New York

Published on: August 16, 2012

Court Looks at Elements of Sexual Abuse

by Stephen Bilkis

The People of the State of New York are the plaintiffs in a case against the defendant Stan Miller. This case is being heard in front of the Criminal Court of the City of New York in Kings County. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant in the case has been charged with attempted sexual abuse in the second degree, attempted sexual assault in the third degree, unlawful imprisonment in the second degree, harassment in the second degree, and endangering the welfare of a child. The defendant has moved to have the charges against him dismissed.

Case Facts

The complaint in this case comes from a thirteen year old girl. The defendant is a teacher at the child’s school. On the day that the incident occurred the defendant walked the child to his home. The child wanted to leave the defendant’s home and the defendant proceeded to block the doorway and would not let her leave. The child states that the defendant asked her for a kiss and she said no. She says that he moved his face into close proximity of hers and tried to kiss her. These actions caused the child to become alarmed and annoyed.

Published on: August 15, 2012

Court Hears Motion for Dismissal

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a matter being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, and Fourth Judicial Department. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the case deals with the State of New York as the petitioner and respondent and Nushawn Williams, who is also known as Shyteek Johnson, as the respondent and appellant.

The respondent and appellant, Shyteek Johnson is appealing a decision made in the Supreme Court of Chautauqua County that denied the motion made by the respondent/appellant to dismiss the proceeding.

Case Background

Published on: August 14, 2012

Court Discusses Waiver of Right to Appeal

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case being heard before the Supreme Court, Appellant Division, Second Department of the State of New York. The respondent in this matter is the People of the State of New York. Jay Jomar Bradshaw is the appellant of the case.

The defendant is appealing a judgment that was made in the Kings County Supreme Court. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the judgment convicted him of rape in the first degree after he pleaded guilty to the crime. The appeal will review the denial of the charges after a hearing for suppression of identification.

Case Background

Published on: August 7, 2012

Defendant Charged with Third Degree Rape

by Stephen Bilkis

Incidents of rape and sexual assault cases involve many different laws. Each case is reviewed in relationship to how it addresses each element of each law. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the most appropriate law or multiple laws are then charged by the prosecution. In some case, a charge is reduced to a lesser included offense because the jury or prosecutor decides that the lesser included offense if more appropriate to the actions of the charged offender. One case of this type occurred in 2008.

On May 21, 2008, a man was charged with rape. He was convicted after a jury trial on May 28, 2008 of third-degree rape, which is detailed under New York Penal Law § 130.25(3). This charge was determined by how the victim expressed her lack of consent to the sexual assault. This victim apparently never stated the actual term “no,” but rather testified that she had been crying the entire time and stating that she just wanted to go home. The court concluded that any reasonable person observing this situation would conclude that the victim was not consenting to the act. The defense maintained that he did not consider her actions to be a refusal because she never actually stated that she did not want to have sex with him. The court evaluated the totality of the evidence which included the fact that this was his second or third offense of sexual assault.

They also reviewed the fact that the offender forced the woman into his apartment against her will and used threats of physical injury to prevent her from leaving. The court determined that when viewed in their entirety, the circumstances surrounding this assault clearly contained all of the necessary elements to be considered a rape. Because of this, the offender’s request to have his conviction overturned was denied.

Published on: July 29, 2012

Defense Contends Charge of Predatory Sexual Assault Cannot be Upheld

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York, there are many different levels of sex crime offenders. Often the difference between the crimes are reduced to one or two words that are found in the different laws. In one case that occurred on May 2, 2011 and on May 14, 2011, the same offender was involved in both cases. On May 2, 2011, he was charged with sodomizing a young woman forcibly and against her will by forcing her to commit oral sex on him and then forced anal sex on her (rape). On May 14, 2011, before he could be arrested on the first offense, he assaulted another woman. During this assault, he forcibly fondled the woman’s breasts and then raped her vaginally.

He was charged with Predatory Sexual Assault in both cases. However, his indictment passed down by the Grand Jury, only charged Predatory Sexual Assault in the case of the victim on May 14, 2011 and did not proceed on the charges of Predatory Sexual Assault in the case of the victim who was assaulted on May 2, 2011. The reason for this action, was that the charge of Predatory Sexual Assault requires that the action must have been taken on at least one prior occasion. In this case, the court determined that the more serious offense of Predatory Sexual Assault would only apply to the second offense with the first offense used to support the charge on the second victim. Predatory Sexual Assault is a more serious violation that is used to get serial sexual offenders off the streets longer than in the case of one time isolated incidents.

The defendant made a motion to the court to dismiss the charges in their entirety. He contends that since both cases were indicted at the same time, and the first offense was not indicted at all, that there is no precedent case to base the Predatory Sexual Assault charges on in the second offense. The prosecution contends that the Grand Jury heard the testimony in its entirety and determined that the indictment was prepared correctly. There is no wording in the legal statute that provides that the precedent case for Predatory Sexual Assault cannot be submitted at the same proceeding as the case that charges Predatory Sexual Assault. The defense does not agree.

