New York

Published on: February 26, 2012

Court Rules on Endangering Life of a Child Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

Sex crimes vary a great deal in details and the people involved in it according to a long time New York sex crime lawyer. When such crimes happen, it does not just involve men and women for it could also involve some homosexuals who are usually convicted as pedophiles. A certain case that can further explore similar details is that of Thomas Gutierrez. There was a single incident that a person he once invited to see a movie complained of sexual abuse. The other New York rape lawyers who were involved in dealing with the case referred to him as a human predator.

It was found out by another expert New York Crimnal Lawyer that Gutierrez keeps movie tickets as some kind of souvenir and memorabilia of those he abuses inside the theaters. In fact, his exact term was ‘trophy’ for a certain night which somehow means a different night out with another minor, specifically children. The way the prosecutors gave their questions was justified especially with how Gutierrez invited persistently the victims and it was fully emphasized that he is an adult already with the victims being young individuals.

As with another New York Criminal Lawyer who did a close study on the case questioned whether there was improper touching done by the accused to the victims. The complainant said that the defendant tried to put his hands on his pants but this was of course denied by Gutierrez. There may have not been enough proof but the level of guilt that the defendant showed was too overwhelming. Every credible lawyer therefore agrees with the overall judgment of the court that he did sexual abuse and has endangered the life of a child.

Published on: February 26, 2012

Court Decides Sex Crimes with Minor Case

by Stephen Bilkis

Sex crimes become all the more complicated when they are set into varying degrees according to the court. With the help of legal counsel, you can be sure to understand the consequences behind each degree and how hard the punishments that come with it. To further understand it, the case of Bruce Thompson is raised. Bruce was guilty of sexual abuse in the first degree and also of sodomy in the third degree.

The first one was his offense of forcing someone to have sexual contact with him while the other crime is engaging a minor to have sex with him. This was also researched well by a New York Criminal Lawyer who handles a lot of sex crime cases which involve minors. The defendant was fighting for the fact that there was no sufficient evidence provided against him. A certain John Gorton who was 15 years old told his story that Bruce approached him in the back of a store and talked him into a lot of things.

Eventually it was found that Bruce fooled him and said that he had stolen coins from him and that he would called a certain store owner to report him. They eventually shared a drink by the river and when the minor was completely drunk, Bruce removed the teen’s clothes and sexual intercourse happened. John only consented to it out of fear that Bruce might harm him especially with the paranoia that many kids were killed in that spot. After the incident, they walked away from the place and John ran away and went home. He asked his father and granddad to call the police.

Published on: February 24, 2012

Understanding How SOMTA Works For Sex Offenders Who Are Mentally Unstable

by Stephen Bilkis

There are many sex crimes these days that are discovered by or have been caused by mental health or abnormality. Aside from SORA there is also the SOMTA or what is called as the Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act which deals with sex crimes that involve the Mental Hygiene Law. In this particular case, the one accused is convicted of promoting prostitution, kidnapping and also bail jumping. He was given the charge of 9 to 18 years for kidnapping, 4 to 8 years for the kidnapping, and 3 to 6 years for the bail jumping.

The defendant forced his victim and raped her over and over again. He even forced her to be a prostitute and even physically beat her including the involvement of drugs. He was a detained sex offender who was found out to have been suffering from some kind of mental abnormality. According to a New York law as discussed by a New York Criminal Lawyer describes SOMTA as crimes that are sexually motivated.

Hence, it is the court’s decision to find out if the previous crimes committed by an accused person are motivated by a mental abnormality that is driven with the need for sex. All these should go through the proper criminal proceeding to make it very fair and carry out justice pretty well. Such acts like SOMTA are meant to protect the society from the danger of these free roaming sex offenders. It is only through the programs for treatment and proper management to help the accused to recover and have a bright future and at the same time to protect the citizens of the society.

Published on: February 24, 2012

DWI Defedant Say No Probable Cause for Stop

by Stephen Bilkis

A man stayed for two to three hours and had three Scotch & Sodas at a popular bar in Poughkeepsie, New York. After he left the bar shortly after 3:00 a.m., he was drove his white Chevy pick-up truck going northbound on Route 9 near the Vanderbilt Mansion. A state trooper was on that same road going the same direction and he was right behind the pick-up truck.

