Criminal Procedure

Published on: August 27, 2012

Daughter Brings Wrongful Death Action

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

Sometime in January 1990, a debtor shot and killed her husband (the decedent). Thereafter, the daughter of the decedent and Administratrix of the decedent’s estate filed a wrongful death claim in Texas State Court. Under the Texas wrongful death statute, the daughter as Administratrix (in charge with the estate administration), was required to bring and prosecute the action because none of the children and parents of the deceased began such an action within three months after the decedent’s death.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that on 2 March 1995, the debtor commenced bankruptcy proceedings. The daughter in her capacity as Administratrix, filed an Adversary Complaint in the Bankruptcy Court objecting to the dischargeability of debts owing to the wrongful death beneficiaries. The daughter based the objection upon the debtor’s willful and malicious acts which are not dischargeable. In the complaint only the daughter, as Administratrix, was named as plaintiff in the caption. However, all wrongful death beneficiaries were named within the body of the complaint.

Published on: August 27, 2012

Court Looks Whether Injunctions Should be Terminated

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

Sometime in 1993, a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action was brought by Plaintiffs-Appellees, a certified class of detainees in the Cameron County, Texas jail, against Cameron County and the State of Texas, the governor of Texas, and various members of the Board of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. The plaintiffs, who were imprisoned for various crimes like assault, rape, kidnapping, robbery, murder, larceny, other white collar crimes, etc., alleged that overcrowding at the Jail produced conditions that constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the plaintiffs originally filed suit against only the County. The County brought a third-party complaint seeking injunctive relief against the State, alleging that the State failed to expeditiously transfer nearly 300 paper ready inmates to state correctional facilities and, therefore, was responsible for the constitutional violations.

On 21 January 1994, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding the State as a defendant, and on 20 May 1994, they filed an application for a preliminary injunction, in an attempt to remedy the overcrowding by enjoining the County and the State from incarcerating more prisoners in the Jail than allowed by the Texas Jail Standards.

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

Defendant Claims Double Jeopardy

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

Allegedly, on 2 July 1979, the applicant led local police on a high-speed automobile chase through Norfolk and Suffolk Counties. He was finally arrested in Suffolk County and charged with various offenses by the District Attorneys in both counties. In Norfolk County, Quincy District Court, he was charged with driving so as to endanger, failure to stop for a police officer, failure to slow down for an intersection, and driving at an unreasonable speed. In Suffolk County, West Roxbury District Court, he was also charged with driving so as to endanger and failure to stop for a police officer, and in addition was charged with assault and battery with a motor vehicle.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said pursuant to Rule 37 of the Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure, with the complaints pending in the respective county District Courts, the applicant moved in Quincy District Court to consolidate the cases into a single proceeding there. However, the Rule requires the written approval of both prosecuting attorneys to effectuate the transfer and consolidation. One of the District Attorneys apparently declined to approve the consolidation. Subsequently, the applicant moved for consolidation in at least one of the Superior Courts of Norfolk and Suffolk Counties, where his indictment was handed down, but the motion was similarly denied.

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 Charged with Illegal Salary Payments

by Stephen Bilkis

During the 89th Congress, a Special Subcommittee on Contracts of the Committee on House Administration conducted an investigation into the expenditures of the Committee on Education and Labor, of which petitioner was chairman. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the Special Subcommittee issued a report concluding that the defendant and certain staff employees had deceived the House authorities as to travel expenses. The report also indicated there was strong evidence that certain illegal salary payments (white collar crime) had been made to defendant’s wife at his direction. No formal action or criminal charges was taken during the 89th Congress. However, prior to the organization of the 90th Congress, the Democratic members-elect met in caucus and voted to remove the defendant as chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor.

When the 90th Congress met to organize in January 1967, the defendant was asked to step aside while the oath was administered to the other members-elect. Following the administration of the oath to the remaining members, the House discussed the procedure to be followed in determining whether the defendant was eligible to take his seat. After some debate, by a vote of 363 to 65 the House adopted House Resolution No. 1, which provided that the Speaker appoint a Select Committee to determine Powell’s eligibility. Although the resolution prohibited Powell from taking his seat until the House acted on the Select Committee’s report, it did provide that he should receive all the pay and allowances due a member during the period.

The Select Committee, composed of nine lawyer-members, issued an invitation to defendant to testify before the Committee. The invitation letter stated that the scope of the testimony and investigation would include defendant’s qualifications as to age, citizenship, and residency; his involvement in a civil suit, and matters of alleged official misconduct.

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