murder

Published on: January 24, 2013

Court Decides of Act of Murder was an Act of Terrorism

by Stephen Bilkis

The appeal was filed by the defendant for his conviction of the penal offenses of manslaughter that is considered a crime of terrorism, attempted murder, gun crime and conspiracy.

A law was enacted by the Congress that penalized acts of terrorism due to the terrorist attacks that happened in 2001 enumerating specific crimes considered as acts of terrorism.

On August 18, 2002, members of two rival gangs had a fight that occurred after a party was held in Bronx. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that during the fighting incident, several gun shots were fired that caused the death of a 10-year-old girl and the paralysis of a young guy. The accused was one of the members of a Mexican-American gang and was held responsible for the shootings. The prosecution claimed that said act of defendant was considered a felony of terrorism on the ground that he intended to cause intimidation or coercion towards civilian population, namely, gang members of Mexican-American descents residing in the area of Bronx.

Published on: January 23, 2013

Court Discusses Depraved Indifference to Murder Charge

by Stephen Bilkis

On May 11, 2004, a firefighter conducting a routine building inspection discovered the body of 42-year-old woman on the roof of a building in the Bronx. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the black plastic bag covered the woman’s head and was knotted tightly around her neck. When the body was found, she was barefooted, her sweatshirt pulled up over one of her breasts and her jeans unzipped and pulled partially down. One of two beaded necklaces around her neck was broken and beads were missing. After the plastic bag was peeled from her head, a wound above her right eyebrow and a bruise to her right cheek were noted.

The building at 187th Street is privately owned and used by the City of New York as a temporary housing facility. The defendant resided in the building until May 6, 2004. The hallway of each floor of the building is monitored by two video cameras. Videos in evidence depict the defendant approaching the dead woman and entering his apartment with her on May 5 at 9:08 p.m., stepping back into the hallway and looking at the video camera on May 6 at 2:30 a.m., and carrying the woman’s body to the roof on the same day at 10:40 a.m. Shortly thereafter, the defendant is seen leaving his apartment carrying a piece of white cloth and then reentering the apartment. Five minutes later, the defendant is seen leaving the building carrying his belongings in a black plastic bag. Beads matching those on the woman’s broken necklace were found scattered throughout the defendant’s apartment by a Detective on May 13. Bloodstains were also found on the bedroom wall and door. On May 18, the Detective took the defendant into custody and escorted him to the precinct. While in custody, the defendant made a series of statements of which five were handwritten and one videotaped.

According to the defendant’s statements, the woman accompanied him to his apartment after agreeing to have sex with him in exchange for crack cocaine and money. The defendant stated that during the evening the woman attacked him and he hit her in the head to protect himself. Thereafter the woman became quiet and the defendant fell asleep. The defendant stated that upon waking up the following morning, he heard the woman’s heartbeat, but he later denied hearing it. He added that the woman was bleeding and he placed the plastic bag on her head to stop the blood from spreading and because he couldn’t stand to look at her. Thereafter, he dumped the woman on the roof, gathered his possessions and vacated the building. A grand jury indicted him for the criminal acts of depraved indifference murder and manslaughter in the first degree.

Published on: November 3, 2012

Defendant Claims he was Subjected to Custodial Interrogation

by Stephen Bilkis

The respondent of this case is the People of the State of New York. The appellant in the case is M.T. This case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department. M.T. is appealing a decision that denied his motion to vacate two judgments from the same court that convicted him of murder in the second degree.

Case Facts

On the 7th of September, 1988, S.T. and A.T. were attacked fatally (murder) in their home located in Belle Terre, New York. When the police arrived at the scene of the crime, the defendant, who is the son of the victims and was 17 years old at the time, repeatedly told the police that his father’s business partner, J.S. committed the murders.