The state trooper noticed that the pick-up truck had swerved left and right on the lane two or three times. The wheels crossed the double yellow lines in the middle of the road and the fog line on the right side of the road. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the state trooper decided to pull the pick-up truck over.

When the state trooper went over to the driver’s side to ask for the driver’ license and registration, he noticed the driver’s red glassy eyes and the heavy smell of liquor on him. The state trooper then asked the driver to alight from his pick-up truck.

Published on: February 24, 2012

Court Rules in Sex Crime Case

by Stephen Bilkis

Justice and fairness are the two main things that every New York sex crime lawyer aims to achieve in such cases that they handle. Majority of them are way too sensitive especially if it involves women and children. In fact, even in today’s modern times, it is easy to find also the young men being abused especially by the older pimps in the society. This particular case talks about handling juvenile cases whether it should be led to a Civil or Criminal proceeding. According to an expert New York rape lawyer, it is the petitioner who serves as the overall complainant or the victim.

The example taken was about a certain William S. who was accused of alleged sex crime acts in a total of three legal proceedings which were distinct from each of the others. This is because one crime can be deemed unrelated with each other and that it becomes totally unfair to consolidate them all just to push someone down. Other cases quite similar to that of William S. was taken into consideration for better examples to clarify the entire situation. In this case, it was about a certain Turner who was accused.

According to the New York Criminal Lawyer who once researched about the case, he was charged with killing his own mother last March 7, 1968. The other case was about being charged for the death of his grandmother at the same means of how his mother was killed – through shooting. The sides in the court requested to just consolidate the cases but before doing that, the court had to analyze well whether the two scenarios are really related to each other. And this of course, requires solid and hard evidence.

Published on: February 23, 2012

Court Addresses DWI Case of a Minor

by Stephen Bilkis

A man filed a legal action to discharge him against a complaint for failure to state a cause of action. It involves alcoholic beverage control law concerning underage drinking. The man states that there is no issue of fact by which he may be held liable and that no legitimate cause of action has been set forth in the complaint. The corporation, who stands as the opponent, opposed the legal action, stating that they claim a cognizable common law cause of action, and cross-move to modify their answer.

According to a New York Crimal Lawyer, said the bar (under the said corporation), who filed a complaint against the man is licensed to offer alcoholic beverages, to sell and for consumption on its premises by customers over the age of 21 years. The man at the time of the incident was a 19-year-old student. He was stopped by the police early in the morning while walking back to campus in an intoxicated state. He was brought to the police station on an unrelated matter and told the police officers that he was underage and had been drinking at the tavern earlier in the evening. He further told that he had gained access to that place by use of a false driver’s license. He purchased and was served alcoholic beverages.

The police officers then accompanied him to the bar, where he identified the employee, who used to be the longtime president of the corporation as well as the owner of the bar, as the person who had served him the alcoholic beverages. The president was charged with the penal law crime of unlawfully dealing with a child for allegedly selling alcoholic beverages. In addition, alcoholic beverage administrative proceedings were commenced against the company for the revocation of its liquor license because of the alleged sales of alcoholic beverages to several other underage college students.

Published on: February 22, 2012

Court Rules on Defendant’s Second DWI

by Stephen Bilkis

In this DWI case, the defendant has formerly entered a guilty plea to the charge of driving while intoxicated. The guilty plea of the defendant was found to be satisfactory for other charges like resisting arrest and the failure to undergo a sobriety test. Following the arraignment, the legal counsel of the defendant had filed several motions.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the motions filed were subsequently contested until a hearing to establish probable cause was scheduled. However, the hearing did not push through on that date. The matter was dismissed later on. On the same day, a conference before the trial was held in chambers with counsels also appearing. During the conference, the prosecution offered the defendant to make a guilty plea on his charges to reduce his sentence if convicted.

Before taking the plea offer of the prosecution, the court advised the defendant of his constitutional right to appear before the jury and stand on trial. The court also advised him that the prosecution had the burden of finding evidence against him. This means that the jury must be unanimous in convicting the defendant.

