Bronx

Published on: February 13, 2012

Defendant Moves for Forfeiture in Drug Case

by Stephen Bilkis

A 40-year old man was arrested and charged with several drug crimes and violations, including criminal drug possession of a controlled substance, criminal use of drug paraphernalia, unlawful marijuana possession, and unlawful possession of fire works.

The accused, despite the absence of the district attorney, was permitted to enter a plea of the crime of possession of a controlled substance, which is classified as a misdemeanor. A New York Criminal Lawyer reported that the DA argued that he is authorized to exercise his right to proceed for forfeiture asserting that such proceeding can be brought against a person not even charged or convicted of any crime. Thus, the DA said, forfeiture against one convicted of a misdemeanor crime is appropriate.

A review of relevant criminal laws discloses that a forfeiture proceeding may be brought for a “pre-conviction forfeiture crime.” The court deduced that the only crime for which a forfeiture may be sought and ordered in advance of a conviction are the felony of criminal marijuana possession in the first degree and the crime of criminal sale of marijuana in the first degree. While the law authorizes the commencement of a forfeiture action before conviction for what are clumsily called “post conviction” forfeiture crimes, which are crimes other than the denominated drug related charges called “pre-conviction forfeiture crimes,” the statute nonetheless expressly provides that a court may not grant forfeiture until the conviction has occurred, the court noted.

Published on: February 12, 2012

Supreme Court Rules on Sex Crimes Case

by Stephen Bilkis

Almost every New York Criminal Lawyer is aware of the fact that for various sex crimes, sex offenders are set to register for them to be treated properly and also as a way to protect the rest of the citizens of the society. In this particular case to be discussed, there are three accused sex offenders who refuse to register under this legal act. All of them were involved with having committed kidnapping. They insist that their rights have been violated since there were no proofs that they really did it.

The first one accused is defendant #1. She was seen approaching a group of little children in the park and allegedly grabbed an eight year old kid. Her motive was to have a replacement of one of her own kids whom she has lost due to custody. The next one was defendant #2 who allegedly locked his girlfriend who has two little kids in her own apartment. The reason is that he did not want his girlfriend to break up with him. The last one is defendant #3 who employed a prostitute. When his employee decided to quit, he was accused of kidnapping the woman’s son so the woman would go back to working for him.

As per the Supreme Court’s judgment, all three should be assisted by a Bronx Criminal Lawyer under the Sex Offender Registration Act. But as already mentioned, they all protested and did not want to succumb to it. The main reason of the three is that they may be guilty of kidnapping but they were never found guilty of sexually abusing the minors they have abducted. But if SORA will be reviewed, it includes unlawful imprisonment and kidnapping in the list of crimes committed.

Published on: February 12, 2012

Court Rules on Sex Acts with Minors Case

by Stephen Bilkis

A jury convicted David L. Perkins of numerous crimes arising out of his conduct in providing alcohol to and engaging in sex acts with his daughter’s teenage friends. County Court had imposed the maximum sentence, an entire sum of 36 years in prison.

According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, Perkins asserted that there was legally insufficient evidence to convict him of sexual abuse because the court had failed to establish that the victim was physically helpless but the court asserted that the victim’s testimony that she blacked out and “was so drunk that she didn’t know what was going on,” was sufficient to establish the presence of physical helplessness.

A Booklyn Criminal Lawyer who witnessed the trial said that each victim testified consistently and with particularity about the sexual acts committed against them by Perkins and to being provided with alcohol at Perkin’s house. The court said that contrary to Perkin’s testimony, the record clearly revealed that the victims were under the age of 17 at the time of the crimes. The court also stressed that although some of the victims could not recall the precise dates or times of the incidents, “any consistencies regarding date and time did not render all of their testimony incredible as a matter of law, and we find no basis upon which to disturb the jury’s resolution of this credibility issues”.

Published on: February 12, 2012

Court Rules on Disturbing Sex with Minors Case

by Stephen Bilkis

In late 2002 and 2003, Phillip Riback, a pediatric neurologist, was charged with two indictments, later consolidated, with 39 criminal counts alleging that he had sex crimes with numerous male patients during medical examinations between 1997 and 2002. After pretrial proceedings in which some counts were dismissed, Phillip Riback went to trial on 30 counts. He was ultimately convicted of 28 counts, 12 felonies and 16 misdemeanors.