Published on: November 2, 2012

Defendant Claims Court Erred in Not Allowing Key Testimony

by Stephen Bilkis

The People of the State of New York are the respondents and Zachary R. Gibian is the appellant in this case being held in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department. The defendant is appealing a judgment made by the Supreme Court of Suffolk County that was issued on the 17th of January, 2007 and convicted him of murder in the second degree.

Defendant’s Argument

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant identifies three grounds for this appeal to reverse his conviction. The first is for the preclusion on the grounds of hearsay of the statements that were made by the defendant’s mother. The second is juror misconduct during deliberations. The third is the summary curtailment of the closing statement made by the defense counsel.

Published on: October 13, 2012

Court Decides Child Sex Abuse Case

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the plaintiffs filed an appeal with the New York Appellate Court for the dismissal of their complaint against the defendants, who are police officers and government officials, on the grounds of absolute and qualified immunity.

he appellants sued the respondents because of their wrongful investigation, arrest and imprisonment by the law enforcers for the commission of criminal offenses, namely, kidnapping, rape and murder. The defendants raised the defense of qualified and absolute immunity in the performance of their official duties for the conduct of their police investigations that led to the arrest and incarceration of the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs are parents under investigation for child abuse, child molestation and occult-related rape and murder for several years already. One of the defendants, an employee of the Texas human services, was assigned to their case. The parents of the plaintiffs file complaints for sex abuse allegations made by the latter to their children. This caused the children to live in a foster home where another defendant meets them on a monthly basis. The plaintiffs are a couple with separate children from their previous marriage. A Manhattan Criminal Lawyer said the male plaintiff was indicted with a criminal offense for allegedly sexually abusing one of his daughters. This prompted the emergency removal of their children from the plaintiff’s custody and where transferred to various foster homes. The other remaining defendant was the caseworker to one of the foster homes where the children resided.

Published on: September 22, 2012

Court Hears Murder Case

by Stephen Bilkis

A man who owned a bar saw two of his customers having an argument while inside the bar. He went over to them and told them to take their argument outside. The two men left the bar and stayed on the sidewalk just outside the bar and the argument escalated into a very heated argument. A New York Criminal Lawyer said tne man pushed the other man down. The man who pushed the other drew a gun from his backside and fired into the crown inside the bar which by then was rubber-necking the argument outside. A patron inside the bar got hit when the ma outside fired into the bar. That man lay seriously wounded on the floor of the Bar.

Unnoticed by the man outside the bar, a police officer on beat patrol heard the commotion and the shots fired. On the other side of the street, as the gunman fired into the bar, the police officer engaged the gunman in a gunfight. A few seconds later, a car pulled up near the gunman and the gunman got inside the car. The police officer gave chase while still firing upon the car.

In the meantime, when the bar keeper and owner of the bar heard that shots were fired by the gunman outside the bar, he went behind the bar and took out his shotgun. When he heard the screeching of the tires on the street, he came out of the bar and stood next to the police officer. He fired his shotgun at the car.

Published on: August 18, 2012

Witness Recants Testimony

by Stephen Bilkis

Defendant is currently serving a prison term of twenty-five years to life, having been convicted of Murder in the Second Degree for shooting and killing the victim on the evening of July 16, 1991. Defendant and his co-defendant were convicted after a jury trial based on identifications made by a single eye witness. The witness, a woman with a lengthy psychiatric history, the details of which were largely unknown to defendant at the time of trial, testified that she looked out her fourth floor window at midnight and saw defendant and two other men with guns approach her building. As she ran downstairs she heard five gunshots and saw the back of the men as they left the scene. Although her fourteen year old son was out on the street and witnessed the shooting, he was never called as a witness at trial. The People did not present any physical evidence, motive evidence or any other evidence to corroborate the witnesses identification of defendant as one of the shooters.

