This is a case being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in Kings County. The case involves the people of the state of New York versus Alexis Liston.
Case
This is an instant action brought forth against the defendant to raise his level of sex crime offender from level one to level two.
This case is being heard in the Criminal Term of the Supreme Court of Queens County in the state of New York. The plaintiff in the case is the People of the State of New York. The defendant of the case is Theodore Rhodes. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant is being represented by Anthony Marra, from New York City, with Bob Finkin and Kew Gardens for counsel. The plaintiff is represented by Frank D. O’Connor, the Queens County District Attorney with Benjamin J. Jacobson, the Assistant District Attorney for counsel. The justice overseeing the case is J. Irwin Shapiro.
Current Case
The defendant, Theodore Rhodes has made a motion for resentencing.
This case is being heard in the Second Department, Appellate Division, of the Supreme Court in the state of New York. The respondents of the case are the people of the State of New York. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the respondent is represented by Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney of Brooklyn. The counsel for the respondent consists of Roseann B. MacKechine, Anthea H. Bruffee, and Trace E. Suslow. The appellant in the case is Victor Camacho. He is represented by Philip L. Weinstein from New York City. His Counsel consists of Bertand J. Kahn with Lauris Wren for the brief. The case is being heard before Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Balletta, Santucci, and Florio, JJ.
Court Memorandum
The defendant of the case is appealing the previous judgment from the Kings County Supreme Court. The judge from the previous case was the Honorable Judge Goldstein. The judgment convicts the appellant of endangering the welfare of a child, upon the verdict of a jury, and an imposing sentence.
This case is being heard in the Criminal Term of the Supreme Court in Queens County, part one. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the case involves the plaintiff, the People of the State of New York. The defendant in the case is Theodore Rhodes. Rhodes is being represented by Anthony Marra of New York City, Bob Finkin, and Kew Gardens. The plaintiff has Benjamin J. Jacobson, the Assistant District Attorney for counsel from the office of Frank D. O’Connor, the District Attorney of Queens County. The judge that is overseeing the case is J. Irwin Shapiro.
Motion
The defendant, Theodore Rhodes, has made a motion for a resentence in his case.
This is an appeal case being held in the Court of Appeals in the State of New York. The respondent of the case is the People of the State of New York. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the appellant of the case is Lydell Harris. The appellant is represented by De Nice Powell of New York City with Lynn W. L. Fahey for counsel. The respondent is represented by the District Attorney of Kings County, Charles J. Hynes with Leonard Joblove and Anthea H. Bruffee for counsel.
Case History
The defendant has been convicted of second degree murder. A New York Criminal Lawyer said in the trial the evidence supplied by the People established that the defendant, Lydell Harris, killed his friend of many years, Larry Amorose using a machete. The defendant was aided by his girlfriend and they decapitated and dismembered the victim’s body and placed the parts in garbage bags and then threw the bags into the ocean just off Coney Island.
This case is in regard to an application for Gena M. Daniels to amend her name to become Gena M. Zaks. The case is being heard in the Civil Court of the city of New York in New York County. The petitioner is represented by Yetta G. Kurland. The judge overseeing the case is Paul G. Feinman.
Case Background
The petitioner of the case, Gena M. Daniels is seeking to change her name to Gena M. Zak. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that Zak is the last name of her life partner of the same sex. Her partner has agreed to the application for the name change.
The plaintiff in this case is the People of the State of New York. The defendant in the case is Robert W. Fitzpatrick. The plaintiff is represented by John M. Muehl, the District Attorney. The defendant is represented by James Ferrari. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said this case is being heard in the County Court of Otsego County. The judge that is overseeing the case is the Honorable Brian D. Burns.
Case Background
Robert W. Fitzpatrick, the defendant pled guilty to the class E felony a crime of possession of a sexual performance of a child. According to the Sex Offender Registration Act the court is required to review the risk assessment instrument to determine the risk level the defendant presents to the public.
Four police officers in Manhattan were assigned to the Street Crime unit. They report for duty in plain clothes and they drive/ride in taxicabs around the city looking for crimes in progress.
ON December 10, 1982, two police officers were in a yellow cab near 115th Street around 5:00 p.m. They saw a car with three passengers going very slowly. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the police in the cab followed them for nearly two blocks before the police officer saw that the car had a busted tail light. The police officers drove up next to the car and flashed their police badges and identification and told the driver to pull over.
The three men in the car pulled over. The police officer approached and they noticed that the three men inside the car looked nervously around at the two police officers who approached the car at the two front doors of the car.
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.
A man was charged with robbery in the first, second and third degrees, grand larceny in the fourth degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree and unlawful possession of marihuana . A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said that all proceedings have been completed and the case was sent to the Court for trial.
The charges stems from an incident in which the complainant was robbed with a knife. The knife allegedly used by the man during the said incident was not recovered. At a pre-trial conference, the jury requested the court’s permission to present evidence that approximately two weeks prior to the occurrence which comprises the charges in the instant case. It was a police officer who observed the man in possession of a knife which is similar to the description given by the complainant about the knife used in robbing.
A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the Supreme Court ruled that the testimony relating to the observation of the knife would be admissible at trial on the issue of identity and to complete the narrative. The man then claimed that the observation of the knife was the result of improper interference with his liberty by the police. An evidentiary hearing was held and the police officer was the only witness at the hearing. The court then found his testimony to be credible and made findings of fact and conclusions of law.
New York Criminal Lawyer Blog