A New York Criminal Lawyer who followed the case, said that the convictions stem from the testimony of 14 boys, none of whom knew one another (except two were brothers), whose families consulted defendants for their sons’ various neurological problems. The boys described a variety of conduct that occurred for the most part after their parents complied with Riback’s request that they leave the boys alone with him in the examining room, at which time defendant encouraged them to play a “controlled spitting” game with him, tickled, hugged or kissed them or play-wrestled with them, pushed his erect penis against their bodies, held them upside down by their ankles or had the boys sit or lay on him, during which time Riback’s hands or face came into contact with the boys’ genitals, mostly over clothing (several described defendant’s direct –underneath clothing- contact with their penis), or the boys’ faces were pushed to Riback’s genital area over clothing. The lawyer said that all of the contact occurred in the subterfuge of a medical exam by Riback, often accompanied by warnings not to tell anyone.

Philip Riback’s conduct was first partially revealed in 2002, according to a New York Crimnal Lawyer, when one of the patient made revelations first to his mother and then to the Town of Colonie Police Department and the Department of Health’s Office of Professional Medical Conduct (OPMC), later providing a signed statement to the police recounting the extent of Riback’s sexual contact with him in December 2001, when he was nine years old. After another complaint by another family to OPMC of Riback’s conduct to his patients and came other allegations, Riback was arrested. The arrest was covered by the media and over 100 people contacted the police and 50 were interviewed, which leads to the subject indictment.

Published on: February 12, 2012

Court Rule on Drug Possession Case

by Stephen Bilkis

A 37-year old man has been indicted for the drug possession, sale of a controlled substance and other drug related charges. Under the revised criminal laws relating to drug crimes, each of the crime charged is classified as an A–III felony, punishable by an indeterminate term of imprisonment, the minimum period of which, for a first offender, is from one to eight and one-third years, and the maximum of which is life imprisonment.

The accused demanded for the dismissal of his indictment based on constitutional grounds. The accused specifically assailed the validity of certain criminal laws on the ground that these provisions do violence to his due process and equal protection rights and that they are inconsistent with the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment under the Federal and New York Constitutions.

According to the court, the gist of the accused’s cruel and unusual punishment claim is that the penalty which has been legislatively imposed and must be judicially imposed, if there is a conviction, is too harsh for the alleged drug crimes. The accused argued that the quantities of heroin involved here are minute and that the entire amount of his gain from each of the transactions with which he is charged was $60.

Published on: February 11, 2012

Court Rules on Sex Crimes Comitted by Defendant with Mental Health Issues

by Stephen Bilkis

There are many sex crimes these days that are discovered by a New York Criminal Lawyer to have been caused by mental health or abnormality. Aside from SORA there is also the SOMTA or what is called as the Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act which deals with sex crimes that involve the Mental Hygiene Law. In this particular case, the defendant is convicted of promoting prostitution, kidnapping and also bail jumping. He was given the charge of 9 to 18 years for kidnapping, 4 to 8 years for the kidnapping, and 3 to 6 years for the bail jumping.

Nelson forced his victim and raped her over and over again. He even forced her to be a prostitute and even physically beat her including the involvement of drugs. He was a detained sex offender who was found out to have been suffering from some kind of mental abnormality. According to a New York law as discussed by a Bronx Criminal Lawyer describes SOMTA as crimes that are sexually motivated.

Hence, it is the court’s decision to find out if the previous sex crimes committed by an accused person are motivated by a mental abnormality that is driven with the need for sex. All these should go through the proper criminal proceeding to make it very fair and carry out justice pretty well. Such acts like SOMTA are meant to protect the society from the danger of these free roaming sex offenders. It is only through the programs for treatment and proper management to help the accused to recover and have a bright future and at the same time to protect the citizens of the society.

Published on: February 11, 2012

Court Rules on Sex Crimes Case

by Stephen Bilkis

These days, it is very hard to trust others especially when it comes to leaving our kids with people who you can truly rely on. There are many cases these days where nannies and even babysitters are accused of committing sex crimes that involve the children of their own employers according to a New York Criminal Lawyer. This goes the same for this case that is considered as an example here in this report for you to understand better the legal proceedings for such cases. The one involved here as the accused is James Watt.

Watt was convicted of rape, sodomy and for putting into danger the welfare of a little child. The crimes involved in his case are considered very heinous since it was committed against innocent and helpless tiny girls who are under 11 years old. These kids according to their parents were entrusted to him since he operates a basement based daycare center in the community. The problem that made everything worse because the daycare center was not registered.

All of the kids involved as victims gave their testimonies in detail even if it was really heinously specific in detail. A Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer backed this all up with formal medical evidence from experts done through proper medical examinations of the children. Many of them already showed suffering from diseases which are sexually transmitted. It was actually very sensitive to discuss but this could be a true learning experience for many and how they would be able to protect their children. The total number of crimes that was perpetrated against him includes twelve kids. This of course means that this case should be well investigated and be well prepared.

