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:
A female civilian employee at a correctional facility was walking down a hallway reserved for civilian employees only. Suddenly a man came up behind her and put his hand over her mouth. The woman struggled to free herself and asked the man what he wanted. He did not reply. He then slammed the woman down and she lay on her belly on the floor. The man pushed a sock or towel in to her mouth but the woman struggled and the sock/towel fell out and she screamed.
A New York DWI Lawyer said the man put the sock/towel in her mouth again and pushed it into her throat. All the time, the man was behind the woman so she did not see his face. He straddled the woman and started tying her hands together. The woman struggled again and managed to free her hands. She bit the man but the man overpowered her when he grabbed her hair and managed to pin her down once more.
Unknown to the woman, the man who was tying her up had already ejaculated in his pants even before he could pull the woman’s clothes off. His semen was found on the sock/towel which was shoved into the woman’s mouth. It was on the back of the woman’s shirt and on the inmate’s prison clothes.
The fifteen year old alleged kid victim related that on July 13, the accused approached him in back of a store and started to talk to him about different things, such as drugs and pinball machines. The accused reached into his pocket for some old coins. He accused the kid of having stolen the coins. He made the kid believe that he did a telephone call to a man pretending audibly that the man on the telephone owns a store and was missing the coins which the kid possessed. The accused borrowed money from the witness; bought a bottle of wine and walked with the kid to the river. A New York DWI Lawyer said he accused man forced the complainant kid to drink some of the wine, after which he removed the kid’s clothes and reciprocal oral sodomy took place, as well as other forms of deviate sexual intercourse. The kid participated under fear of bodily harm, remembering stories of kids being killed down by the river. Following the experience, they walked away from the river and the kid succeeded in running away from the accused man. He arrived at a gas station and wanted to call his home or the police, but was unsuccessful because of lack of money. He then walked home and reported his experience to his Grandmother and Father and then to the police.
The gas station owner testified that the alleged kid victim came running to his gas station and asked to borrow a dime to call the police. The kid told the witness of having been attacked down by the river. The kid appeared to be shook up, nervous and he wasn’t crying. He pointed out a man in a white shirt and dark pants who he said had just attacked him, but the witness stated that he would not be able to identify him.
A gas station employee was the last witness to testify. A New York DWI Lawyer said he was employed by the store in which the alleged victim and the accused man appeared and the telephone call was made concerning the old coins. He confirmed what the kid, the alleged victim, had previously told the Grand Jury with respect to the accused man’s audible conversation with a man concerning missing coins. After the phone call, they walked out of an entrance way that leads into an alley and the boy seemed to be arguing he didn’t do it, and he kept his hand on the shoulder and pushed him out the back entrance.
The man is charged with the offense of rape in the first degree and incest. However, the man moved his legal action for certain relief, discovery and inspection as well as dismissal of the accusatory instrument.
The man alleged that the provisions of penal law are unconstitutional and therefore the first count of the instant charge is defective and the motion to dismiss is proper.
A New York DWI Lawyer said the man based his argument on the constitutional guarantees of equal protection of the laws and due process of law under the applicable constitutional provisions. The two pronged attack states first that the statute is gender based and the format of that law therefore penalizes males because of their sex, while females similarly situated are not affected. It also denies to young male potential victims the protection it affords to young women, all without reasonable cause. Moreover, the counsel of the man further asserts that the law distinction in the instant case is based upon archaic notions and sexual stereotypes and cannot survive rational analysis.
A 19-year old woman received a phone call from a male friend who told her that he was very upset and wanted to talk to her in person. The 19-year old borrowed her mother’s car and went to the parking lot where she agreed to meet her friend.
As she was waiting in her car which was parked, a man approached her car. Thinking that the man was her friend Paul, she unlocked the doors of her car. The man came into the car and held her at gunpoint. The woman recognized the man as a man who lived in their neighborhood whom she saw everyday and whom she knew by name.
A New York DWI Lawyer said he then told her to drive to a beach. When they got there, he sodomized her two times and attempted to rape her. This sexual assault lasted for three quarters of an hour. The man then told her to drive back to the parking lot.
There is no secret to the fact that the federal government has many different organizations that are created with the intent of preserving the nation’s laws and integrity. One of the groups that were tasked with taking action against subversive groups was created in 1912 under the name of the Radical Bureau. A New York DWI Lawyer said the group changed names numerous times over the following years; in 1915, it was called the Neutrality Squad; in 1923, it was the Radical Squad; In 1931, it was the Bureau of Criminal Alien Investigation. By the time that 1945 rolled around, it was the Public Relations Squad. However, in 1946 the name was changed again, and it became the Bureau of Special Services and Investigations. By 1955, the name was the Bureau of Special Services, often referred to as the BOSS agency. During the 1950’s, the focus of BOSS was to investigated communists, by the 1960’s the agency had given up most of the Communist detection had shifted to the FBI leaving BOSS with little to do.
The 1960’s saw an increase in domestic terrorism groups that served as a shot of life for the BOSS agency. However, in 1969, BOSS would be busy with many different organizations especially the domestic terrorists within the American black community. One case that BOSS was integral in putting together involved a case that was called the Panther 21 and was the longest running case in American history. In that case, one of the defendants claimed that the evidence against him was obtained by illegal actions and as such, must be excluded from the courts. A New York DWI Lawyer said the evidence contained tangible property that he contends was the proceeds of an unlawful search and seizure. He states that the search warrant which was the validity for the forcible entry into his home on July 5, 1973 and the seizure of the property that was used as evidence against him should be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree under the Exclusionary Rule.
