Bronx

Published on: August 26, 2012

Defendant is Charged with Robbery

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

In the early fall of 1986, defendant-appellant and his friend travelled from the friend’s home in Fort Lauderdale, Florida to New York. On 10 October 1986, defendant-appellant dropped his friend off at a shopping mall on Long Island, New York. When he returned a few hours later, he told his friend that he had robbed a bank during his absence. The friend noticed red stains on the interior of defendant-appellant’s car, which later proved to have come from a red dye bomb attached to the stolen money bags. A New York Criminal Lawyer said after defendant-appellant rejoined his friend, they, the couple, used some of the stolen money to pay for lodging in a local hotel.

On 13 October 1986, or three days later, defendant-appellant was arrested by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and detectives of the Suffolk County, New York Police Department. He was charged under New York state law with the armed robbery. Defendant-appellant’s friend was also apprehended by the FBI. She immediately agreed to cooperate with their investigation of defendant-appellant, and several days later testified before a New York state grand jury in connection with both the 10 October 1986 bank robbery and another robbery allegedly committed by defendant-appellant in 2 September 1986. Defendant-appellant’s friend was not charged in either of these crimes, and returned home to Fort Lauderdale after her appearance before the grand jury.

Published on: August 26, 2012

Court Discusses Setting Bail

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

Sometime in 1971, the plaintiffs brought a class action 10 against eight judges and other state officials including the State Attorney of Dade County, Florida, asking the federal district court to declare unconstitutional and to enjoin two practices of the defendants: the pretrial detention of arrestees without a judicial determination of probable cause, and the pretrial detention of indigent defendants solely because they were unable to post money bail as a condition of release.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the trial court held for the plaintiffs on the first charge and for the defendants on the second.

Published on: August 25, 2012

Court Hears Illegal Abortion Case

by Stephen Bilkis

Hospitals in 1955 were required by the statutory law of New York to report all procedures that involve the termination of a pregnancy. The superintendent of all New York hospitals is required to report each procedure and to subdivide the procedures into categories that reflect the nature of the termination of the pregnancy. In 1955, abortions were illegal in the state of New York. The only permitted abortions were those that were necessary to save the life of the mother. This type of abortion was termed a therapeutic abortion. The only other categories of abortion were natural and illegal. Any time that a woman naturally aborts the fetus, it is called a spontaneous abortion. A Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer said there is nothing that can be done to prevent a spontaneous abortion. Sometimes, nature just detects something that modern medicine cannot and the pregnancy is self terminating. The illegal abortions are called induced. An induced abortion may be caused by actions or omissions by the mother, or by some other person. Some doctors have been known to perform illegal abortions for women in the state.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said New York law requires that the superintendent of a hospital to accurately report the number of therapeutic, spontaneous, and induced abortions that are performed, or that occur in their establishment. In 1955, the prosecutor in Kings county suspected that the superintendent of Kings County Hospital in Brooklyn was not ensuring that his doctors were reporting the numbers accurately. In order to determine if any illegal abortions were being performed in the hospital the prosecutor needed to be able to examine the records of all of the abortions that were performed in the hospital for that year. He demanded that an emergency Grand Jury be convened to demand that the hospital provide all of the medical records of all of the abortions that occurred in the hospital that year.

The superintendent of the hospital refused to provide the records. He claimed that the demand for the records of women who had committed no crimes would be an illegal search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The prosecutor filed charges of contempt of court against the superintendent of Kings Hospital following his refusal to disclose the personal information of innocent women in the state of New York who had not been charged or found guilty of any crime. In fact, there was no probable cause to suspect that any of them had been guilty of a crime. There was little more than a hunch on the part of the prosecutor that someone may have avoided being turned in for an illegal abortion in the hospital. By riffling through innocent American’s personal medical records, the prosecutor hoped to find a few who were guilty of a crime. Many women who had suffered through miscarriages would be forced to have their personal information reviewed by the court. Many who had to suffer through therapeutic abortions to ensure that they survived would have to explain their choices to a prosecutor. The superintendent of the hospital flatly refused to deliver the medical records of the patients of his hospital to the Grand Jury for review.

