New York

Published on: August 26, 2012

Court Discusses Jurisdiction of Police Departments

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

A deputy sheriff of the Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriff Department and another officer were parked on the side of the road checking for traffic violations when they observed plaintiff-appellee’s vehicle with an expired brake tag. A New York Criminal Lawyer said after stopping the plaintiff-appellee, the deputy sheriff asked for his driver’s license, which was also expired. Thereafter, the deputy sheriff radioed the Criminal Sheriff’s office to verify the license expiration and then placed the plaintiff-appellee under arrest. The plaintiff-appellee was then transported to Central Lock Up and booked without incident and in accordance with standard arrest procedures for brake-tag and license violations.

Plaintiff-appellee invoked section 1983 and state tort law alleging that the Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriff’s Office was without legal authority to investigate criminal activity or make the subject stop and arrest.

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 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

Published on: August 23, 2012

Court Looks at Racial Discrimination in Employment Practices

by Stephen Bilkis

This is the latest appeal growing out of the nearly two-decade old, racial discrimination in employment lawsuit involving the Alabama Department of Transportation (ALDOT) and the State Personnel Department (SPD). Those two state agencies were sued in 1985 by what became two plaintiff classes of black employees and prospective employees. A New York Criminal Lawyer said a partial settlement was reached and a consent decree was entered in 1994, but instead of ending the case the decree became a platform for additional litigation.

The consent decree, aimed at ending racial discrimination in ALDOT’s employment practices, has twenty-one articles. This appeal is about Article Two, which governs the development and use of “minimum qualifications” (MQs), which are part of the selection procedure for hiring and promoting employees in ALDOT jobs. A job seeker wanting to sit for an employment examination must meet the MQs first. MQs are designed to screen for skills needed at entry into a new position, and can screen for, among other things, “knowledge, skills and abilities” (KSAs) relevant to a position. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the job examinations themselves measure KSAs.

The provision of Article Two that was modified by the district court is ¶ 1, which is called “the no-overlap provision.” This is what the paragraph says:

Published on: August 23, 2012

Defendant Claims Multiple Charges Should Only have been One

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involves the People of the State of New York et al. relater against the respondent, the Warden of the Auburn State Prison. The case is being heard in front of the Supreme Court.

The case before the court is a habeas corpus proceeding that is being brought by an inmate of the Auburn Prison. The defendant was convicted of first degree rape, first degree robbery, and second degree assault in the Bronx County Court. The punishments for these crimes were 10 to 20 years for the rape charge, 15 to 30 years for the robbery charge, and 2 and ½ years to 5 years for the assault charge.

Case Background

Published on: August 22, 2012

Jail Overcrowding Deemed Cruel and Unusual Punishment

by Stephen Bilkis

This case originated almost two decades ago when the plaintiff-prisoners, complaining of the conditions in the Harris County jails, filed a class action lawsuit against certain Harris County officials (“County”). The district court, based on extensive hearings, found the conditions in the jail to be inhumane. Subsequently, on February 4, 1975, the plaintiffs and the County entered into a “Consent Judgment” calling for renovations of existing facilities, the development of a new jail, and improvements in staff and security at the jails. The litigation, however, was far from over, and the “district court retained jurisdiction to issue interim orders.” Ten months later, the district court issued an opinion providing guidelines for streamlining the criminal justice system, implementing an effective pretrial release program, and improving the living conditions in the jails.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, by 1982, the County had completed a new jail (the “Franklin Jail”), with more than three times the capacity of the old central jail (the “old San Jacinto Jail”). The County also maintained a detention center in Humble, Texas, and upon the opening of the Franklin Jail, the County closed the old San Jacinto Jail. The district court, however, remained involved in the jails’ operation and addressed staffing and supervision concerns in the jails. After consulting with an expert, the County determined that it would need additional space, and therefore the County authorized construction of a third jail (the “new San Jacinto Jail”) and the renovation of the old San Jacinto Jail.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, eager to be free from the yoke of litigation, the County filed a motion for final judgment and permanent injunction. In order to assess the County’s compliance with its prior orders and to determine the maximum capacity of the jails, the district court appointed three monitors–a special master, a medical monitor-assessor, and a jail monitor-assessor (collectively the “monitors”). The monitors examined eighteen conditions and found that the County had complied fully with nine conditions, had complied partially with seven conditions, and had failed to comply with only two conditions of the court’s prior orders. Additionally, the monitors found that, as of June 1, 1987, the county jails’ population exceeded their design capacities by only five percent. Although the County had made substantial progress in conforming the jails to constitutional requirements, the monitors recommended that the court continue supervising the jails in light of the County’s “inordinate delay in achieving substantial compliance.”

Published on: August 22, 2012

Court Looks at Double Jeopardy Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

According to a New York Drug Crime Lawyer, on April, 1973, as a result of a joint major Federal-State narcotics investigation, an indictment was filed against defendants along with 10 other large-scale heroin merchants, for conspiracy to violate Federal drug laws. To support the conspiracy count, covering a period from May, 1971 until the filing of the indictment, 10 particular incidents, including meetings and drug deliveries, were specified as overt acts. A number of substantive drug crimes of heroin possession were also charged.

A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said that, the instant appeals arise out of a separate concurrent State prosecution in which the three defendants were charged with sale and heroin possession of dangerous drugs. The indictment states that on each of January 8, 12, and 22, 1973, Abbamonte, Coumoutsos, and Campopiano possessed and sold over 16 ounces of heroin. These sales had neither been specified as overt acts of the Federal conspiracy nor had they been the subject of the substantive counts in that indictment.

The Federal charges were disposed of first. Two defendants pleaded guilty, among other counts, to conspiracy. The other defendant, on the other hand, went to trial and was found guilty on all counts charged. The evidence at that trial although not mentioned in the indictment included testimony concerning the three January drug sales that are the subject of the State prosecution. All three defendants received substantial Federal sentences.