GWB fatal shooting: Criminal defense attorney explains why and how charges can change

And we're going to turn our attention right now to the incident that happened on the George Washington Bridge where a married father and Con Ed veteran Con Ed worker was shot and killed, allegedly by a retired NYPD detective who is now facing second degree murder charges in connection with that shooting. We're going to go right to criminal defense attorney Adam Kanta and find out the latest on this because there have been some major developments this week. Adam, thank you for joining us. Sure, glad to be back. Now, Adam, tell us what happened this week in terms of the charges going from manslaughter back up to second degree murder. How does that happen? Yeah, I mean, it happens because the DA's office reevaluated their position. And I mean, obviously, he was arrested and charged with murder initially. And then the case got downgraded for reasons we still really don't know to manslaughter, which caused all of the outrage that you saw throughout the city, from his family, from other Con Ed workers. And really up until the other day, we thought the case was going to be going forward as a manslaughter case. And then when it turned out that they presented the case to the grand jury, they presented it as a murder two, and that's where we're at now. So now he's charged with murder two, which is the traditional sort of murder that we think about when we say someone is charged with murder. it will go forward in a very different way. Because the charges he's facing and the amount of punishment that he's up against is entirely different than on manslaughter charges. So let's talk about that second degree murder charge. People are asking, as you know, why not first degree murder? Sure. So when we talk about someone being charged with murder here in New York State, we're really talking about murder in the second degree. It's not at all a lesser version of murder. Murder in the first degree is a very specific charge that only comes up really under two circumstances. It's if you kill a first responder of some sort, a police officer, fireman, EMS, someone in that world, or you kill someone while in the commission of committing another type of felony. Let's say you're committing a robbery and then you kill someone while you're committing that robbery. That would be murder in the first degree. But otherwise, kind of a traditional, you shoot someone out there, you hit someone with your car on purpose anything like that anything that we think of as as traditional murder is murder in the second degree and then in terms of the the bail situation this is another big question that we're getting why excuse me he he was out on bail when he was on the manslaughter charge now he's charged with second degree murder what happens to the bail could he be behind bars for thanksgiving conceivably because right now he's walking around like a free man i think his days are numbered, yeah. I mean, I think now that it's been upgraded from manslaughter to murder in the second degree, manslaughter is the unintentional killing of someone. And that is a felony that has a sentencing range of a minimum of five years, maximum of 25 years. And so when the judge set bail on Romero, that is what he was facing. And that was the information that everyone had. And so a million dollars seemed, I guess, reasonable to the court at the time. Now that the case has been upgraded to murder, he faces a minimum of 12 to life and a maximum of 25 to life. That's entirely different. Now you're talking about life sentence essentially on the back end. And so I think the likelihood, not just the possibility, but the likelihood here is that on his Supreme Court arraignment day on November 23rd, he will be remanded and put in prison. There's always a chance that won't happen. It's certainly, I would be shocked. Let's just say that. I will be shocked if he is not remanded and put in jail on November 23rd and his bail will be revoked. But Adam, why does he have to have now an arraignment in Supreme Court after the grand jury already handed down this indictment? Why now the New York State Supreme Court? Sure, that's just how cases work here in New York State. So when you're charged with a felony, it doesn't really become a full felony essentially and go forward as a felony until it's indicted by a grand jury. The idea is that a group of New Yorkers like you and I would sit in a room and hear the presentation from the district attorney's office. And then they would be the first sort of line of defense that would decide whether this case is worthy of going forward with the felony charges. And so he was arraigned at arraignment like any other defendant would be on what they believe will ultimately happen, that he will be indicted on at the time, again, they said manslaughter. But now that it's indicted on murder, it has to go to a different court part in the Supreme Court. And then they make a Supreme Court arraignment because now it's a fully indicted case. That happens on every felony in New York State. And so now that that process has played out, he'll go in front of a judge, and that judge will hear new bail arguments, I'm sure, because in order to change bail, there has to be what's called a change in circumstance. You can't, I mean, you can always ask for a bail application, and a judge will almost always grant you the opportunity to make that argument. But what a judge is looking for when they're trying to hear why you would renew a bail application is what change in circumstance would be the reason why I would either increase or decrease bail. And in this situation, the change in circumstance, obviously, is that now he's charged with murder and the sentencing he's looking at, if convicted, would have life on the back end. And that is a huge, huge change to really any other felony that you could be indicted for. And so it's a massive change in circumstance. advance, it massively increases the likelihood that you could be viewed as a flight risk. And so I think that will be where that bail will likely get revoked and then he will be remanded. And remanded means in jail without any bail. So would that be something, is there a procedure for that? Do the prosecutors have to request that he be remanded at the Supreme Court arraignment on November 23rd or does it trigger automatically? No, they'll request it. You could request really any amount of bail. But I mean, they're already at a million dollars, and that was posted relatively quickly. And so in theory, they could ask for 5 million, 10 million dollars. But the idea that, especially now that they know that there are people out there that would post on his behalf, the safest thing, according to what the DAs, what I'm guessing that they will argue, is that he be remanded permanently without the opportunity to post bail. And the way that it will play out at the Supreme Court arraignment is they will