Published on: August 25, 2012

Court Discusses Provisions of Mental Hygiene Law

by Stephen Bilkis

The state of New York is the petitioner in this case. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of Bronx County. The New York State Attorney General filed a petition stating that the respondent is a detained sex offender who requires civil management according to the Mental Hygiene Law, article 10.

Case Background

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the respondent pleaded guilty to sexual abuse in the first degree on the 31st of January, 2001. He was sentenced on the 2nd of March, 2001 to a term of five years incarceration in a state prison. His sentence included five years of probation after his release from prison.

Published on: August 25, 2012

Court Looks at Jurisdiction Issue in Murder Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

Defendant was indicted for murder in the circuit court for the district of Massachusetts. The indictment was founded on the 8th section of the act of congress 30 April 1790 and was tried upon the plea of not guilty. A New York Criminal Lawyer said it appeared in evidence that the offence charged in the indictment was committed by the prisoner on 6 November 1816 on board the United States ship of war Independence, rated a ship of the line of seventy-four guns, then in commission, and in the actual service of the United States. At that time, defendant was a marine duly enlisted, and in the service of the United States, and was acting as sentry regularly posted on board of said ship, and the other individual, the deceased named in the indictment, was at the same time duly enlisted and in the service of the United States as cook’s mate on board of the said ship.

At the time of the alleged murder, the ship was lying at anchor in the main channel of Boston harbours in waters of a sufficient depth at all times of tide for ships of the largest class and burden, and to which there is at all times a free and unobstructed passage to the open sea or ocean. To and beyond the position or place, the civil and criminal processes of the courts of the state of Massachusetts, have hitherto constantly been served and obeyed. The prisoner was first apprehended for the offence in the district of Massachusetts.

Published on: August 24, 2012

Defendant Argues He Should be Classified as a Level 3 Sex Offender

by Stephen Bilkis

The People of the State of New York are the plaintiffs in this case. The County Court of the City of New York in Madison County is the location where this case is being heard.

The defendant was convicted based on a guilty plea, to rape in the second degree, which is a class D felony. A New York Criminal Lawyer said he was sentenced on the 5th of September, 2002 to an indeterminate period of 1 to 3 years. He is scheduled to be released to parole on the 25th of April, 2004. The court is being called upon to assess the risk of the defendant.

Defendant’s History

Published on: August 23, 2012

Court Looks at Racial Discrimination in Employment Practices

by Stephen Bilkis

This is the latest appeal growing out of the nearly two-decade old, racial discrimination in employment lawsuit involving the Alabama Department of Transportation (ALDOT) and the State Personnel Department (SPD). Those two state agencies were sued in 1985 by what became two plaintiff classes of black employees and prospective employees. A New York Criminal Lawyer said a partial settlement was reached and a consent decree was entered in 1994, but instead of ending the case the decree became a platform for additional litigation.

The consent decree, aimed at ending racial discrimination in ALDOT’s employment practices, has twenty-one articles. This appeal is about Article Two, which governs the development and use of “minimum qualifications” (MQs), which are part of the selection procedure for hiring and promoting employees in ALDOT jobs. A job seeker wanting to sit for an employment examination must meet the MQs first. MQs are designed to screen for skills needed at entry into a new position, and can screen for, among other things, “knowledge, skills and abilities” (KSAs) relevant to a position. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the job examinations themselves measure KSAs.

The provision of Article Two that was modified by the district court is ¶ 1, which is called “the no-overlap provision.” This is what the paragraph says:

Published on: August 22, 2012

Defendant Contends Violations of Search and Seizure Law

by Stephen Bilkis

Seldom has this Court considered a more spectacular or bizarre case than this habeas corpus petition of an experienced Texas criminal lawyer, former mayor of the City of Pasadena, Texas, who was found guilty in Texas State Court of being the mastermind and accomplice in an especially brutal and horrible assault and robbery, but who contends that he was invalidly convicted in violation of federal constitutional rights.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, the is presently serving a sixty-year sentence imposed by the Criminal District Court of Harris County, Texas. A jury found him guilty in a separate trial as an accomplice to the crime of robbery by firearms, committed by three principals. The defendant has appealed from the denial of his petition for habeas corpus by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.

