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.
In criminal cases in the United States, defendants (people accused of committing crimes) enjoy the presumption of innocence, which means they are legally considered innocent until a state or federal prosecutor proves their guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.” This obligation is known as the burden of proof.
This sounds pretty straightforward, but like so many things in the legal field, the burden of proof can get rather tricky. The terms “proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” “clear and convincing evidence” and “preponderance of the evidence” are all standards of proof.
It may help to think of standard of proof as a hierarchy. Certain circumstances require a more stringent standard of proof than others. There are three main standards of proof:
In criminal cases, the defendant is in jeopardy of losing his or her liberty, which is arguably the most fundamental constitutional right American citizens enjoy, at the hands of the government. Because the stakes are so high, the highest standard of proof, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, is required for a conviction. The other two standards of proof are less stringent and used mainly in civil cases.
To establish proof beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases, prosecutors must convince juries that the evidence leads only to the defendant’s guilt and no other reasonable conclusion. In all criminal cases, the jury’s verdict of guilt must be unanimous.
As part of the burden of proof in criminal cases, prosecutors must prove all elements of the crime to secure a conviction. Elements of crime can change a bit from one crime to another. Generally speaking, however, all crimes are made up of three core elements:
To convict someone of a criminal offense, the prosecution must prove all three of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Here’s a quick overview of these elements:
Actus reus refers to the criminal act itself and whether or not it occurred. It can also refer to failing to act when a person has a duty to do so. For example, psychologists have a legal duty to notify authorities when their patients threaten to harm themselves or others. If they fail to do so, that failure would satisfy the actus reus element.
The mens rea element is probably the most difficult element of crime to explain; it refers to the defendant’s mental state and intentions when they committed the alleged offense. To satisfy the mens rea element, prosecutors have to prove that a defendant acted with a guilty mind. For example, consider two people who cheated on their taxes, one who knowingly claimed an exemption to which he or she was not entitled and another who simply made some kind of clerical error.
In this scenario, the person who deliberately cheated would satisfy the mens rea element, but the person who merely miscalculated would not. It’s important to note that ignorance of the law (not knowing a particular act is illegal) does not generally negate culpability.
To satisfy the element of causation, prosecutors need only prove that a defendant’s actions caused the illegal outcome. For example, if someone is texting and driving, runs a red light and crashes into another motor vehicle, then a prosecutor would only have to prove that the defendant’s negligence caused him or her to run the red light, which resulted in the subsequent crash.
There are rare occasions in criminal cases when the burden of proof shifts temporarily to the defense. This happens most frequently in the case of affirmative defenses. An affirmative defense is a defense in which the defendant offers evidence that would lessen or negate his or her criminal liability. Examples of affirmative defenses include:
When presenting evidence that may reduce or negate liability, it’s up to the defense to convince the jury that such circumstances were present.
Some criticize the burden of proof as being too restrictive on prosecutors, but many believe it’s more acceptable to let a guilty person go free than to convict an innocent one.
Please fill out the form below to receive a free consultation, we will respond to
your inquiry within 24-hours guaranteed.