New York

Published on: June 29, 2012

Can the Mentally Ill Understand the Consequences of Their Actions?

by Stephen Bilkis

Legality as it involves persons who are mentally ill can become convoluted. Many cases have reached crossroads where the offender is mentally ill. The rights of the victim become confused with the ability of the offender to understand what occurred. In some cases, it is an even more horrendous injustice. At what point is a person mentally incompetent to understand that the actions that they took are wrong. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said if they are sent for treatment at a treatment facility, does that mean that they should not serve any prison time related to the offense that they committed. If they are not penalized for their actions, what message is the system sending to the victim of the crime?

These questions have plagued the criminal justice system since the beginning of time. The question becomes one of intent. Is the intent of the criminal justice system to punish; or is the intent of the system to rehabilitate? Are prisons, just places to keep the public safe for a time from the behavior of inmates; or are they places to rehabilitate them? A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said some states have adopted laws that allow for a guilty but mentally ill finding in a trial. In cases of guilty, but mentally ill, the offender is sent to a secure mental illness hospital until they are determined to have been cured of their illness; only then do they report to the prison to begin serving their time for the offense that they committed. In that manner, they are fully aware that an insanity defense is not a get out of jail free card. They are required to serve the time for the crime that they committed.

In 1984, many of these issues were brought to the attention of the general public when a man was convicted of raping a woman among several other heinous crimes in New York. He was convicted on January 8, 1981, in front of a jury for his crimes. However, he was determined to be mentally incompetent to understand or take responsibility for his crimes. He was determined to be suffering from a dangerous mental disorder. He was sentenced to an indeterminate sentence in a secure mental illness facility. A Queens Drug Possession Lawyer said the Commissioner of Mental Hygiene was responsible for reviewing the case on a regular basis. In September of 1981, and again on October 27, 1982, the Orange County Court signed first and second retention orders ensuring that the defendant was continued in the care of the secure mental hospital that he had been sent to originally.

Published on: June 29, 2012

Defendant Claims Bringing Up Prior Acts Prejudiced Jury

by Stephen Bilkis

Drug Possession crimes are a problem in every city in the United States, but courts do not usually expect to find them on their own back doorsteps. In the case of the Supreme Court of Bronx County in 1972, they did not expect to find the drug problem on the very steps of the courthouse. However, that is exactly what transpired in September of 1972. An undercover narcotics team was working a case involving a drug ring that was operating out of Franz Segal Park just around the corner from the Bronx County Supreme Court building. The narcotics undercover team made three different purchases of narcotics from the dealer on September 8, 11, and 12.

The undercover officer would meet with the dealer in Franz Park, make the purchase, and then return to the team with the cocaine. The narcotic would be tested to ensure that it was cocaine. The undercover officer was wearing a wire so that the transaction was tape recorded. However, there was no video at the time that was effective in the field. Following the third purchase, the defendant was arrested for trafficking in narcotics. In his trial, he testified that he was not a drug dealer and that he had never sold anyone any drugs. The undercover team had to testify that they had not witnessed the transactions and had only seen the undercover officer leave with the money and come back with the cocaine (cocaine possession).

Interestingly, at trial the prosecutor questioned the officer extensively about the purchases that he made from the defendant in Franz Park. He went in to great detail to show that the time and place of the transaction for which the defendant was charged was identical to the time and place in which he had previously been arrested for dealing drugs. The problem with this line of questioning was that according to the law, prior offenses can only be brought up in trial to show the credibility of the witness. A prosecutor may not use questioning on previous acts to show a propensity to commit the crime that the defendant is on trial. That policy is set forth in People v. Schwartzman, Supra, 24 N.Y.2d p. 247, 299 N.Y.S. 2d p. 822, 247 N.E.2d p. 645. The crimes for which the prosecutor was referring were the two prior drug deals that were under indictment, yet not adjudicated by the time of the trial in question.

Published on: June 28, 2012

Is Rape During a Hospital Stay Medical Malpractice?

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

At the time of the rape, the victim (or claimant) was 20 years of age and had a history of psychiatric problems, including several hospitalizations. She was hospitalized at South Beach in 1990 after trying to jump from a window. Other probable suicide attempts include setting the bathroom and her bathrobe on fire, drowning in the bathtub, and choking herself with a cloth while being transported in an ambulance. In 1990, she apparently attacked her father over whether she could leave the house late one night.

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said in August of 1992, the claimant was admitted to South Beach after she had spoken about suicide, been unable to sleep, had bouts of crying and told of hearing voices. At that time she had been attending a Mental Health Center. On 9 September 1992, after nearly a three-week hospitalization, the claimant was discharged; the discharge note described her stay as “uneventful”.

Published on: June 27, 2012

Defendant Contends All Evidence Is Circumstantial

by Stephen Bilkis

A woman who lived alone in an apartment in Manhattan called her boyfriend who lived in the Bronx. She said that a man was in her apartment. The man (the accused) had knocked and asked her if she could help him find the man who had raped his wife and pushed her down the stairs thus suffering a miscarriage. The woman asked the man to speak with her boyfriend on the telephone. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said that the boyfriend talked with the man for about five minutes. And then the man put the phone down. The girlfriend came back on the line and hastily said goodbye to her boyfriend.

