Articles Posted in Nassau

A good criminal attorney can be the deciding factor in a criminal trial for a defendant who has been charged with an offence, in understanding the rights and restrictions that are imposed upon him. Prosecutors are only human and as such are capable of making mistakes that are common to all people. Procedural law is strict. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said only a person who has been sufficiently trained in the law is capable of deciphering the requirements that the prosecution team has to meet in order for them to obtain a conviction. When the prosecution team makes an error, it is not up to them to admit to the error. It is incumbent upon the defense team to expose the error.

The case of one defendant in New York is an example. He was charged with several misdemeanor offenses of menacing and reckless endangerment stemming from incidents that occurred between May and October of 2009. On October 12, 2009, he was arraigned on two misdemeanors. Bail was set on the charges and court date was set for October 16, 2009. On the 16th, the prosecutor served and filed an information with the court. As an oversight, the prosecution team failed to convert the misdemeanor information with a misdemeanor complaint as required. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said that an information is a court document that details the facts of a case against a particular defendant. The information provides the details of the offenses and the charges that are being pursued.

The defense team filed a motion to release the defendant from custody because the complaint was not converted to an information as required by the New York State statute CPL §170.70. This statute requires that a misdemeanor complaint filed by a prosecutor of the state of New York must replace the complaint with an information within five days of the person’s incarceration. The five day rule does not include Sundays. If the complaint is not replaced with an information within five days, the statute requires that the defendant be released on his own recognizance.

Continue reading

In 2005, a woman took a job working for the New York City Human Resources Administration as an Associate Staff Analyst Hearing Officer in the Employee Disciplinary Unit. As an officer of this department, she had access to confidential information relative to other employees in the department as well as in other departments in New York City Government. She was prohibited by contract and by law from accessing anyone else’s confidential information without express authorization from a supervisor.

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the woman was having problems within her department. She felt that she was being discriminated against by supervisors and co-workers based on her race and gender. She began inquiring outside of the department about what she should do to file a lawsuit for discrimination. She obtained advise from a friend that she should gather as much evidence as she could about the department and some of the situations that existed within that department. One of the issues that was bothering her was a romantic relationship that she felt existed between two co-workers that was inappropriate in the workplace.

She went into the Human Resources computer base and accessed their personal information so that she could provide the information to her attorney for use in her lawsuit. She admitted that she had done this in a deposition pursuant to the case. When the department discovered that she had obtained this information illegally, they fired her without notice. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said she appealed her termination on the grounds that she did not violate the law since she did not disseminate the information that she had obtained and she did not use the information to commit a crime.

Continue reading

In November of 2010, a situation was brought to the attention of the Queens County court system that they found disturbing. The situation involved a discrepancy in the handling of juvenile proceedings. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the courts had been using a computer generated report from the New York Department of Probation that prepared a numerical value that was supposed to predict the recidivism rate of juvenile offenders. This rate was then used to determine if the offender needed high supervision or no supervision from the Department of Probation.

The problem was brought to the attention of the courts by a defense attorney who became concerned about the supervision level that was recommended for his client. He began to do the math manually and discovered that the program was written to discriminate against male offenders. The program assigned a numerical score to several risk factors that were considered a sign that the offender might commit the same or similar offenses in the future. In this case, the computer program assigned fifteen points if the offender was a male. That meant that from the beginning, a male offender was considered in need of more supervision than a female offender who had committed the same crime, or even one that was more serious. The fifteen points that were assigned solely based on the gender of the offender was clearly gender discrimination. After evaluating all of the other risk factors, it became obvious that the risk factor appointment of an additional fifteen points to male offenders, made a significant difference in their chances for a less restrictive probationary regime.

The fact that the rate could increase by fifteen points solely based on gender was so offensive to this defense attorney and he presented eight cases that demonstrated the gender bias that was being committed by the use of this computer program to evaluate juvenile offenders. The Juvenile Department of Probation defended the computer system by claiming that the point system was merely an evaluation tool and that it would not be appropriate to disclose the exact process that was used to evaluate each offender. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the court did not accept this explanation and ordered the disclosure of the process. The court, upon discovering the obvious gender bias associated with the use of the program required the Juvenile Department of Probation to explain why it was defending the process. The Department presentatives claimed that they were attempting to find a way of evaluating each offender that limited the individual influence of probation officers in an attempt to remove personal bias from the process.

Continue reading

This is a case of appeal involving the appellant, the People of the State of New York and the respondent, William Balken. The judges overseeing the appeal case are Santucci, J.P., H. Miller, and Joy S. Miller.

Case Background

This case arises from an accident involving one vehicle that occurred on the seventh of December, 1996. The defendant was driving his vehicle at almost twice the legally posted speed limit in the area. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer was passing a friends vehicle by driving in a center turn lane on the road. While driving at this fast rate and in a turn lane the defendant lost control of his vehicle on a curve in the road. This caused the vehicle to turn over and two of the passengers of the vehicle died as a result.

Continue reading

The People of the State of New York are the plaintiffs in this case. The defendant of the case is Eddie Thompson Jr. The case is being heard in the Ulster County Court. Judge Richard E. Sise is hearing the case.

Case Background

The defendant, Eddie Thompson Jr. has been indicted on a murder in the second degree charge. This charge comes from an incident that occurred on the 28th of October, 2008. On this date, Frances Johnson, was shot. She is described as being the paramour of the defendant.

Continue reading

The plaintiff in the case is the People of the State of New York. The defendant in the case is Craig W. Dixon. The case is being heard in the District Court of Suffolk County, First District. Judge Howard M. Bergson is hearing the case.

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the defendant, Craig W. Dixon has been charged with driving while intoxicated, refusing to submit to a field sobriety test, and failing to maintain a line. A Dunaway, Huntley, and refusal hearing has been held in the matter to determine the evidence found against the defendant that will be admissible in trial.

Case Facts

Continue reading

The plaintiff of this case is the People of the State of New York. Patricia Rose is the defendant. This case is being heard in the District Court of Nassau County, First District. Judge Kenneth L. Gartner is overhearing the case.

The defendant has made a motion for the criminal charge of driving while impaired by drugs dismissed. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said this motion requires the court to review an area of the law that has caused conflict in recent trial court opinions from the First, Second, and Third Judicial Departments as well as the trial court and appellate court opinions.

Case Background

Continue reading

This case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department, Appellate Division. The respondent for the case is the People of the State of New York. The appellant of the case is Abu Khan. The People of the State of New York are represented by Gary Fidel and Jill A Gross-Marks for counsel from the Richard A Brown, District Attorney for Kew Gardens New York, office. The appellant is represented by the law offices of Lynn W. L. Fahey with Jonathan M. Kratter for counsel.

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the defendant is appealing a judgment that was made by the Queens County Supreme Court on the 24th of July, 2007. The judgment found the defendant guilty of rape in the first degree, endangerment of the welfare of a child, sexual conduct against a child, and second degree sexual abuse.

Case Background

Continue reading

This case deals with the matter of Seasia D., Mr. Anonymous et al as the appellants. The respondent in the matter is Kareem W. A non-party appellant in the case is Tenisha D. The case is being held in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department, Appellate Division.

This case deals with an adoption proceeding. Mr. and Mrs. Anonymous were the prospective adoptive parents. Tenisha D. is the birth mother and nonparty appellant. Mr. and Mrs. Anonymous, Tenisha D. and Family Focus Adoption Services are appealing an order that was made in the Family Court of Queens County. The order in question was made on the 30th of June and denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding after a hearing was held.

Case Background

Continue reading