The People of the State of New York are the plaintiffs of the case. The defendant in the matter is Joon Ho Chin. The case is being heard by Judge Randall T. Eng.
The defendant is using the doctrine for collateral estoppel in this particular case. The defendant, Joon Ho Chin, moves to preclude the plaintiff, the People of the State of New York, from introducing evidence that he used physical force in the alleged rape against the complainant of the case.
Case History
The defendant received an indictment for two counts of first degree rape, rape by forcible compulsion, and rape of a person who is physically helpless. The incident in question occurred on the 15th of October, 1997 at a motel in Queens.
During the first trial in the case the defendant was acquitted by the jury for forcible rape. However, he was convicted of raping a person who is physically helpless. This conviction has been set aside by the Second Department Appellate Division of the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeals has denied the application made by the People for leave. The matter at hand before the court is for a retrial for the count of physically helpless.
A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant is moving to preclude the plaintiff from introducing evidence into the case that he used physical force in connection with the rape. He argues that the acquittal from the jury in the first case on the charge of forcible rape bans the People from using evidence related to forcible rape in this case based on the doctrine for collateral estoppel.
Background of the Case
The complainant in this case is a woman from Korea who speaks little English. The defendant and the complainant met when she was visiting the United States in 1995. The two struck up a “friendship.” The woman returned to her family in Korea a short while later. The next year the defendant went to Seoul and contacted her. He mentioned that his wife was opening a restaurant in Queens, New York and made the suggestion that the complainant may work there. She was offered a job as a bookkeeper in the restaurant.
On the evening in question the defendant and the complainant attended a meeting about the restaurant. The defendant told her that her bookkeeping was not complete and they needed to discuss it. He then took her to a hotel and told her it was a quiet place where they could talk. They discussed the restaurant for about a half an hour and then the complainant tried to leave. The defendant grabbed her and pushed her onto the bed. She fought with him, but he eventually knocked her out. A Long Island Criminal Lawyer said she states that when she woke up she knew she had been sexually assaulted.
Case Discussion and Decision
This particular case is to determine whether the People should be allowed to submit evidence in the matter to prove forcible rape. The people argue that the original verdict made by the jury was for another matter and in this case they should be allowed to show that force was used.
After reviewing the facts of the case and the arguments from both sides, the court finds in favor of the defendant. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the defendant has already been acquitted on the forcible rape charge. The People will not be allowed to use evidence that show the defendant used force in committing the alleged rape.
If you need legal advice of any kind contact Stephen Bilkis & Associates. Our offices are located throughout New York City for your convenience. You may call us at any time to set up a free consultation to discuss your legal rights.