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.
Many people view juvenile delinquency as a problem that the child will outgrow. Unfortunately, violence among teenagers has become extreme with the addition of gangs and gang violence in the United States. These juveniles are often on the road to becoming career criminals no matter what actions that the courts take to attempt to rehabilitate them. One case that demonstrates this fact was decided on March 14, 2012. This case involved a young man who was adjudicated as a juvenile and placed under the supervision of the New York City Department of Probation. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said that the young man was sent to an alternative placement program for juvenile delinquents. While in the placement program, the young man was arrested numerous times for extremely violent offenses. Because, he was unable to stop committing violent offenses, the Family Court probation that he was serving was revoked and he was held on Riker’s Island to await the results of his criminal trials in several different counties that were filed while he was on probation.
He was arrested in Queens County and indicted for Murder in the second degree, murder as a hate crime, felony murder, manslaughter as a hate crime, manslaughter in the second degree, robbery in the first and second degree and robbery as a hate crime. A New York Drug Possesson Lawyer was charged in gang assault in the first degree and hate crime assaults in the first degree. He was charged for several other hate crimes and weapons offenses.
He was arrested and indicted in Bronx County for robbery in the first , second, and third degrees. He was indicted for numerous gang crimes of assault, as well as grand larceny and menacing. He was also charged with weapons and stolen property offenses. In Kings county, he was indicted for attempted robbery and assaults as well as petit larceny.
A peace officer (not a police officer) was walking along the corner of 14th Street and 31st Avenue at around 6:30 p.m. on July 19, 1963. He saw a 15 year old boy standing on that street corner. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said he saw another person approach the 15-year old boy and after briefly talking, the person who approached him put a dollar bill on a public mailbox. After that, the15-year old boy passed something from his hand to the man’s hand. The man then turned and left the 15-year old boy.
The peace officer then observed the 15-year old boy walk around the corner. He saw the 15-year old boy shuffling unsteadily until he went inside a grocery store. The peace officer followed him inside the grocery store and noted that the child looked dazed. His eyes were red and droopy like he was so sleepy. The peace officer then approached the boy and asked him what the matter was with him.
The boy answered that he had taken drugs. The peace officer then identified himself to the boy and asked him if he could frisk him. The boy acquiesced. The peace officer then frisked the boy and found hard objects in his right front pants pocket. The peace officer then asked the boy to remove the contents of his pockets.
A girl was convicted of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, for which she was sentenced to a prison term of eight years to life. She was imprisoned and already served her three years term.
The girl contends that the evidence at her trial failed to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that she was the woman who sold an undercover officer 214 vials containing cocaine. However, New York Drug Crime Lawyer said there was ample evidence that the officer had sufficient opportunity during the sale to observe the girl closely enough to permit a reliable identification at the trial, and the jury was entitled to credit the identification. Further, a New York the girl also contends that the New York state failed to demonstrate that she sold two ounces or more of cocaine that was contested by the testimony of the chemist who testified for the New York state as to the procedure he employed in weighing the contents of the vials. It was for the jury to decide whether the expert had adequately analyzed and weighed the contents and whether his opinion was entitled to be credited.
The New York state cross-appealed, however, contending that the court illegally imposed a sentence which was less than the legal minimum of fifteen years to life. The girl, at age seventeen was properly convicted for selling drugs. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said he had already served three years of the original sentence of eight years to life. She didn’t murder anyone. In fact, she has not ever been convicted of any other crime than the said drug crime.
On October 10, 1979, three uniformed police officers in a marked police car approached the vicinity of Seventh Avenue between 143rd and 144th Streets. At that time, one of the police officers saw the defendant at 144th Street and Seventh Avenue, a known area for drug crimes. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the defendant was known to the police officers as he was arrested several times for marijuana possession. The officers had been instructed to keep that particular block clear of drug trafficking. In compliance with the orders, the police officer ordered the police vehicle to stop and called to defendant so that he might ascertain his address and instruct him to leave the area in the event that he did not reside in it.