do the arraignment in front of the judge. He will enter a not guilty plea. And then pretty immediately, which happens in every case, the judge will say, people, meaning the district attorney's office, do you want to renew a bail application or do you want to change in bail status? And then they will go into all the reasons why they do want a new bail set or more specifically that they want bail revoked. and then they're going to ask for him to be remanded because of now they're going to say he is an increased flight risk okay so in the meantime between now and november 23rd he's a free man and then in terms of the bail restrictions or the bail restrictions when somebody is out on bail in between cases like that is he a lot is he allowed to legally travel or does he have to stay in new york state you know i don't know you know it can vary depending on who your bail bondsman is, what the judge put in place as parameters. In theory, he could be free to travel as long as he shows up at his court date, but I don't know the circumstances of the bail that was agreed to. And so it very well could say that he has home confinement, can't leave the borough, can't leave the city, I just don't know what was actually said. And then Adam, you talk about the differences in the sentencing, the manslaughter, what would have been the, if it stayed manslaughter, what would have been the maximum amount of time that he would have been facing if he's found guilty? The maximum on manslaughter would be 25 years, but it's a flat 25 years. And so what I mean by that is that's a determinate sentence. It's not 25 to life or 10 to 25, it's a flat number. And then because it's the flat number, you can earn what's called good time while you're incarcerated. And so on a felony, you would do six-sevenths of your time. And so on a 25-year sentence, maybe he would end up doing 20 or 22 or something like that. Whereas on a murder charge, it comes with a life sentence. There's no world, there's no mechanism to plead or be found guilty of murder and not have some form of life on the back end. The minimum is 12 to life and the maximum is 25 to life. But the difference is there is no good time on a life sentence. And so you do every ounce of that 25 years before you go and see parole. And then in all likelihood, you're denied by parole a couple times. It can be a very, very lengthy sentence and it's a huge difference from manslaughter. As you look at this case, what are some of the things that concern you about it? Well, it seems like we sort of all know what happened already. And that's really hard for a defense attorney to kind of overcome that hurdle. And they're starting to come out more and more about the circumstances of how he was retired. And the two people that he shot that were allegedly robbing his parents' laundromat. Now, he was hailed as a hero when that happened. But we also know that there was an investigation and he retired in the middle of that investigation. I mean, that's what we know as the public. There could be a ton of good reasons why that happened. We just don't know more yet. And so for the defense, the problem here is going to be trying to put something out in the public, to put something out in front of the jury, to put something out in front of the judge that can act as real mitigation and kind of explain why this person would be driving with a loaded gun and feel the need to use it in that way. it's a really scary case for a lot of New Yorkers. I mean, New York is a city that we drive aggressively. And that usually works for all of us as long as we do it with a little bit of common sense. But the idea that something like merging onto the George Washington Bridge, which is a nightmare for any of us, or exit 31 on the BQE, for instance, the idea that that could lead then to someone pulling out a gun and firing into the car, it's something that a lot of us can really picture. And a lot of us have kids and families. And the idea that something as simple as two people trying to merge at the same time, and maybe one felt slighted by how the cars came in, could lead to a gun being pulled out and fired is a scary case. And on top of that then, you had this manslaughter situation where the case got downgraded, and that set the city on fire. Everyone was outraged, his family was outraged. The public was just outraged and didn't understand why. And so I think it has been corrected in terms of how the case should be handled. But it added a lot more sort of fuel to this news story. And that's a hard thing to overcome. For a defense attorney, absolutely. And also as the facts emerge, as they emerge in court, as this case goes on, we'll get a much clearer line. Because I don't think we still have like a really clear line, like a timeline of what happened, because there were there been some reports that that Victor Romero actually chased down Crown Irvine, that he followed him and then went then shot him after following him. And then the other fact that seems to be undisputed is that he never made any 911 call. This happened and he just gets out of there and, you know, no call, no nothing. Yeah, I mean, that's a really difficult part of this case. And, you know, I think we're going to learn a lot more about what happened because it was on the George Washington Bridge. There are cameras, there are dash cams on cars. cars, I think we will be able to see in real time sort of how it unfolded. But you also look at what someone did afterwards in terms of what their motivations were in terms of any mitigation afterwards. And the fact that he drove home, it would be really tough to argue that he didn't know he fired the weapon, right? And so if you knew you fired the weapon and you saw the car swerve off, which I don't know if he did or didn't, but he knew the weapon was fired. And then you just go home, you go to work the next day. That's a really tough sell that you were concerned that you may have just seriously injured or even possibly killed someone, which is obviously what happened here. And so I think the defense attorneys are gonna have a real challenge here. I mean, I'm not saying anything that the public doesn't already know, but they're gonna have to think very hard if there is a self-defense argument that can be made, and then an emotional distress that he just couldn't tell right from wrong. And he was just outside of his body really at the moment and wasn't thinking clearly. But these are arguments that don't necessarily get you out of being charged with murder or manslaughter. And so they've got a long road ahead of them. No, absolutely. And then the other issue too is just the fact that that that you know raised red flags for for a lot of us reporters was basically we know the George Washington Bridge we know the level of security if you if you use it you know how confusing those entrance ramps are especially on the New York side uh going into New Jersey and you see the Port