Brooklyn

Published on: April 8, 2012

When Should the Law Intervene In Domestic Violence Cases?

by Stephen Bilkis

Few people realize that they can be charged with child abuse or child neglect if they have a fight with someone in front of the child. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that most states currently have statutes that allow parents to be charged with child abuse or neglect if they are involved in a domestic dispute in the presence of the children. This is true, even if the child is not involved in the assault. If one spouse assaults the other, and one or more of their children are in the room with them, the primary aggressor in the assault can be charged with child abuse or neglect. There does not have to be any physical contact between the parent and the child. There does not even have to be any verbal assault of the child to qualify under the law.

Because of this change in the law in recent years, many parents have been charged with child abuse or neglect. In some cases, it is just not appropriate. Every family has disputes at one time or another. The ability of law enforcement to charge a parent with abuse or neglect for arguing with their spouse in the presence of the children is inappropriate. A Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer said many psychologists suggest that allowing children to see their parents disagree and then work out the issue together is important to teach children how to handle conflict in their own relationships as they mature. The obvious issue here is that if the parents become violent with each other, they start the cycle of domestic violence that may continue with their own children.

So when is it appropriate for the state to intervene? This line is blurry. Some people believe that state intervention is important at the verbal abuse stage and others believe that there should be physical contact between the spouses before the state makes any charges. Nevertheless, most states have criminal statutes that address verbal assaults. A Staten Island Criminal Lawyer said this type of assault usually involves placing another person in fear of an imminent physical assault. That is the difference. If the spouses are merely arguing to work out a problem, they may be angry at each other; but neither party is in fear that the other will actually harm them.

Published on: April 7, 2012

Court Rules on Domestic Violence and Child Neglect Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

In domestic violence cases, the law states that if an incident of domestic violence occurs in the presence of a child, that the involved parties are charged with the offense of cruelty to children, child neglect, or child abuse. Sometimes, the victim is inadvertently charged with child neglect.

In the heat of the moment when handling domestic violence calls, officers are called upon to make immediate judgments. Sometimes, these judgments are made mistakenly and the wrong party is charged in relationship to the incident. The statute orders officers to charge the primary aggressor of the domestic violence assault. Sometimes, it is not immediately clear which party involved in a domestic dispute is the primary aggressor. A New York Criminal Lawyer said these calls are complicated and emotionally charged. Many times, officers rely on the court system to sort through the involvements because they will see the incident after everyone has cooled off. Unfortunately, the courts are also overburdened and court officers have the same problems sorting out the issues. This was the case in an appeal that was requested on August 10, 2010.

A young mother was assaulted by her boyfriend in her home in front of her child. The altercation was volatile and police were called to the scene. The officer interviewed the child and the child stated that he was scared and nervous during the assault. Both the mother and her boyfriend were charged with child neglect. A Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer said when the case came to court, social services had already determined that the incidence of domestic violence had been isolated. The boyfriend was determined to be the primary aggressor. The mother had broken her relationship with the boyfriend and the incident was established to have been an isolated encounter.

Published on: April 5, 2012

Court Decide Child Neglect Case

by Stephen Bilkis

In domestic violence cases, the law states that if an incident of domestic violence occurs in the presence of a child, that the involved parties are charged with the offense of cruelty to children, child neglect, or child abuse. Sometimes, the victim is inadvertently charged with child neglect. In the heat of the moment when handling domestic violence calls, officers are called upon to make immediate judgments. Sometimes, these judgments are made mistakenly and the wrong party is charged in relationship to the incident. The statute orders officers to charge the primary aggressor of the domestic violence assault. Sometimes, it is not immediately clear which party involved in a domestic dispute is the primary aggressor. These calls are complicated and emotionally charged. Many times, officers rely on the court system to sort through the involvements because they will see the incident after everyone has cooled off. Unfortunately, the courts are also overburdened and court officers have the same problems sorting out the issues. This was the case in an appeal that was requested on August 10, 2010.

A young mother was assaulted by her boyfriend in her home in front of her child. The altercation was volatile and police were called to the scene. The officer interviewed the child and the child stated that he was scared and nervous during the assault. Both the mother and her boyfriend were charged with child neglect. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that when the case came to court, social services had already determined that the incidence of domestic violence had been isolated. The boyfriend was determined to be the primary aggressor. The mother had broken her relationship with the boyfriend and the incident was established to have been an isolated encounter.

The mother requested that her case be dismissed since the Family Court had already determined that she was no threat to the child. In fact, they determined that there was no reason to exercise any sanctions. They found that the child was healthy and that his mental and emotional condition was not impaired or in imminent danger of being impaired as a result of what they described as an isolated incident. The court established that the mother exercised good parenting skills and had an excellent relationship with the child. The child demonstrated a desire to continue residing with his mother. They found that the child and mother shared a positive relationship. When this situation was brought to the court’s attention, it was expected that the victim’s request to vacate the neglect case against her would be accepted. However, inexplicably the court refused to vacate her charge and found her guilty. The mother filed an appeal under the Family Court Act §105(c) stating that the agency’s evidence at the hearing failed to establish that any neglect had occurred in relation to this mother and her child. In essence, the state had failed to make their case by a preponderance of the evidence against the mother. The appellate court determined that the judgment in this case was flawed and that the case should have been vacated.