Published on: July 21, 2012

Defendant Claims Hypnosis Made Him Commit Crime

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

On 27 March 1982, defendant, while driving a large, white, four-door car with a black vinyl roof, offered the complainant a ride. She accepted, initially intending to be taken to a nearby bus stop, but thereafter accepting defendant’s offer to take her a few blocks further. The complainant described the defendant as a man of medium build, medium to fair-skinned, scruffy or unshaven, and with blondish hair and blue eyes; that defendant wore a blue gas station uniform, had greasy hands and fingernails and smelled of liquor. As they drove, defendant told the complainant that he worked at an Exxon station in Elmont and that he had attended, but had not graduated from, Carey and Van Buren High School; and that he was divorced and had two children, a seven-year-old son and a two-year-old daughter. The complainant noticed a baby seat in the backseat of the car. Thereafter, defendant drove into an empty parking lot where he sodomized the complainant at knifepoint (sex crimes). The entire incident lasted approximately 35 to 40 minutes. After she was released, the complainant called her aunt and uncle, who notified the police.

Consequently, defendant was arrested approximately three months later when observed by the police in his girlfriend’s white, four-door Ford Torino with a black vinyl roof and a baby seat in the back. At that time, defendant had a moustache and was wearing a blue shirt with an Exxon patch. After waiving his Miranda rights, defendant stated that he worked at an Exxon station in West Hempstead, that he lived in Floral Park, that he had worked on the day of the crime and that on his usual route to and from work he drove by the intersection of Plainfield Road and Jericho Turnpike where the complainant had been picked up. Defendant also told the police that he had attended, but not graduated from, Carey and Van Buren High School and that he was divorced and had two children, a son and a daughter. On the day of defendant’s arrest, the complainant identified the defendant’s voice and also identified him in a lineup, notwithstanding that she had never described her attacker as wearing a moustache.

Published on: July 18, 2012

Defendant Contends Abuse of Discretion by Trial Court

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

A member of the New York City Police Department was detailed to work with the Drug Enforcement Administration Task Force (Task Force). His usual assignment with the Task Force was as an undercover officer (office-one), and that was the assignment he was performing, when, on 16 July 1981, he met with an informant who later introduced him with the co-defendant.

Thereafter, meetings were set and arrangements were made for officer-one to buy quantities of cocaine (cocaine possession). The co-defendant said that he could deliver a pound from someone that he knew, the herein defendant. Accompanied by another officer (officer-two), upon their meet, defendant only promised to deliver two ounces of cocaine for the reason that they didn’t know each other. Subsequently, the parties agreed to buy the two ounces of cocaine. Shortly after officer-two produced a brown bag with money, and, while defendant was looking into the money bag, officer-two placed defendant under arrest.

Published on: July 17, 2012

Defendant Claims he was Denied a Right to a Speedy Trial

by Stephen Bilkis

The genesis of the proceeding is a notorious incident involving a brutal rape and robbery in 1973 in Manhattan. The issues presented are whether the man’s statutory and constitutional rights to a speedy trial were violated, and also whether the trial court should have conducted an inquiry of the jurors to determine whether they had read an article in a prominent newspaper about the trial on the day it commenced.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said while awaiting trial on his case, the man was arrested for an attempted murder and rape. When arrested, the man gave his name, his date of birth and his residence in Kings County, and his prior residence in Manhattan. He claimed that he had a wife who lived in Bronx. The man was tried but the jury, however, could not reach a verdict, and a mistrial was declared.

The man, under the different name, was convicted in Queens County of attempted murder and rape, and sentenced to a term of 10 years. He pleaded guilty in his case, with the understanding that he could seek to have his plea vacated if his conviction in Queens were reversed on appeal. The man was sentenced to a term of 10 years, which was to run concurrently with the term imposed on the Queens County conviction.

Published on: July 9, 2012

Defendant Claims he was Denied a Right to a Speedy Trial

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

Defendant has a history of being arrested under different names.

On 12 August 1972, a New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the defendant was arrested for possession of burglar’s tools while on a fire escape. He gave a name, name-one, with a date of birth of 30 December 1946 and an address of 180 Saratoga Avenue in Kings County.

Published on: July 8, 2012

Defendant Uses Failure to Report Rape as a Defense

by Stephen Bilkis

Two women were hired, one after the other, as data entry technicians for a company that manufactures, markets and directly ships children’s clothing and accessories. Both women were immigrants from Russia without relatives or connections in the United States. Both complained of sexual harassment, sexual assault and sexual abuse from a high-level manager of the children’s clothing company where they were employed.

The first data entry technician was initially hired in February 2005 on a temporary basis upon a referral from a technical employment agency. She was paid the rate of $15 hourly which was later raised to $20 hourly when she was hired on a permanent basis after two weeks. She worked at the children’s clothing company for only two months before she was forced to resign due to intolerable working conditions at the clothing company.

She claims that on her second day at the job, the manager ran his fingers through her hair. At another time, the manager asked her to stay late and when they were alone, he asked her personal questions as to whether she had a boyfriend and actually asked her to have sex with him.