The boyfriend, alarmed, hurried to her girlfriend’s apartment. He asked the building superintendent to open the door. He found his girlfriend lying lifeless with a knife stuck in her abdomen in a pool of her blood. A panty hose was tied and knotted tightly around her neck. Her lingerie drawer was open and her underwear was strewn all over.

The police soon came and found a hair on the woman’s mouth. The investigators determined that the woman was strangled and the bones in her neck had been broken.

Published on: June 26, 2012

Issue of Consent Discussed in Rape Charge

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

On 21 May 2008, as amended on 28 May 2008, defendant was convicted by the Supreme Court, Bronx County of rape in the third degree, a criminal law violation. He was sentenced as a second felony offender to a term of 2 to 4 years.

The Ruling:

Published on: June 26, 2012

Court Discusses Use of Uncorroborated Evidence

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

On 10 October 1965, defendant broke and entered a room, housing at that time the complainant alone, armed with a knife, forcibly committed upon her person (according to the complainant’s testimony) an act of consummated, though uncorroborated, rape.

Thereafter, defendant is charged with the crimes of Burglary Third Degree (Breaking and Entering a Building with Intent to Commit a Crime therein) and Assault First Degree (Assault with Intent to Commit a Felony upon the person of the one Assaulted with a Deadly Weapon) in two separate counts.

Published on: June 25, 2012

Court Said Element of Penal Law Lacking

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

On 10 October 1965, defendant broke and entered a room, housing at that time the complainant alone, armed with a knife, forcibly committed upon her person (according to the complainant’s testimony) an act of consummated, though uncorroborated, rape.

Thereafter, defendant is charged with the crimes of Burglary Third Degree (Breaking and Entering a Building with Intent to Commit a Crime therein) and Assault First Degree (Assault with Intent to Commit a Felony upon the person of the one Assaulted with a Deadly Weapon) in two separate counts.

Published on: June 24, 2012

Defendant Asks to Seal Prior Convictions

by Stephen Bilkis

It is no secret that people make mistakes when they are young. It is not unreasonable to offer a second chance to those who are able to mature past their youthful indiscretions. The Rockefeller Drug Law reforms were created as a means to offer second chances to those offenders who were addicted to illegal drugs and were arrested. It requires that they submit themselves to an in-house drug treatment program while they are incarcerated, and that they successfully complete the program. These drug reform laws are directed at addicts who are encouraged to fight their addiction and become functioning members of society through intervention. These laws are not intended to provide a person who is not an addict, but who was a trafficker of narcotics a means to have their narcotics felony charges sealed.

However, on May 17, 2011, a man who was arrested in 1999 for trafficking in heroin (heroin possession) prepared a motion to the court that would allow him to have his record sealed. He stated that his felony narcotics trafficking conviction was preventing him from obtaining gainful employment. He presented transcripts from a six month drug treatment program that he enrolled himself in when he was on parole. He demonstrated that he has matured by presenting to the court, documents showing that he has successfully completed that program. He also presented several documents to the court that showed that he has completed all of the requirements to be a commercial pilot, but states that the 1999 narcotics conviction is preventing him from obtaining employment. He requests that the court seal his conviction under the drug reform laws. The court reviewed his request and had several matters that created resistance.

First, the drug treatment program that he registered for was only six months. Additionally, it was not a sanctioned program and he did not participate in it while he was under the supervision of the department of corrections. Further, the drug reform laws are directed at giving a second chance to addicts who have won their fights against their drug addiction. In this case, the defendant was not an addict. He was arrested during a heroin sale in which he contends that he was only acting as a body guard for his brothers who were the ones who were actually selling the narcotics. The court further points out that the Rockefeller laws are not intended to provide relief for felony narcotics traffickers. This case demonstrates the situation in which a man was convicted of felony narcotics trafficking eleven years ago. He is haunted by the fact that he is a convicted felon and must accept that label for the rest of his life. There are many privileges in life afforded to a person who is not a convicted felon. Once, those privileges have been taken away because of a felony drug conviction, they are noticed. Convicted felons cannot possess a firearm (possession of a weapon). Convicted felons cannot vote. Convicted felons may be searched and they have no right to privacy from their parole officers. In this case, the defendant contends that he was not actively involved in the sale of the heroin.

Published on: June 24, 2012

Defendant Claims Rape of Wife Was Allowable Due to Marriage

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

On 7 June 1982, defendant and his wife separated after fourteen years of marriage. Defendant moved out of their marital residence and rented an apartment.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that on 3 November 1982, defendant was summoned and appeared before the Family Court to answer charges that he harassed his estranged wife. A Temporary Order of Protection was issued.

Published on: June 24, 2012

Defendant Files a 440 Motion

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

Defendant was originally charged with Rape in the First Degree, Sodomy in the First Degree, Sexual Abuse in the First Degree, and Menacing in the Third Degree.

Thereafter, defendant was found guilty of Sodomy in the First Degree but not guilty on the rest of the charges. Defendant was sentenced on 4 December 2002 to a 25 year determinate state prison sentence.