NEW YORK CITY, NY - Dexter Taylor, a 52-year-old Brooklyn man, was convicted last week of 13 weapons charges. The conviction comes nearly two years after Taylor was arrested in 2022 on charges related to gunsmithing.
According to RedState, the software engineer discovered his hobby several years ago. Taylor took up gunsmithing and intended on eventually turning the hobby into a business. That goal was halted when it was discovered by a task force of ATF and NYPD that Taylor was “legally buying parts from various companies.”
The discovery led to an open investigation and eventually a raid by SWAT that resulted in Taylor’s arrest.
While two lesser charges were dropped, Taylor was found guilty of prohibition on unfinished frames or receivers, unlawful possession of pistol ammunition, five counts of criminal possession of a firearm, violation of certificate registration, four counts of third-degree criminal possession of a weapon, second degree possession of five or more firearms, and second-degree criminal possession of a loaded weapon.
Taylor’s case is setting up to be a landmark case for the Second Amendment, and not in a good way.
Vinoo Varghese, Taylor’s attorney, noted that there was evidence from the start of the trial that there would be bias against Taylor. Prior to Judge Abena Darkeh presiding over the case, two other judges presided over the case.
During Varghese’s opening statement, Judge Darkeh repeatedly interrupted him. The judge even went as far as telling the defense not to reference the Second Amendment in the proceedings.
“Do not bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom. It doesn’t exist here. So you can’t argue Second Amendment. This is New York,” the judge said.
A post on social media showing a photo of the judge and her statement has garnered more than 642 thousand views as of April 23 and commenters are scratching their heads.
This thought process is dangerous. And it should terrify and tick off every single American. Our constitutional rights absolutely exist and truly belong in every single courtroom in this country. To dismiss constitutional rights in a courtroom of all places, is irresponsible and un-American.
As Taylor’s trial continued, so did the bias. The prosecution was determined to make Taylor appear dangerous. Varghese attempted to counter the prosecution’s narrative by saying in his opening statement that “there’s no crime here, there’s no allegation of violence.”
“Varghese explained that he believed the only chance of having the case go in his client’s favor was through jury nullification,” RedState reported.
Jury nullification is legal, although Judge Darkeh “attempted to shut down his argument and led the jury to believe they would face consequences if they did not vote to convict Taylor.”
“I actually argued that jury nullification is allowed because there is some law from the High Court of New York that talks about lawyers who made jury nullification arguments. And basically, they said that judges shouldn’t encourage it, but they can’t prevent it. I actually made a pitch directly to Judge Darkeh to allow me to argue during nullification. She, of course, rejected that,” Varghese said.
“She basically said, ‘You must vote guilty’ without saying, ‘You must vote guilty,’” he continued.
Varghese also commented that Judge Darkeh was “the most aggressive prosecutor in the room.”
Nonetheless, on April 16, Taylor was taken into custody after being found guilty “of all but two counts.”
Taylor is being held on Rikers Island while he awaits sentencing. He faces 10-18 years in prison. This case is far from over as Varghese and Taylor are prepared to take the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. “We have a shot at winning in federal court,” Varghese said.
According to RedState, the software engineer discovered his hobby several years ago. Taylor took up gunsmithing and intended on eventually turning the hobby into a business. That goal was halted when it was discovered by a task force of ATF and NYPD that Taylor was “legally buying parts from various companies.”
The discovery led to an open investigation and eventually a raid by SWAT that resulted in Taylor’s arrest.
While two lesser charges were dropped, Taylor was found guilty of prohibition on unfinished frames or receivers, unlawful possession of pistol ammunition, five counts of criminal possession of a firearm, violation of certificate registration, four counts of third-degree criminal possession of a weapon, second degree possession of five or more firearms, and second-degree criminal possession of a loaded weapon.
Taylor’s case is setting up to be a landmark case for the Second Amendment, and not in a good way.
Vinoo Varghese, Taylor’s attorney, noted that there was evidence from the start of the trial that there would be bias against Taylor. Prior to Judge Abena Darkeh presiding over the case, two other judges presided over the case.
During Varghese’s opening statement, Judge Darkeh repeatedly interrupted him. The judge even went as far as telling the defense not to reference the Second Amendment in the proceedings.
“Do not bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom. It doesn’t exist here. So you can’t argue Second Amendment. This is New York,” the judge said.
A post on social media showing a photo of the judge and her statement has garnered more than 642 thousand views as of April 23 and commenters are scratching their heads.
This thought process is dangerous. And it should terrify and tick off every single American. Our constitutional rights absolutely exist and truly belong in every single courtroom in this country. To dismiss constitutional rights in a courtroom of all places, is irresponsible and un-American.
As Taylor’s trial continued, so did the bias. The prosecution was determined to make Taylor appear dangerous. Varghese attempted to counter the prosecution’s narrative by saying in his opening statement that “there’s no crime here, there’s no allegation of violence.”
“Varghese explained that he believed the only chance of having the case go in his client’s favor was through jury nullification,” RedState reported.
Jury nullification is legal, although Judge Darkeh “attempted to shut down his argument and led the jury to believe they would face consequences if they did not vote to convict Taylor.”