Authority police or other police on both sides of the of the bridge the Port Authority police sometimes NYPD on the New York side and then same thing on the New Jersey side with New Jersey of various jurisdictions from New Jersey police along with Port Authority police there it's like how was he not stopped you know after the after this happened like how did that just i mean it's hard to imagine he was just driving you know the recommended 35 miles an hour whatever it is when you're crossing the bridge and there's just a lot of questions that people have about this but is there any mitigating circumstance because since he wasn't stopped we don't know if he was under the influence of any type of a drug or substance or alcohol or anything like that and then you know can you carry an open gun in a car in New York even if you're licensed to do it i mean these are the questions that people are asking well he had a concealed carry uh permit from what i understand and that was part of um i believe what he was allowed to keep that when he uh when he retired um but you know we don't yes we don't know if he was under the influence or of anything because he wasn't pulled over right away. But there's also nothing to suggest that he was. And I don't want to put that out there that that's a real possibility because there's nothing to show us that that had happened, that was part of this case yet. But yeah, I mean, we don't know so much still, including how he got home and, like you said, the manner in which he drove. And so I think we just have to wait at this point because there's gonna be more evidence that released, there's going to be more that we learn as these court appearances move on. And one thing is that when you do a bail application, when they do that renewed bail application on November 23rd, the prosecutor is going to tell the judge why they think Romero should now be remanded, but in doing so, they're going to give a description of the evidence against him. And that's going to be part of that application. And so I think we'll be able to learn a lot more then as well. And so there's a possibility That that that court dates November 23rd, that then if they decide to remand him, would he be taken? Would he be taken into custody right then and there in the courtroom? Because we've seen that sometimes. And that happened. He would be taken into custody immediately. And then the other the other issue to Adam, before we go, that you've spoken on so eloquently in the past, too, is this. this entire incident is resonating in a very different way, particularly for black and brown men because of things that have happened in the past with how they were treated at the criminal justice system. Just give us your take on that. Why do you think that is? Yeah, I mean, the reality is that our criminal justice system arrests more, and the NYPD arrests a disproportionate amount of black and brown people. And if you talk to a criminal defense attorney who's in it every day and who represents thousands of clients, they're gonna tell you that the majority of their clients are people of color. And that breeds a certain level of distrust in this city. And so when you see someone who's a retired officer getting what appears to be special treatment both by the NYPD and the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, it can set this place ablaze and it can set the temperature way up in this city. And I think you really felt that immediately for a couple of days. And it really wasn't until the other day when he was indicted for murder that I think everything started to cool down a little bit. But it would be disingenuous if we don't recognize the fact that there is a real mistrust of the NYPD and the bureaucracy of the district attorney's office in every borough by a huge population of New York City residents. And that's just something that is a reality of life in this country right now and in this city. And so you can disagree with the reasons why or the legitimacy of it. But I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to find someone who's being honest that would say that that isn't at least a real part of what's going on in this case and how this city and this country sort of carries out its criminal justice. Right, and I wanna point out too, it's like the NYPD over the last 10 years has become much more diverse in terms of the members in terms of the police department itself and that the detectives because i know i've spoken with a number of detectives both active and retired who were just heart sick about this whole thing and we have to look at the cases too there have been so many cases that we've seen and that we see you know like the shooting of we just talked about it earlier with Antoine Lewis for breaking news. A 15-year-old shot and killed in the Bronx at 9:24 in the morning. They solve these cases very, very quickly. They go where the crime is, and that's where they are. And that's what they'll say. And they've been able to take crime down in many areas in the city, especially with the shootings, although it looks like that's starting to change a little bit. But with the shootings and with the murders, they've been able to reduce them. But in terms of that, the relationship with the uh communities of color that still has a ways to go from what many of the leaders are saying about that but um Adam Kanta i want to thank you so much for uh being with us again so just one point what i said that was the last thing but it wasn't the um in terms do you think he will be remanded on the 23rd what would be your if this case proceeds the way these cases typically do what would be your guess there i think he will be remanded on the 23rd but let me just say one thing before I go too I'm not one of the defense attorneys who thinks that we shouldn't have police in the city or that all cops are bad. I think a lot of cops do great work and really care about this city and are out there to protect people. I really truly believe that and I've met more good cops than I've met bad cops. But the problem is a police officer has a tremendous amount of power And so if you have a bad police officer if you have someone that has racial biases they can do incredible damage in a neighborhood and to a family. And that's just the reality of their position. That's why you try to put people in positions of power that can be responsible with it. And so it's not just that we're out saying that every cop is a bad cop. But my goodness when you have one, what they can do and how they can negatively in fact, impact a community can be really profound for that community. No, absolutely. Absolutely. Criminal defense attorney Adam Kanta partner in Kanta, Georges and Buzza Thank you so much for being with us for this edition of Newsroom Live. We appreciate it. Talking about the George Washington Bridge this tragic shooting that happened there. Thank you so much for joining us. And we'll be back right after this