental capacity and their ability to comprehend the crime can affect the motion. A defendant’s mental retardation is a factor to be considered in the interest of justice. Generally, a mental illness does not mandate a dismissal of the charges. If the defendant is found to be mentally incapacitated under CPL Article 730, and thus unable to proceed with trial, a dismissal in the interest of justice is considered improper. Rather, the mental incapacitation of the defendant makes it impossible for the trial to proceed.
In the event that there is government misconduct, a dismissal of the charges in the interest of justice may occur. The government misconduct must be “exceptionally serious misconduct of law enforcement personnel” in the investigation, arrest, or the prosecution of the defendant. Furthermore, the improper issuance of subpoenas to defense witnesses, along with other forms of prosecutorial misconduct will support a motion to dismiss in the interest of justice.
Prosecutorial misconduct can occur in many forms. A prosecutor’s refusal to honor a previously offered agreement would constitute bad faith with respect to the court. This behavior would give cause for the defense to make a motion for dismissal in the interest of justice. For example, if a prosecutor were to later refuse to honor an initial offer to administer a polygraph constitutes as bad faith. A dismissal in the interest of justice in the interest of justice should be granted.
Please fill out the form below to receive a free consultation, we will respond to
your inquiry within 24-hours guaranteed.