Published on: February 22, 2012

Defendant Questions Evidence in DWI Case

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said that a police officer from New York City was almost struck by a truck while he was inside his vehicle patrolling the streets just before midnight. The officer testified that the truck went backward into the junction from on-street parking space without its rear lights illuminated. He also simultaneously sounded his horn and put his vehicle in reverse to avoid a collision. The truck then pulled forward, returning to its parking space. When the officer parked his vehicle and approached the truck, he saw that the man was seated in the driver’s seat with the engine running. The officer asked the man where he was going and responded that he was heading home. After the officer obtained his license and registration information, the man turned off the engine and went out of the truck. Noticing a strong odor of alcohol, the officer asked whether the man had been drinking. The man acknowledged that he had consumed few beers at a bar on the adjacent corner.

Subsequently, the man’s father came out from the bar and began yelling at the officer. The man handed his father set of keys and the father returned to the bar after being directed by the officer to stand back from the area. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said field sobriety tests were administered in which the man failed, and was placed under arrest. Based on the record, field sobriety tests are evaluations done by law enforcement officers in making roadside assessment as to whether a motorist is under the influence of alcohol or drugs. At the trial, the man stipulated to the propriety, reliability and admissibility of the succeeding breathalyzer test which revealed that his blood alcohol content was 0.15%.

In contrast to the officer’s version of the events, the man claimed that he left the bar to lock the truck and did not operate the vehicle at that time. He also offered the testimony of family members and friends and asserted that they were drinking with him in the bar when he announced that he was going outside to lock his truck. A Nassau County Drug Possession Lawyer said they claimed that the man intended to return to the bar and was planning to spend the night at a friend’s house which was within walking distance. The witnesses acknowledged that they didn’t see what happened outside after he departed from the bar. Hence, the bottom of the defense was that since the man left his keys on the bar, he was unable to operate his truck. Only one witness, his brother-in-law, was able to identify the keys as those to the ignition of the truck.

Published on: February 21, 2012

Court Rules in Husband and Wife DWI Case

by Stephen Bilkis

This legal action is filed against a restaurant by a husband who seeks to recover damages for injuries he sustained in a vehicular accident. His wife was driving while intoxicated and lost control of the vehicle. He claimed that the restaurant violated a general obligation law because his wife’s intoxication resulted from the restaurant’s serving the alcoholic drink, according to a New York Criminal Lawyer.

The restaurant move for a legal action to terminate the complaint filed to them on the ground that the husband purchased the alcoholic beverages for his wife and thus has no cause of action against them based on a violation of the general obligation law. In support of their action, the restaurant relied on the statement and testimony of the couple.

According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, at around 10 to 10:30 p.m., the couple consumed a bottle of beer from another restaurant then went home. Afterwards, the couple then went to the restaurant which they summoned. The couple arrived at approximately 11:00 p.m. The husband bought beers for his wife and they both drank at least four to five bottles of it. They left the said restaurant at about 1:30 a.m. and the wife was the one driving the vehicle. As they were proceeding north, the car went out of control, crossed over to the opposite bound lane and jumped on a guard rail. The husband sustained serious injuries in the accident.

Published on: February 19, 2012

Defendant Contends Actions Under SORA are Unconstitutional

by Stephen Bilkis

In a lot of sex crimes these days, an expert New York Criminal Lawyer says that there are many accused who suffer from a certain kind of mental abnormalities. Such case lets the court decide that such accused undergo certain treatment like the SORA. But in this case, the alleged named as Elias McFarland. However, in this case he keeps on appealing that such program is unconstitutional and that he would fight for his right.

The court did not agree that the decision for the SORA is unconstitutional. It even scored him as a sex offender who is of high risk and falls as level 3 offender. But the defendant still continue to disagree and never stopped submitting written submissions to serve as additional support to what he is trying to prove. He contends here is no valid reason at all to have his level 3 designation to be lowered for he was certainly considered as a high risk offender which means he is of great harm to the society.

At one point, a New York Criminal Lawyer said it was questioned why the Attorney General’s office did not show up during the hearing. But as analyzed by a New York sex abuse lawyer who is well experienced, such decline to appear just meant that they are confident already of the way they assess the risk levels of such offenders. It just means that there is no need for them to even show up for all the proposition is already well settled. All the facts were all outlined well and complete sets of evidence were are presented without any chance of being argued by others.