Manhattan

Published on: May 17, 2012

Defendant Contends Improrper Jurisdiction

by Stephen Bilkis

The Grand Jury of the Special Narcotics Courts voted an indictment against the accused men charging them with criminal possession of a weapon and conspiracy in violation of the Penal Law. In summary, a New York Criminal Lawyer the court alleges that a confidential informant contacted one of the accused, offering him an opportunity to rob drug dealers of a valuable supply of narcotics and cash. The accused allegedly accepted the informant’s offer and engaged the three accused men to be part of the robbery gang. The case detectives instructed the informant to tell the accused men the robbery location. It is alleged that the informant and the four accused men loaded two vehicles with a number of weapons and went to that Bronx location with the intention to commit a burglary and a robbery.

The accused men filed omnibus discovery motions, to which the court responded. The State also supplied the grand jury minutes to the court for in camera examination. After examining the grand jury minutes, the court ordered the parties to submit additional memoranda of law on two jurisdictional questions. To enable the parties to fully brief the issue, the court found that release of certain portions of the grand jury minutes to the parties was necessary to assist the court in making the determination on the motion.

The Crime Investigator testified in the grand jury. In summary, the informant testified that he had continuous conversations with one of the accused; however, his testimony is devoid of any references to where he or his co-accused was located when they had the telephone conversations. Furthermore, it is apparent from the grand jury minutes that none of the face-to-face meetings between the informant and the accused men occurred in Manhattan. The sole reference to Manhattan in the informant’s testimony is contained in the informant’s recitation of why he was at a certain place at a certain time.

Published on: May 12, 2012

Court Contends Defendant is Mentally Ill

by Stephen Bilkis

On 29 November 2005, defendant entered a plea of not responsible by reason of a mental disease or defect to the crime of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree, and to other related offenses, in violation of criminal laws.

On 23 January 2004, it was alleged that defendant displayed a firearm while threatening to use it against the complainant, the defendant’s sister-in-law, and that said actions caused her fear of physical injury.

A commitment order was issued and the defendant was remanded to the care and custody of the State Commissioner of Mental Health. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant was confined in a secure facility.

Published on: May 9, 2012

Defendants Claim Trial Court Abused its Discretion

by Stephen Bilkis

On December 7, 1984, at approximately 5:00 P.M., a 20-year-old taxi driver met his friend who spent the evening with him riding in the front seat of his cab. At about 8:30 P.M. he proceeded to Union Place pursuant to a radio dispatch and picked up two young men, the accused and the co-accused. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that although the taxi driver did not know the pair, his companion recognized them from the neighborhood. The taxi driver was directed by the men to take them to Yonkers. During the trip, which took approximately four minutes, no one spoke.

When they arrived at the destination, the accused told the taxi driver that he was going inside the building to find some friends and asked to wait for him. The co-accused remained in the back seat of the taxi while the accused went inside. Shortly thereafter, the accused returned, accompanied by another male, and asked the taxi driver to drive them back to Union Place.

As the taxi was travelling down the hill that approached Union Place, the accused placed a gun to the taxi driver’s neck and told him to give his money. He saw the gun and felt it pressed to his neck. In response to the demand, he gave the robbers approximately $20 he had in his shirt pocket and an additional sum of approximately $100 from his wallet. The three men then exited the taxi and ran off into the darkness. During the robbery, the co-accused pushed the driver’s companion forward in the front seat to keep her head down.

Published on: May 7, 2012

Court Reverses Prior Ruling Regarding Robbery Charge

by Stephen Bilkis

One Saturday morning, a military air force base exchange was robbed. The robber took nearly $30,000 from the cashier’s safe and putted into a plastic bag taken from a trash can near the cashier’s cage.

At the trial, a New York Criminal Lawyer said none of the five witnesses could identify the robber. The robber wore a hooded sweatshirt, used a towel to conceal the lower half of his face and another towel wrapped around his arm during the incident. One of the witnesses testified that she saw a black object inside the towel, which she thought was a gun. Another witness also testified that when a woman approached the cashier’s window in the exchange office, the robber raised his towel-wrapped arm, pointed it to the woman and threatened to kill her.