The witness was a complete stranger to both defendants, has now recanted her trial testimony, claiming that she lied when she testified that she saw the faces of the shooters and identified them. A Bronx Criminal Lawyer said that, she now claims that she did not actually see and could not have seen the faces of the shooters and that she identified defendant based only on her observation of a photograph of him that she saw in the investigating detective’s car. The witness states that she falsely identified defendant out of a strong desire to protect her son, whom she believed was being threatened by a detective and whom she did not want to testify.

A Bronx Criminal Lawyer said that, defendant moves to vacate his conviction pursuant to CPL §440.10 based primarily on the witnesses recantation. He argues that her recantation is newly discovered evidence that is credible and reliable and that if known at trial would have created the probability of a more favorable verdict to defendant.

Published on: July 24, 2012

Court Orders a New Trial

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involves a defendant who was convicted by the jury for attempted murder in the second degree and assault in the second degree. Finding two errors of sufficient import, the court ruled that defendant was deprived of a fair trial. Thus, a new trial was ordered.

On January 4, 1977, at approximately 10:30 p. m. the victim was returning to his home at 515 West 174th Street when he was confronted outside his fourth floor apartment by a man standing four or five feet away, pointing a black handgun at him (possession of a weapon). The gunman demanded money to the victim and when the latter raised his hands and replied that he had none, the gunman fired a shot, hitting him in the face, and then fled down the stairs. The victim recognized the gun man as the defendant as the criminal.

The wife of the victim heard shots outside her apartment, she opened the door and saw defendant standing by the stairway. Two men were running down the stairs. One was on the third floor, the other on the second. The wife described the man closer to her as tall and skinny with light brown hair in a medium Afro, and wearing a long dark coat with “something white” in the collar. At trial the victim was also to describe the man with the gun as tall with a “like blond” Afro, and wearing a long, dark coat with a white collar. The wife testified that the other man was tall, slim, with short black hair and wearing “something dark.”

Published on: July 7, 2012

Second Indictment of Defendant Nullifies First Indictment

by Stephen Bilkis

The People of the State of New York are the plaintiffs in this case. The defendant of the case is Gus Franco. The case is being heard in the criminal term of the Queens County Supreme Court in the state of New York.

The defendant has moved to have the instant indictment against him dismissed. The defendant basis his argument on the grounds that there is a legal impediment for the conviction of the crimes that he is being charged with. This motion is necessary at this point in the case as there has been an issue of evidence being re-submitted in the case. The District Attorney is seeking re-submit evidence to a second grand jury and this has resulted in no true bill on all counts of the indictment.

Case History

Published on: June 23, 2012

Defendant Contends Impropriety of Prosecutors Office

by Stephen Bilkis

On September 10, 1992, the area of east 213th Street and Bronxwood Avenue in the Bronx, New York was a hotbed of drug activity. Rival drug gangs competed with each other for the drug turf using guns and violence to hold their sales areas. On this night, two brothers who were in control of that particular area, were seated in the back of a BMW parked at the corner when they were executed (murder) by a man with a gun. Both brothers were killed in the attack.

The trial that ensued convicted the defendant of being responsible for their murders. That conviction was appealed by the defendant based on the contention that he was not the man who shot (gun crime) the brothers, a juror in the trial was related to him, and that the prosecutors engaged in misconduct. At the time of his initial trial, there were five witnesses that testified that they saw the defendant kill the brothers.

These witnesses who were also drug dealers, were arrested at different times before this appeal was filed. One of the main witnesses claims that he was continually harassed by the defendant who was attempting to get him to change his testimony. He presented letters that had been sent to him from the defendant and friends of the defendant that told him that he would be killed if he did not recant his testimony. Two of the five witnesses had already met violent ends that were not attributed directly to the defendant who was in prison. After receiving one such letter, the witness applied to be transferred to a different institution for fear of his life. However, when he was transferred, it was to the same institution where the defendant was housed. This created several tense situations as the defendant had opportunity to encounter the witness on several occasions. The defendant repeatedly claimed that it was the witness who had actually executed the brothers and that he was framed for the murders.