“I actually argued that jury nullification is allowed because there is some law from the High Court of New York that talks about lawyers who made jury nullification arguments. And basically, they said that judges shouldn’t encourage it, but they can’t prevent it. I actually made a pitch directly to Judge Darkeh to allow me to argue during nullification. She, of course, rejected that,” Varghese said.
“She basically said, ‘You must vote guilty’ without saying, ‘You must vote guilty,’” he continued.
Varghese also commented that Judge Darkeh was “the most aggressive prosecutor in the room.”
Nonetheless, on April 16, Taylor was taken into custody after being found guilty “of all but two counts.”
Taylor is being held on Rikers Island while he awaits sentencing. He faces 10-18 years in prison. This case is far from over as Varghese and Taylor are prepared to take the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. “We have a shot at winning in federal court,” Varghese said.
For corrections or revisions, click here.
The opinions reflected in this article are not necessarily the opinions of LET
Comments
2024-04-25T09:17-0400 | Comment by: Andrew
Gun control act in the 60s allows for manufacturing of private firearms, not for sale. This judge is the one who is dangerous.
2024-04-25T18:25-0400 | Comment by: gracey
communist china grooms democrats to destroy America for china.
2024-04-25T18:51-0400 | Comment by: Kevin
There sure seems to be something in common with many of these horrific false indictments and trials that violate the Constitution and people's rights.
2024-04-25T18:51-0400 | Comment by: Kevin
There sure seems to be something in common with many of these horrific false indictments and trials that violate the Constitution and people's rights.
2024-04-25T20:11-0400 | Comment by: Nelson
It's time America To take back our country from the fake politicians They should all be in jail
2024-04-25T20:11-0400 | Comment by: Nelson
It's time America To take back our country from the fake politicians They should all be in jail
2024-04-26T07:05-0400 | Comment by: Raconteur
The Founders never intended that the People sit idle as any part of the government acted illegally or ignored the Constitution. We the People delegate our authority to the government and We the People can take it back, by any means necessary. If Abena Darkeh had uttered that statement in the 1800’s, disparaging the Bill of Rights, she would have been lucky to survive the public backlash. Most likely, tar would have been heated, chickens plucked and a rail procured in preparation for a demonstration of the People’s displeasure. Why are the People of New York sitting idly while this insult for a judge makes a mockery of American justice and attempts to destroy the Constitution she swore to uphold?
2024-04-26T07:05-0400 | Comment by: Raconteur
The Founders never intended that the People sit idle as any part of the government acted illegally or ignored the Constitution. We the People delegate our authority to the government and We the People can take it back, by any means necessary. If Abena Darkeh had uttered that statement in the 1800’s, disparaging the Bill of Rights, she would have been lucky to survive the public backlash. Most likely, tar would have been heated, chickens plucked and a rail procured in preparation for a demonstration of the People’s displeasure. Why are the People of New York sitting idly while this insult for a judge makes a mockery of American justice and attempts to destroy the Constitution she swore to uphold?
2024-04-26T07:13-0400 | Comment by: EDWARD
The judge certainly laid a foundation for reversal. But more than that, I think a more proactive effort should be available to remove judges who openly interfere with the presentation of a case.
2024-04-26T11:35-0400 | Comment by: Terry
Please explain how a judge can arbitrarily decide that an Amendment to the U.S. Constutution not apply in her jurisdiction. This is Judicial Misconduct pure and simple and must be agressively addressed!
2024-04-26T12:56-0400 | Comment by: Robert
Maybe its time "We The People" start doing something about Public Servent's in office that do not follow OUR Constitution. Maybe it's time for some class action against their ignorance towards OUR Constitution! I do not care what state it is, the Constitution is the same in every state!
2024-04-26T13:38-0400 | Comment by: Laurence
As a judge she is sworn to uphold the US Constitution, yet she says amendments don't exist?? Remove her from the bench. She is a Black female, the defendant is a White male. That says it all.
2024-04-26T18:48-0400 | Comment by: Chris
Definitely not a court of law and for sure not American. Why would anyone live in such a place? New York is run by Nazis and should not be included in America.
2024-04-29T17:53-0400 | Comment by: Rick
And yet even after blatantly ignoring the U.S. Constitution, this piece of trash is still on the bench! Why hasn't she been removed?
2024-05-17T14:05-0400 | Comment by: David
I'm not an attorney, but I believe that this is a clear violation of Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution (commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause) which in essence states that the Constitution (which by definition includes the Bill of Rights) is the Supreme Law of the Land and therefore takes priority over conflicting state laws. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause#:~:text=The%20Supremacy%20Clause%20is%20essentially%20a%20conflict-of-laws%20rule,any%20state%20acts%20that%20conflict%20with%20federal%20law.)
2024-05-17T14:06-0400 | Comment by: David
I'm not an attorney, but I believe that this is a clear violation of Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution (commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause) which in essence states that the Constitution (which by definition includes the Bill of Rights) is the Supreme Law of the Land and therefore takes priority over conflicting state laws. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause#:~:text=The%20Supremacy%20Clause%20is%20essentially%20a%20conflict-of-laws%20rule,any%20state%20acts%20that%20conflict%20with%20federal%20law.)