Published on: February 11, 2012

Court Rules on Drug Crime Case

by Stephen Bilkis

According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, in July of 1974, a man who pleaded guilty for sale prohibited drugs was charged of life imprisonment with no possibility of probation and lifetime parole. According to reports, this rule was first given the highest force of law in United States in 1910 which during that time was considered to be fair and just, but does it follow that what was fair and just 70 or more years ago applies now.

Based on reports, of all the class A felonies such as arson, kidnapping, murder, only the narcotics possession and sale offenses are prohibited from being reduced by plea bargaining. Thus, a person who kills intentionally, who causes serious physical injury in the course of a robbery, who rapes a child, who blows up an occupied building, faces a maximum term of 25 years, or a maximum of 30 years for a series of such acts before being imprisoned on any one of them. Although imprisonment is mandatory, no minimum term may be imposed unless the court gives reasons for concluding that the best interest of the public requires it because of the nature and circumstances of the crime and of the history and character of the defendant.

A New York Criminal Lawyer revealed that a man charged of cocaine possession will not remain on parole for the rest of his life, nor will he be denied the opportunity to engage in plea bargaining. Crack possession is considered to be worse than a person who kills intentionally, who causes serious physical injury in the course of a robbery, who rapes a child, who blows up an occupied building,whether he sells a bag of heroin for profit or to support his own addiction or whether he gives away a ‘fix’ to a desperately sick friend suffering from withdrawal pains (where the consequences to the ‘victim’ and to society are minimal, by any scale of values), the mandatory maximum penalty of life remains the same.

Published on: February 11, 2012

Court Rules of Constitutionality of the Drug Law of 1972

by Stephen Bilkis

On October 16, 1974, the Albany County Court in People v. Hollingsworth had an occasion to rule on the constitutionality of the penalty imposed by the Drug Law of 1973. The said law imposes a mandatory penalty of life imprisonment on certain drug crimes, making the penalty equivalent to that of heinous crimes, such as kidnapping or murder.

In the said case, the defendant was charged with the criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. Prior to trial, the defendant sought the dismissal of the case because, according to him, the law infringes on his constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, among others. He anchored his claim on the decision of the Monroe County Court in People v. Mosley, where it was held that certain provisions of the Drug Law is unconstitutional for being a cruel and unusual punishment.

In drug possession cases, it must be noted that the standard by which the court must determine whether a particular punishment is cruel and unusual, and hence violative of the Constitutions, is the modern concept of cruelty and unusualness prevailing in society at the time the question is raised.

Published on: February 10, 2012

Court Rules on Sex Crimes Case

by Stephen Bilkis

Sexual abuse can be everywhere, it might be occurring in our own home. According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, on September 5, 1995, the defendant was convicted by the County Court of crimes of sexual abuse and endangering the welfare of a child. During trial, the 13-year-old victim testified that prior to the commission of the crimes, the defendant, a 31-year-old live in companion of the victim’s aunt, told her that he wanted to rape her and have a baby with her. She further testified that he threatened to kill her whole family if she revealed his feelings about her to anyone. The victim indicated that she believed these threats and, for that reason, did not immediately report the crimes.

Based on the New York Sex Crime Lawyer, the defendant’ initial argument on his appeal was that the jury’s verdict finding him guilty of two counts of the crime of sexual abuse is not supported by legally sufficient evidence in that there is no proof of forcible compulsion. As relevant here, ‘Forcible Compulsion’ means to compel by either use of physical force; or a threat, express or implied, which places a person in fear of immediate death or physical injury to herself or another person. The higher court held that given the victim’s young age and the defendant’s dominance over her by reason of his age and relationship with her aunt, the jury could have reasonably inferred that he accomplished the sexual contact through the use of threats that placed the victim in fear of immediate death or physical injury to herself or members of her family.

Another argument that Archer had pointed out was that he was discriminated by the admission of evidence regarding prior bad acts of sexual nature that he purportedly perpetrated upon the victim. Generally, a Long Island Criminal Lawyer said, such evidence may not be offered to show the defendant’s bad character or his inclination toward crime but may be admitted if the acts help establish some element of the crime under investigation. This exception was said to be applicable in this case since the challenged testimony was admitted to establish that he engaged in a course of conduct that was likely to be injurious to the physical or moral of the victim, an essential element of the crime of endangering the welfare of a child that was charged in two counts of indictment.