Published on: April 3, 2012

Court Rules on Domestic Violence

by Stephen Bilkis

A wife and her husband filed their individual action for the child custody of their twin son. The twins were in the Dominican Republic and it is undisputed that the father obtained a default order of custody there in 2002.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said a review of the documents of the Dominican proceedings confirms that the mother and father separated. At that time, in accordance to an agreement signed before the assistant to the prosecutor, the father consented to the terms of an order of protection, agreeing to refrain from assaulting the mother verbally or physically, and to vacate the family home until the mother was able to find other housing. He agreed to pay child support, and was given regular visitations as long as he behaves appropriately.

The mother left the Dominican Republic in December 1999, leaving the children with her mother and remarrying in June 2000. Five weeks later, while the mother was still in the United States, the father filed a claim for custody of the two children in the Court of the First Instance for Children and Adolescents. The maternal grandmother, who had physical custody of the children at the time, was named as offender in the matter.

Published on: April 3, 2012

Does the State’s failure to increase the compensation rates for assigned counsel violates the constitutional and statutory right to meaningful and effective representation

by Stephen Bilkis

A Lawyers’ Association filed for a rate increase to the State for their in and out of court work. The issue is whether the State’s failure to increase the compensation rates for assigned counsel violates the constitutional and statutory right to meaningful and effective representation.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the court finds beyond a reasonable doubt that it does and results in obstructing the judiciary’s ability to function, and declares the law that set those rates are unconstitutional as applied. The court also directed the payment of $90 an hour without distinction between in- and out-of-court work, and without ceilings on total per case compensation, until the governing body acts to address the issue.

Based from the evidence, the grim reality that children and indigent adults in the State Family Court, Criminal Court, and Criminal Term of Supreme Court are at unreasonable risk of being subjected to a process that is neither swift nor deliberate, and fails to confirm the confidence and reliability in the system of justice. It is a direct result of the law-making body’s failure to provide adequate compensation to the assigned counsel. The right of a criminal accused party or Family Court complainant to interpose an attorney between himself and the State with its considerable power and resources is a cherished principle, zealously protected by the State courts. The State continues to ignore its constitutional obligation to the poor by failing to increase the assigned counsel rates that result, in many cases, in denial of counsel, delay in the appointment of counsel, and less than meaningful and effective legal representation. Accordingly, the court declares portions of section of the County Law, section of the Family Court Act and section of the Judiciary Law to be unconstitutional as applied. These statutes were enacted without a mechanism for automatic periodic increases, therefore requiring recurrent visitation by the law-making body. The initial rate set in 1965 of $15 an hour for in-court work and $10 an hour for out-of-court work has been increased twice to $25 and $15 in 1978, and $40 and $25 in 1985. The last increase was 17 years ago.

Published on: March 9, 2012

Defendant Contends They Did Not Carry a Weapon During Robbery

by Stephen Bilkis

On the afternoon of May 22, 2008, John Grant walked in Staten Island Bank. He went to the teller in one of the stations and gave a note that said, “I have a gun, Fill the bag. Don’t say anything or I’ll shoot.” A New York Criminal Lawyer said the teller, in her sworn statement, said she saw a firearm and just followed the instruction give to her. She got all the money in her station and placed it inside Mr. Grant’s bag. She handed the bag back to Mr. Grant, with $1,810 in it but kept the demand note. After Mr. Grant left, she locked the doors, and she informed the police of what happened. The police arrived at the scene and the detectives who responded took the video from the bank’s surveillance. They got still pictures from the video and after an investigation that lasted for four months, found Mr. Grant, and placed him in a line up for the teller to identify. The teller did identify him as the bank robber.

Mr. Grant filed an omnibus motion where he asked the court to dismiss the one count of first-degree robbery and on one count of grand larceny in the fourth degree. An omnibus motion is motions bundled together. He said it was not enough to say he was guilty of robbery in the first degree just because of the note, which said he was in possession of a weapon, that it was loaded, and it could be used against the teller. In the jury trial, the people said the possession of a dangerous instrument was not required in the determination of a first-degree robbery. The jury found Mr. Grant guilty of one count of robbery in the first degree and one count of grand larceny in the fourth degree.

The Supreme Court was asked to review the case, and in their examination of the transcript of the hearing affirmed the charge of grand larceny in the fourth degree. They also lowered the charge for the robbery from the fist degree to the third degree. A Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer said the mere statement of a person he has a gun, and he would shoot is not enough to support the charge for a robbery in the first degree, according to a New York Robbery Lawyer who read the decision of the Supreme Court.

Published on: March 8, 2012

Court Rules on Two Robbery Cases

by Stephen Bilkis

In two unrelated cases of robbery, the same question was asked of the Court of Appeals. The question is whether the evidence plus their display of what appeared to be guns while committing a robbery enough to charge them robbery in the first degree. The first case is the people vs. Lopez, and the second is the people vs. Mendez. A New York Criminal Lawyer said both defendants were convicted of robbery in the first degree, which they appealed.