After the robbery, an airman mentioned the incident to his colleague. Less than three hours later, the airman paid a car dealer amounting almost $6,000 in cash as a down payment on a new car. The money that the airman spend was still bundled in wrappers that were dated, initiated and stamped with an official seal of the base exchange and during that weekend the robber spent close to an additional $2,000 on other purchases.

Published on: April 27, 2012

Victim Killed During Burglary

by Stephen Bilkis

On March 28, 1982, a young woman was alone in her apartment in Nassau County New York, when an assailant broke in to her apartment. A New York Lawyer said the assailant gagged her and put a belt around her neck. The young woman died that night due to asphyxiation as a result of the strangulation caused by the gag and belt. Her body was found the following day. The detective assigned to the case discovered that a man who was known to be a burglar of the type that had broken into the woman’s apartment, was known to her.

On March 31, 1982, the detective went to 46 Elm Avenue. He had information that the suspect lived there. He spoke to one of the suspect’s neighbors and left his business card with them to have him call. At 9:25 in the morning April 1st, the suspect called the detective ad agreed to meet with them on April 2nd; The suspect did not show up for the meeting. Upon looking into the suspect’s whereabouts more closely, the detective discovered that the suspect was on parole and had been at the time of the murder. He notified the suspect’s parole officer. The fact that the suspect had been requested to contact the police on April 1st and that he had not notified his parole officer was in essence a parole violation that the suspect could be arrested for.

On April 3rd, the detective met with the parole officer and the parole officer informed the detective that he had been unsuccessful in locating the suspect at his last known address. The police informed the parole officer that they had been informed by the suspect’s girlfriend that he had moved out of that apartment and that she did not know where he had moved to, but that he had not committed a gun crime.

Published on: April 25, 2012

Court Rules on Legality of Wiretapping

by Stephen Bilkis

On November 13, 1963, abortion was illegal in the state of New York. However, that does not mean that illegal abortions were not being performed. Abortion was treated like any other crime in New York and the following case describes the criminalization and fear that was attached to such crimes. A New York Criminal Lawyer said on May of 1962, a woman appeared before the Grand Jury of the state of New York and testified that three men were forcing her to be involved in a criminal abortion of the fetus that she carried. With this information in hand, the police set out to arrest the men involved in providing illegal abortions.

They obtained a court order from a Supreme Court judge for a wiretap of the woman’s phone. It was over this wiretap, that the police intercepted several telephone conversations arranging for the woman to pay the men $500 to conduct an illegal abortion. The wiretaps revealed that there was a criminal conspiracy to conduct this felony act in the state of New York. In order for a warrant to be obtained for a wiretap, the police officer must request the order from a judge and be deposed as to the facts of the case that warrant the necessity of such an order. In the present case, the judge also deposed the woman who stated the facts as she had stated them to the police officer. The wiretap was granted. Several months later, off of the record, the woman claimed that she had committed perjury before the grand jury in making the statements that she did. That perjury was subject to making the wiretap and all of the evidence that was obtained through it, illegal.

A few months later, the court sought an extension of the original order based on the same information as the first. The woman stated that on November 13, 1963 she went to 88-24 Merrick Boulevard for the purpose of obtaining an abortion. She stated that one of the three men gave her drugs in order to cause an abortion. A Bronx Criminal Lawyer said when that did not work, she gave the men $500 for the purpose of obtaining a doctor who had agreed to perform the abortion. At the time of the arrest in November, several items of the type used to induce an abortion were seized by the police and placed into evidence.

Published on: April 20, 2012

Court Decides Custody Arrangement in Light of Domestic Violence Incidents

by Stephen Bilkis

A man and a woman lived together and had a child who was born on February 17, 1990. They were married five months later on May 7, 1990. They resided at an apartment on Fifth Avenue. During their stay at the apartment, the woman met and cultivated a friendship with another woman who resided on another floor of the same apartment building.

The friend saw the woman everyday and noticed bruises on her face and arms. She saw her with a split lip. One evening the woman came to her friend’s apartment asking for help. She was bleeding from a cut above her right eye. She was crying and shaking. The friend called the police and after that, the friend went up to the woman’s apartment on the 19th floor to get her baby. The friend recalls that the woman invariably told her that it was her husband who hurt her. She also confided in her that they were fighting all the time.

The woman applied for and was able to obtain a temporary order of protection against her husband from the Criminal court for domestic violence. Six months after the issuance of the order of protection, her husband was arrested for violating the order of protection. He pleaded guilty and was imprisoned for six months. A final order of protection was issued to the wife for a period of three years.