On appeal Hoover has asserted two claims of error to the denial below of his habeas corpus petition based on federal constitutional grounds. First, he contends that the Court erred in refusing to sustain alleged violations of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The State Trial Court admitted into evidence two diamonds seized from the defendant’s home during a nighttime search conducted by the Houston Police Department. Defendant argues that the search was made without his voluntary consent, by police officers acting under color of a search warrant which was invalid. Secondly, the defendant asserts that his right to confrontation under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments was infringed when the State Trial Court admitted into evidence the oral confession of alleged principal and co-indictee. A Nassau County Criminal Lawyer said the confession, which also implicated the defendant as an accomplice, was admitted during the testimony of the police officer to whom the defendant confessed, pursuant to a well-established Texas exception to the hearsay rule which allows the confession of a principal to be admitted at the trial of an accomplice to prove the principal’s guilt, proof of such guilt being a necessary prerequisite to conviction of an accomplice to the offense.

Published on: August 21, 2012

Defendants Seek Suppression of Evidence

by Stephen Bilkis

On this proceeding, a real estate company and a man move for a relief, in which both of them seek inspection of the grand jury minutes, suppression of evidence, discovery and disclosure. The real estate company and the man are both charged under count one with attempted promoting prostitution in the third Degree.

The City of New York’s proof consisted of the testimony of two undercover police officers. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the first undercover officer testified that when he entered in the real estate’s office with another undercover officer and spoke to a real estate agent, he indicated that he wanted to rent a house in the neighborhood. The real estate agent arranged to show a house to the undercover officer. While walking to the house, the real estate agent explained that the owner wanted the house to be used for commercial purposes. The undercover officer speaks with the agent in Spanish language explaining that it would not be a problem because he was in the people’s business and that the house would be the house of prostitution. The real estate agent then allegedly explained to the undercover officer that the house they were going to see would not be suitable for that purpose because it had recently been used as a house of prostitution. It had been closed down by the police, with extensive media coverage. The real estate agent said that he would try to find another house that would be more suitable.

Afterwards, the undercover officer returned to the real estate’s office. On that occasion, the original real estate agent was assisted by the man who was introduced to the undercover officers as being a real estate agent who had some prior knowledge with that kind of business. The man suggested a house that was in a secluded area.

Published on: August 21, 2012

Defendants Claim Due Process Rights Violated

by Stephen Bilkis

Respondent inmates brought this class action in Federal District Court challenging the constitutionality of numerous conditions of confinement and practices in the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC), a federally operated short-term custodial facility in New York City designed primarily to house pretrial detainees for federal criminal offense. The District Court, on various constitutional grounds, enjoined, the practice of housing, primarily for sleeping purposes, two inmates in individual rooms originally intended for single occupancy (“double-bunking”); enforcement of the so-called “publisher-only” rule prohibiting inmates from receiving hard-cover books that are not mailed directly from publishers, book clubs, or bookstores; the prohibition against inmates’ receipt of packages of food and personal items from outside the institution; the practice of body-cavity searches of inmates following contact visits with person from outside institution; and the requirement that pretrial detainees remain outside their rooms during routine inspections by MCC officials. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the Court of Appeals affirmed these rulings, holding with respect to the “double-bunking” practice that the MCC had failed to make a showing of “compelling necessity” sufficient to justify such practice.

The issue in this case is whether the constitutional rights of the inmates has been violated because of the conditions of confinement and practices imposed by the MCC, a facility designed to house a pre-trial detainees who committed federal criminal offense.

The Court held that, “double-bunking” practice does not deprive pretrial detainees of their liberty without due process of law in contravention of the Fifth Amendment.