In the case of Lopez, the robbery took place on a New York street. he was with another man when he approached the victim with two other companions and declared it was a stick up. What they demanded was the victim’s radio. In the victim’s testimony, he said when the robbery was announced, the defendant placed his hand inside his pocket, as if he had a gun. The victim gave his radio, after which the defendant and the other man went in a car driven by a third man to leave the scene. He knew the defendant because he had played basketball with him several years before. The day after the incident, the victim saw the defendant on the street and identified him to the police as the one who held him up. He was convicted of robbery in the first degree for what appeared to be a gun in his pocket and robbery in the second degree on the theory he did it with another person.

The Mendez’ case happened in The Bronx. Mr. Mendez was standing near another man who was seated and when he passed, he was grabbed by the defendant from behind and pushed against a wall. He testified that the defendant demanded for everything he had and took his watch, ripped the chain from his neck and took $80 from his back pocket. The other man who was seated had his right hand under his shirt while watching them. The victim said he heard Mr. Mendez say to the other man not to show the gun to him. According to what a Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer read, it happened some time while the robbery was taking place. In this case, the victim knew the defendant as he saw him at different times at a store near where he worked as well as by his tattoos.

Published on: March 5, 2012

DWI Defendant Contests Driver’s License Suspension

by Stephen Bilkis

The first accused is charged with misdemeanor information with Vehicle and Traffic Law and the second accused is charged in separate misdemeanor information with Vehicle and Traffic Law. The issues raised by the defense counsel are identical in each case.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that in each case, the accused is alleged to have had operated a motor vehicle while having a blood alcohol level in excess of .10 of 1%. In each case, the accused man’s driver’s license was suspended at arraignment because of the blood alcohol content. The defense counsel contends that the suspension procedure constitutes a penalty the accused moves for orders to dismiss each docket on double jeopardy grounds.

In a recent Law Journal article, it is evident that Vehicle and Traffic Law has been attacked on constitutional and due process grounds throughout the state with the majority of decisions holding the statute constitutionally infirm.

Published on: February 24, 2012

Court Decides Sex Crime Case with Teenage Victims

by Stephen Bilkis

The case of Elliot Shapiro is an important case that a New York sex crime lawyer can present for you to fully understand the details of intricate sex crimes. He was convicted of abusing a minor and at the same time promoting prostitution. He was fighting for the fair trial of his rights thinking that they were actually violated. He was accused of sexually violating high school boys for 17 months with all the victims being under 17 years of age. During the trial, it was proven that the boys got money for it and that there was no physical harm imposed on them.

Police officers from the New Rochelle Police Department came out with a search warrant after hearing enough from a wire tapped procedure ordered by the court. They learned that two friends of Shapiro would be bringing in two teenagers who are male prostitutes so as to perform sexual acts for a fee. Another adult by the name of Brian Dowling is set to join them too. When they reached the home, they found Dowling, the defendant and two teenagers all naked in the second floor.

As per the New York criminal lawyer who researched on this case as well, Shomer and Shenn were guilty of promoting prostitution and risking the life of the two minors, aged 15 and 13. Their cases were tried separate from Shapiro. The young males attested that anal sex was performed on them while Shapiro reacted to this telling the court that he was just simply a man of weak sexual desires tempted by the two pimp friends. He wanted to establish the role that his options were limited at that time.

Published on: February 18, 2012

Court Rules on Cocaine Possession Case

by Stephen Bilkis

According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, several police officers were charged with various crimes arising out of their conduct in connection with their search for a lost police radio. According to the records of the case, the police officers went to two apartments to pursue a lead regarding the radio. The radio had been lost during an arrest related to a drug crime in the area several days earlier. The records said the police officers pushed their way into two apartments, ransacking both, and unlawfully detained the individuals encountered within the apartments. In searching the second apartment, the police officers discovered vials of crack coccaine and threatened the occupants therein that they would be charged with coccaine possession if the radio were not promptly returned. The police officers allegedly told the apartment occupants that they would “forget” about the drugs if the radio was returned. Administrative proceedings were then commenced against the police officers by conducting hearings.

Following a jury trial, each police officer was found guilty of unlawful imprisonment, coercion, criminal trespass, and official misconduct. Two of the officers were also convicted of falsifying business records. Prior to sentencing, the police officers moved to set aside the verdict alleging improper use of their statements in connection with the indictment and trial.

Among the numerous issues raised on appeal, the police officers challenged the sufficiency of the trial evidence, the cour’ts charge on unlayful imprisonment, alleged inconsistencies in jury verdict and the court’s restriction on cross-examination of certain witnesses. Each of the police officers gave similar statements essentially denying any wrongdoing. The policemen testified in court that they saw one of the occupants of the apartment in the alley and he dropped the cocaine when he saw the police officers. One of the policemen said he has arrested the same person for marijuana possession prior to the incident.