The police officer called the defendant and asked him to approach the police car. The defendant walked toward the car, stopped at a distance of 15 feet away and refused to come closer. The police officer assured the defendant that he only wanted to talk with him, but the defendant refused to comply. In this instance, the police officer then emerged from the police car and the defendant, began to run. Neither officer drew his own gun at anytime. When the police officers were within ten or fifteen feet from the defendant in a schoolyard, the officers observed that the defendant reached into his waistband and threw an object to the ground. The object, a revolver, was retrieved. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the defendant was thereafter arrested and charged with two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree under criminal law.
The defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence based on the principle on search and seizure that where the abandonment was coerced by unlawful police action for lack of probable cause, the property may be not used for evidentiary purposes.
This case was brought in court to determine whether the rule applies even if the interrogator is unaware that an imprisoned man is represented by an attorney. Based on records, the right to counsel rule signifies that an accused in custody in connection with a criminal matter for which he is represented by counsel may not be interrogated in the absence of his attorney with respect to that matter or an unrelated matter unless he waives the right to counsel in the presence of his attorney.
The incident happened early 2002, when a man was murdered in his bodega. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the case remained unsolved for some time until an individual came forward and informed the police that a man had shot the victim. The informant explained that, shortly after the shooting, he was talking to a group of young men in the neighborhood about the incident. The informant asserted that during the conversation, the man had laughed and stated that he had shot the store owner. The informant further identified man whom he had known for years from a photo array.
After receiving the information, the investigating officer interviewed one of the young men who had been present during the conversation reported by the informant. The individual recalled that, on the day of the killing, either the man or the other individual had suggested to rob a store. Later that day, the man admitted to his friends that he had shot the store owner.
The Facts:
Two witnesses testified at a fact-finding hearing.
On 7 September 1978, sometime after 5:30 P.M., the victim alleges that he heard rocks strike the side of his house. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said that such an event had occurred previously and he testified that he knew that the persons who were responsible for those past acts lived across the street from him. Accordingly, he armed himself with a stick and proceeded to go across the street to a green house. The green house was the home of the two respondents. As he approached the house, the witness testified that sticks were thrown at him. While he was attempting to knock on the door, one of the respondents approached him shaking a stick. Fearful of being hit with the stick, the victim left the porch, intending to return to his own home. At that point he struck one of the respondents; it was not clear which one, on the “backside”. Two or three seconds later the other respondent spoke to him and said to him: “You hit my brother.” This respondent then struck the witness in the arm with a broom or shovel handle. The witness testified that he then fell to the ground and the same respondent struck him in the eye with a metal tipped stick which caused his eye to be enucleated. As a result, the victim has lost the sight of his left eye.
The state of New York filed a complaint charging a man with three counts of forcible touching, three counts of sexual abuse in the second degree, three counts sexual abuse in the third degree, two counts of endangering the welfare of a child, aggravated harassment in the second degree, and two counts of harassment in the second degree. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the charges were based on the man’s conduct toward a 13-year-old male that involved a sexual contact, exhibiting to the child a sexually explicit video, and other communications in an explicitly sexual nature.
At the beginning of the jury trial, the criminal court granted the of New York’s motion to dismiss the two counts of harassment in the second degree. At the end of the trial, the man was convicted with all the remaining counts after the evidence was presented which includes the victim’s narrative testimony of the man’s sexual conduct, the admission into evidence of the video which had been recovered from a laptop that the man had produced to the police as his personal property and the testimony of a forensic psychologist on the subject of adolescent sexual abuse syndrome. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer after the sentence was imposed, the man was designated as a level three sex offender.
Consequently, the man filed an appeal on which he argues that playing the video repeatedly to the jury served only to inflame the jury’s passions and was of questionable evidentiary value. However, the victim asserted that the man had informed him that the man was the actor in the video, which showed a male masturbating and performing other acts of a sexually explicit nature. Based on records, it is irrelevant for the commission of the crime of endangering the welfare of a child, whether the identity of the person in the video is known. Although playing the video evidence more than once was the basis of one of the two counts of endangering the welfare of a child and, as a general rule, photographs and similar evidence is acceptable.
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 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.
New York Criminal Lawyer Blog