Drug Possesion

Published on: August 28, 2012

Evidence Inadvertently Destroyed Prior to Trial

by Stephen Bilkis

The charges in this case arise from five separate incidents, beginning in July 1986. On July 3, 1986, a man representing himself as an executive of a foreign branch of a major company, asked that $5,000 in travelers’ checks be prepared and delivered to an associate. Thereafter, defendant appeared at the offices of the company, identifying himself as the associate, and as signed five Citicorp travelers’ checks purchase agreements, one for each of five $1,000 packets of checks, then signed many of the checks in the upper left hand corner, as required of purchasers. When it was discovered a week or two later that there had been no authorization for the checks, most, if not all, of the checks had been negotiated at various metropolitan locations.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, defendant was convicted of one count of grand larceny in the second degree for stealing property having an aggregate value in excess of $1,500, three counts of forgery in the second degree and three counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree with respect to the travelers’ checks and of forgery in the second degree with respect to the purchase agreement.

Thereafter, defendant stayed at the Days Inn in Manhattan registering as the associate, and advancing $140 as a deposit. During his stay, he presented the cashier with a purchase order from the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, providing that Met Life was to be billed for the room, taxes and incidental expenses. Days Inn refunded defendant his initial deposit and the bill for his four day stay ($819.67) was never paid since defendant was neither employed by Metropolitan nor authorized to present such a purchase order. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree.

Published on: August 28, 2012

Court Discusses Conspiracy Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

In the early 1960s, a man who was a resident of Queens County and a meter reader for a certain Company entered upon a scheme under which he accepted money from various investors, agreeing to pay them a return of 1% a week and explaining to them that this high return was being paid by a factoring company which loaned out moneys to various companies in the fur, textile and other industries where there was a need for immediate cash. However, a New York Criminal Lawyer said there was no factoring company and he was merely repaying these people from their own moneys.

Sometime in March of 1971, after being the victim of a real or apparent robbery, and being ostensibly unable to continue to pay off investors, the said man fled New York City and went to San Francisco. His whereabouts were unknown to the authorities until a year later, when he was discovered by two irate investors and was returned to New York City by them.

Published on: August 27, 2012

Daughter Brings Wrongful Death Action

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

Sometime in January 1990, a debtor shot and killed her husband (the decedent). Thereafter, the daughter of the decedent and Administratrix of the decedent’s estate filed a wrongful death claim in Texas State Court. Under the Texas wrongful death statute, the daughter as Administratrix (in charge with the estate administration), was required to bring and prosecute the action because none of the children and parents of the deceased began such an action within three months after the decedent’s death.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that on 2 March 1995, the debtor commenced bankruptcy proceedings. The daughter in her capacity as Administratrix, filed an Adversary Complaint in the Bankruptcy Court objecting to the dischargeability of debts owing to the wrongful death beneficiaries. The daughter based the objection upon the debtor’s willful and malicious acts which are not dischargeable. In the complaint only the daughter, as Administratrix, was named as plaintiff in the caption. However, all wrongful death beneficiaries were named within the body of the complaint.

Published on: August 27, 2012

Court Looks Whether Injunctions Should be Terminated

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

Sometime in 1993, a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action was brought by Plaintiffs-Appellees, a certified class of detainees in the Cameron County, Texas jail, against Cameron County and the State of Texas, the governor of Texas, and various members of the Board of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. The plaintiffs, who were imprisoned for various crimes like assault, rape, kidnapping, robbery, murder, larceny, other white collar crimes, etc., alleged that overcrowding at the Jail produced conditions that constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the plaintiffs originally filed suit against only the County. The County brought a third-party complaint seeking injunctive relief against the State, alleging that the State failed to expeditiously transfer nearly 300 paper ready inmates to state correctional facilities and, therefore, was responsible for the constitutional violations.

On 21 January 1994, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding the State as a defendant, and on 20 May 1994, they filed an application for a preliminary injunction, in an attempt to remedy the overcrowding by enjoining the County and the State from incarcerating more prisoners in the Jail than allowed by the Texas Jail Standards.

Published on: August 26, 2012

Court Discusses Setting Bail

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

Sometime in 1971, the plaintiffs brought a class action 10 against eight judges and other state officials including the State Attorney of Dade County, Florida, asking the federal district court to declare unconstitutional and to enjoin two practices of the defendants: the pretrial detention of arrestees without a judicial determination of probable cause, and the pretrial detention of indigent defendants solely because they were unable to post money bail as a condition of release.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the trial court held for the plaintiffs on the first charge and for the defendants on the second.

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.