[moredasers]

How ridiculous, in more ways than one. And why is prostitution still a crime?


With One Word, Adding a Twist to a Prostitution Case

By JOHN ELIGON

Slept through conjunction lessons in third grade? Well, here’s a reason you might want to freshen up.

A Manhattan criminal court case against two women charged with prostitution may be in jeopardy after defense lawyers argued on Tuesday that the prosecution erroneously used the word “and” instead of “or” in the charging document filed in court.

The defendants, Cassandra Malandri and Falynn Rodriguez, “on or about June 20, 2008, engaged, agreed and offered to engage in sexual conduct with another person for a fee,” the document read.

That wording does not jibe with how the statute defines the crime, defense lawyers said. The statute reads that a “person engages or agrees or offers to engage.”

Prosecutors used “the conjunctive, not the disjunctive,” said Ikiesha Al-Shabazz, who is representing Ms. Malandri with the Strazzullo firm.

“When you change an ‘and’ to an ‘or,’ or vice versa, you significantly change the material elements that have to be proven and the factual elements that have to be proven,” Ms. Al-Shabazz added later.

But prosecutors countered those arguments, saying that the wording should allow them to continue to pursue their case.

“We grouped the prosecutor’s information in the conjunctive,” said Daryl Reed, an assistant district attorney. “However, we’re not required by law to have proof of them all.”

Ms. Malandri and Ms. Rodriguez are charged with offering to have sex with undercover detectives for $5,000. If convicted of the prostitution charges, each faces up to 90 days in jail.

Although using an “and” instead of an “or” actually makes the case more difficult for the prosecution – they will have to prove all three of those things instead of just one – Ms. Al-Shabazz said that the error opened the door for prosecutors to throw in additional accusations and evidence outside the scope of what they have alleged.

“It’s not just a small word,” she said outside the courtroom. “It’s paramount.”

ShawnDya Simpson, the judge presiding over the case, said she would rule on the motion to dismiss Wednesday morning.

Despite the technical error, it seems unlikely that the judge would throw out the charges. She may allow the prosecution to amend its charging document or may rule that the wording was a harmless error.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/20...e/#more-123401