The case involved the infiltration of a subversive group by several undercover police operatives and the case was in trial from May 1971 to July 1973. In April of 1969, this case was called the Panther 21. The defendant was indicted for having an overall plan to harass and destroy the elements of society that the group thought of as the power structure. This defendant was jailed for over two years until his trial where he was acquitted. Even if he had been freed, he would have not gotten credit for this time in jail pending trial. The trial of this case lasted more than two years and ended in all suspects being acquitted. The jury in this case only deliberated for two hours before reaching their decision.
A man was arrested and charged with illegal heroin possession and illegal possession of hypodermic needle and syringe. Even before the man was brought for arraignment, he already filed a motion to dismiss the information on the ground that the laws punished the misdemeanor offense of illegal possession of hypodermic needle and syringe is unconstitutional. He also moved to dismiss the information charging him with illegal heroin possession on the ground that this crime is a misdemeanor and the law defining it as a crime is unconstitutional.
A New York DWI Lawyer said the man claimed that the statute violates his right to due process of law because he is deprived of the right to be presumed innocent. He claims that the statute makes it a criminal act to possess a hypodermic needle and syringe. He claims that the statute is arbitrary and unreasonable and the passage of the law is an abuse of the police power of the State.
The man based his motion for dismissal of the illegal heroin possession charge on two cases decided by the Supreme Court of New York. The man alleged that the facts of those two decided cases and his case are similar. He points particularly to the case of People v. Hicks and People v. Baker where the Court dismissed the indictment because only a trace of heroin was found on a cotton wad that was found on the person of the accused in those two cases. The man claims that these two charges against him should also be dismissed because along with the hypodermic needle and hypodermic syringe, a wad of cotton was also found and seized on his person and the wad of cotton only had a trace of heroin on it. Therefore, these charges should be dismissed.
The Facts:
On 10 November 1952, appellant pleaded guilty of attempted violation of section 1751 of the Penal Law as a felony; a violation of the Public Health Law with respect to narcotic drugs; a drug crime. A New York DWI Lawyer was presented therein that the appellant had been found guilty of three previous felony convictions; that he had violated sections 173 and 174 of title 21 of the United States Code which also deals with narcotic drugs. Appellant admitted his identity and the three previous convictions which occurred in 1938, 1947 and 1948, all in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Thereafter, appellant was sentenced as a third felony offender to a term of not less than 15 years to life.
In these unrelated appeals, each accused challenges the denial of suppression of vials, crack cocaine possession and other physical evidence on the ground that his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures was violated by the warrantless police search of his car. In both cases, accused parties were travelling in a car pulled over by a police officer for a traffic violation. In each case, upon the officer’s approach to the accused parties’ car, the officer observed through the car windows an open bag containing vials and caps. A New York DWI Lawyer said trained and experienced in drug detection, the police officers recognized the vials as the type used to package crack cocaine for street transactions. For the reasons that follow, in both cases the lower courts properly found probable cause for the officers to believe the accused were using drug paraphernalia, thereby justifying the searches of the automobiles and the accused parties’ consequent arrests. Another man was subsequently indicted for criminal possession of a controlled substance and criminally using drug paraphernalia.
The screeching tires of a cream colored Audi turning onto Broadway at a high rate of speed, forcing three pedestrians to jump out of the crosswalk, caught the attention of two uniformed police officers sitting in their marked police car. The officers followed the Audi south on Broadway, turning on their siren and flashing lights as the distance between the Audi and the police car narrowed. After the Audi turned right onto West 125th Street and passed a stop sign, the officers pulled the car over. A New York DWI Lawyer said when the officers parked their patrol car behind the Audi, and approached the car from opposite sides. The accused man was seated in the front passenger seat. The officer who was standing outside the car near the accused man observed an open shopping bag filled with vials and yellow caps standing upright on the floor behind the accused man. The officer signaled his partner, who was standing on the driver’s side, and gestured to the bag, alerting his partner to the contents he observed. One of the officers then asked the three men in the car if the vials belonged to them and each denied ownership. Nor could any of the individuals tell the officers what the vials were used for. The officers subsequently arrested the three individuals for criminally using drug paraphernalia, and issued summonses to the driver for failing to yield to pedestrians at a crosswalk and to yield at a stop sign.
A backup team of two officers arrived as the arresting officers were securing the car’s passengers while checking for weapons. The shopping bag was then removed from the car and upon examination yielded eight sealed, clear plastic bags, containing a total of 200 empty vials separately packaged from 200 matching yellow caps, a bread crumb container and a carton of instant cocoa powder. The bread crumb container proved to have a false bottom, which revealed a bag of crack cocaine. The accused man volunteered that he came to buy the cocaine for someone else and his two companions had nothing to do with the cocaine possession.
The Facts:
On 5 March 1993, defendant was arrested, and charged with Rape in the First Degree, Sex Abuse in the First Degree, and Endangering the Welfare of a Child based upon the complaint of child-one, a ten-year old who stated that defendant had removed her clothing, spread her legs, and placed his penis inside her vagina. He later gave her five dollars to keep secret what had happened. The Sex Abuse charge was dismissed upon a technical error in the Grand Jury presentation.
Defendant was also charged in the same indictment with endangering the welfare of child-two, a 15-year old, photographed by defendant, both with her consent and surreptitiously, in her underwear following her refusal of defendant’s requests for sexual contact. A New York DWI Lawyer said there was no admission to the accusation although the minutes of the child’s Grand Jury testimony and one of the photographs submitted by the District Attorney do provide the necessary clear and convincing evidence that such incident took place.
New York Criminal Lawyer Blog