Published on: April 9, 2012

Defendant Tries to Manipulate Court System to Intimidate Wife

by Stephen Bilkis

Domestic violence issues are complicated. For many years, it was easier for the American judicial system to simply not deal with it. The political climate has changed and with it, the domestic violence laws have changed. We now understand that domestic violence is about control. Sometimes, an abuser cannot accept that the control over the other person has been removed by the state. In some cases, the aggressor attempts to control the court by manipulating the legal system. This type of behavior offensive to the judges and will turn the judges favor away from that person.

In one case like this, which was heard in the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County on October 1, 2010, the situation began on May 5, 2010. A man filed a petition to the court on June 30, 2010 claiming that his wife had illegally locked him out of their apartment located at 1880 Valentine Avenue in the Bronx. However, neither party appeared in court and the petition was dismissed. On July 12, 2010, the man filed a second petition alleging that his wife had illegally locked him out of the apartment. This time he claimed that the lock out had happened in February of 2010. This time, the wife appeared in court, but the husband did not. The court dismissed the man’s petition again.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the man filed a third petition to the court. This time he claimed that his wife had illegally locked him out of the apartment on July 16, 2010. In this petition, he stated that he had called the police. When the police arrived, they ordered him to leave. Both parties appeared in court on July 23, 2010 in reference to this petition. At that time, the court was notified that on July 16, 2010, Bronx County Family Court had issued each party a Temporary Order of Protection against the other. The wife’s Protection Order directed the husband to stay away from the wife and the three minor children who live with her at 1880 Valentine Avenue. These orders expressly stated that the husband was excluded from that residence. He was also ordered to stay away from the wife’s place of work and not to have any communication with any of the people who lived in the apartment. This is most certainly why the police ordered the husband to leave when they were called to the apartment. Family Court did order that the father could have visitation with his infant child at a location away from the apartment. At that time, the court order for visitation listed the husband’s address as 1160 Wheeler Avenue in the Bronx. The court determined that Family Court was the best resolution to the dispute and dismissed the petition that the husband had filed.

Published on: April 2, 2012

Court Decides if Removal of a Child is Necessary in a Domestic Violence Case

by Stephen Bilkis

Three different women were physically abused by their intimate partners or husbands. These three different women all had children who were then living with them at the time that the domestic violence against the women occurred.

These three different women all asked the help of the police and the family court to stop the domestic violence. In all the three cases, the family court issued orders of protection.

In the same family court where these cases for domestic violence were pending, the Administration for Child Services (ACS) all intervened. ACS had a standing policy that all children were removed from the mothers who were victims of domestic violence because even as victims, they are also deemed to have engaged in domestic violence. The ACS contends that the battered woman is negligent when she allowed her children to witness the domestic violence committed against her. The ACS put all the children of these battered women in foster care.

Published on: March 6, 2012

Court Decides Use of Breathalyzer Under Business Records Exception

by Stephen Bilkis

Initially, the court held that records reflecting the calibration of breath test machine and analysis of breath test simulator solution used in DWI cases were non-testimonial hearsay and admissible over confrontation clause objection under business records exception. The certifications to be submitted for the calibration or maintenance of the breath test instrument and the analysis of the Breath Alcohol simulator solution used in the breath test instrument are either testimonial or non-testimonial in nature. When proven to be testimonial then the complainant must bring in the analyst. If it is non-testimonial, the complainant may lay the basis for introduction of the records.

Testimonial statements are material such as affidavits, custodial examinations, extrajudicial statements, depositions, prior confession, prior testimony that the accused was unable to cross-examine, similar pretrial statements, formalized testimonial materials and statements that were made under circumstances that the complainant would reasonably expect to be used in the later trial.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the Supreme Court deliberately left for another day any effort to spell out a comprehensive definition of testimonial. The Court does say that when a non-testimonial hearsay is at issue, it is wholly consistent with the design to afford the states flexibility in their development of hearsay law. The Supreme Court’s analysis of testimony excludes some hearsay exceptions, such as business and official records. To hold otherwise would require numerous additional witnesses without any apparent gains in the truth-seeking process. After all, cross-examination is a tool to flesh out the truth, not an empty procedure.