Queens

Published on: August 2, 2012

Defense Argues Probable Cause Not Present

by Stephen Bilkis

A woman is charged with three counts of Criminal Possession of a Weapon. She has moved to suppress the firearms that were seized from her and her boyfriend’s house following the issuance of a search warrant that was targeted not at her, but at her boyfriend. She contends that the search warrant violated her constitutional rights because there was an absence of probable cause to search the premises. Furthermore, there was a lack of sufficient evidence to believe that the woman’s boyfriend lived at the house and the inclusion in the warrant of a no-knock provision was unjustified.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that in June 12, 2008, a police officer obtained a no-knock search warrant to search the premises of a house in New York, where the woman resides with her boyfriend. Specifically, the warrant was sought to permit a search for marijuana possession, firearms, and ammunition.

According to his warrant application, the police officer believed that the woman’s boyfriend, whom he had been trying to put on surveillance, was a marijuana dealer. The police officer obtained information from the gas and electric company that an individual identified as the woman’s boyfriend used the gas & electric utility services.

Published on: July 17, 2012

Defendant Claims he was Denied a Right to a Speedy Trial

by Stephen Bilkis

The genesis of the proceeding is a notorious incident involving a brutal rape and robbery in 1973 in Manhattan. The issues presented are whether the man’s statutory and constitutional rights to a speedy trial were violated, and also whether the trial court should have conducted an inquiry of the jurors to determine whether they had read an article in a prominent newspaper about the trial on the day it commenced.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said while awaiting trial on his case, the man was arrested for an attempted murder and rape. When arrested, the man gave his name, his date of birth and his residence in Kings County, and his prior residence in Manhattan. He claimed that he had a wife who lived in Bronx. The man was tried but the jury, however, could not reach a verdict, and a mistrial was declared.

The man, under the different name, was convicted in Queens County of attempted murder and rape, and sentenced to a term of 10 years. He pleaded guilty in his case, with the understanding that he could seek to have his plea vacated if his conviction in Queens were reversed on appeal. The man was sentenced to a term of 10 years, which was to run concurrently with the term imposed on the Queens County conviction.

Published on: July 11, 2012

Court Discusses RICO Claim

by Stephen Bilkis

Ideal Steel Supply Corporation is the plaintiff in this case. The defendants in the case are Marshall H. Beil, et al. the case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in Queens County. Judge Peter Joseph Kelly is presiding over the hearing.

The defendants have moved for an order to have the complaints made against them by the plaintiff dismissed.

Case Background

Published on: July 11, 2012

Defendant Contends Miranda Rights Were Violated

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is being heard in the First District Court of Suffolk County. The plaintiff in the case is the People of the State of New York. The defendant of the case is Jose R. Rivas. Judge M. Filiberto is overseeing the proceeding.

There has been a combined Probable Cause, Huntley, and Refusal Hearing in this matter. The Court has found the following facts in the case.

Case Facts

Published on: June 26, 2012

Defendant Contends Incriminating Evidence From Prior Conviction Should Not be Included

by Stephen Bilkis

On August 24, 1977, a woman reported to the police that she had been raped that morning. One month after the reported rape, the District Attorney applied to the court to compel the accused to participate in a line up in connection with the investigation of the August 1977 rape. The application was denied by the court.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said year later, on August 24, 1978, another woman from the same town reported a rape in the early morning. She said that a man who drove a Cadillac Eldorado had raped her. She memorized the license plate. The police checked the license plate and it matched the license plate of a Cadillac Eldorado which was reported stolen.

Three hours after the report of the rape, the police found the Cadillac Eldorado parked by the roadside and the accused sleeping inside the car. He was arrested and taken to the police station. Later that morning, he was arraigned for criminal possession of stolen property. At his arraignment, he was told that he had the right to be represented by a lawyer of his own choosing and if he cannot afford one, a lawyer can be provided for him but the accused refused to be represented by a lawyer.

Published on: May 26, 2012

Defendant Charged With Murdering his Girlfriend

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is being heard in the State of New York Supreme Court. The plaintiff of the case is the People of the State of New York. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the plaintiff is represented by the District Attorney of Kings County, Charles J. Hynes and the Assistant District Attorney, Michelle Kaminsky. The defendant in the case is Jerry Bowens. He is represented by Izabel Olszowa Garcia Esq. and Wayne C. Bodden, Esq. The judge that is overseeing the Supreme Court case is Matthew J. D’Emic.

Prosecution Argument

The defendant, Jerry Bowens has been charged with murdering his girlfriend, Catherine D’Onofrio. The plaintiff has moved to have evidence introduced that includes prior bad acts made by the defendant. Additionally, the prosecution looks to bring forth evidence that shows that the relationship between the defendant and the victim, Ms. D’Onofrio, was unraveling and that his life was falling apart.

Published on: May 19, 2012

Court Decides if There is a 14th Amendment Violation

by Stephen Bilkis

The petitioner of the case is the Commissioner of Correction of Connecticut, John R. Manson. The respondent/defendant of the case is Nowell A. Brathwaite.

Case Issues

This case involves the issue of whether or not the Fourteenth Amendment, under the Due Process Clause requires the exclusion of pretrial evidence that was obtained by a police procedure that is deemed suggestive and unnecessary.

Published on: May 17, 2012

Court Discusses the Drug Law Reform Act

by Stephen Bilkis

In 1997, officers assigned to the New York City Police Department’s Narcotics Division were conducting a short-term undercover operation for the purchase of heroin. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that at midnight in the area of Bronx County, the accused, while acting with two other male individuals, sold a quantity of heroin to an undercover police officer. The accused was arrested and charged by indictment with criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. More than a year after the undercover operation, a jury convicted the accused of both offenses.

The court adjudicated the accused, a second felony offender and entered judgment against him, imposing two indeterminate concurrent terms of twenty-two years imprisonment with a mandatory minimum period of eleven years. The basis of the adjudication was a judgment of conviction for attempted robbery, a class D violent felony offense.

The Appellate Division affirmed the accused man’s conviction, but modified his sentence to an indeterminate term of twelve years imprisonment with a mandatory minimum period of six years. The Court of Appeals denied the accused man’s application for leave to appeal.

Published on: May 16, 2012

Court Decides Possession of a Weapon Charge

by Stephen Bilkis

Defendant allegedly fired a handgun at two individuals, who just prior to his firing, had fired a handgun at him causing him serious physical injury; handgun crimes.

Defendant was charged with two counts of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree and one count of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Third Degree for.

Subsequently, a New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant requested that the defense of justification be charged and that the presumption not charged. Both requests were denied.

Published on: May 12, 2012

Mother’s Day Gathering Ends in Disaster

by Stephen Bilkis

On this proceeding, the man moves to be granted judgment without trial to dismiss the complaint against him.

The man is the brother of the complainant woman. The siblings separated since an event that occurred during mother’s day at a family gathering. Based on records, there have been numerous family court matters involving their family.

On the said event, a New York Criminal Lawyer said a sixteen year old nephew of the complainant and the man exposed himself and masturbated in front of the man’s five year old daughter. The said incident caused a huge schism in the family, with various family members taking sides against each other. At some point after the incident, the complainant, who was a hall monitor at an old elementary school, confronted the daughter of the man. According to the man, the complainant cross examined his daughter about the incident. As a result on the said confrontation to the child, the man alleged that her daughter became frightened and did not want to see or speak to the complainant.