Rape Category Archives — Page 9 of 10 — New York Criminal Lawyer Blog Published by DWI & Criminal Defense Attorneys

Published on: May 26, 2012

Court Discusses Sex Offender Registration Act

by Stephen Bilkis

The respondent for this case is the People of the State of New York. The appellant in the case is Neil Pietarniello. The case is being heard in the Second Department of the Supreme Court of the State of New York in the Appellate Division.

Appeal

A New York Criminal Lawyer said this is an appeal from the defendant concerning a previous order from the Kings County Supreme Court. The judge from the previous case was Brennan. The case involved a hearing to determine the sex offender risk level of the defender. The appellant was designated as a level 3 sex offender based on Correction Law article 6-C.

Published on: May 24, 2012

Court Discusses Dealing with Mentally Ill Defendants

by Stephen Bilkis

Legality as it involves persons who are mentally ill can become convoluted. Many cases have reached crossroads where the offender is mentally ill. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the rights of the victim become confused with the ability of the offender to understand what occurred. In some cases, it is an even more horrendous injustice. At what point is a person mentally incompetent to understand that the actions that they took are wrong. If they are sent for treatment at a treatment facility, does that mean that they should not serve any prison time related to the offense that they committed. If they are not penalized for their actions, what message is the system sending to the victim of the crime?

These questions have plagued the criminal justice system since the beginning of time. The question becomes one of intent. Is the intent of the criminal justice system to punish; or is the intent of the system to rehabilitate? Are prisons, just places to keep the public safe for a time from the behavior of inmates; or are they places to rehabilitate them? Some states have adopted laws that allow for a guilty but mentally ill finding in a trial. In cases of guilty, but mentally ill, the offender is sent to a secure mental illness hospital until they are determined to have been cured of their illness; only then do they report to the prison to begin serving their time for the offense that they committed. In that manner, they are fully aware that an insanity defense is not a get out of jail free card. They are required to serve the time for the crime that they committed.

In 1984, many of these issues were brought to the attention of the general public when a man was convicted of rape among several other heinous crimes in New York. He was convicted on January 8, 1981, in front of a jury for his crimes. However, he was determined to be mentally incompetent to understand or take responsibility for his crimes. He was determined to be suffering from a dangerous mental disorder. He was sentenced to an indeterminate sentence in a secure mental illness facility. The Commissioner of Mental Hygiene was responsible for reviewing the case on a regular basis. In September of 1981, and again on October 27, 1982, the Orange County Court signed first and second retention orders ensuring that the defendant was continued in the care of the secure mental hospital that he had been sent to originally.

Published on: April 30, 2012

Court Discusses Concurrent Sentencing

by Stephen Bilkis

A man was indicted on three counts of robbery in the first degree, one count of attempted robbery in the first degree, five counts of grand larceny in the first degree, one count of assault in the first degree, one count of unlawfully carrying a loaded pistol concealed upon the person, three counts of assault in the second degree, and petit larceny.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the aforesaid man pleaded guilty to attempted robbery in the first degree (13th count), assault in the first degree (14th count), and unlawfully carrying a loaded pistol concealed upon the person (16th count).

On the date of sentencing, the District Attorney of Nassau County filed an Information charging that the man had previously been convicted of the felony of attempted rape in the second degree, which was admitted to be true.

Published on: February 26, 2012

Defendant charged with Bribing Witness Not to Testify

by Stephen Bilkis

Nothing can be more painful when the ones who have done the sexual crime is one of our loved ones. It all makes it worse when the victims belong in our family too. This is what a New York sex crimes lawyer wants to share to us with this case of Orlando Roman. He was accused of bribing his ex-wife to not testify in court with regards to his case of abusing his own four year old kid. Janet Roman is the mother of the kid who filed a complaint to the police about his bribe offer to not testify about the sex abuse of their own child.

Roman was offered about $15,000 for the agreement to not testify in the grand jury hearing. She questioned first about the sex abuse and rape case but he did not say anything about it. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that Roman said if the money be taken he would transfer to another state and move away from them. He almost promised that he would never be seen again as part of the incentive. He also said that the victim was just coached and that he did not do anything that have intentionally hurt the victim.

As per the findings of an expert Manhattan Criminal Lawyer, the conversation recorded would be heard out in a separate trial but it will not be admitted as part of the counts of child sex abuse whether it is consolidated or not. But such can take a big part too in the process of proving the accused guilty of the sexual abuse crime he is confronting. Money truly is played dirty just to be able to buy your freedom out or the justice that others deserve.

Published on: February 24, 2012

Court Decides Sex Crime Case with Teenage Victims

by Stephen Bilkis

The case of Elliot Shapiro is an important case that a New York sex crime lawyer can present for you to fully understand the details of intricate sex crimes. He was convicted of abusing a minor and at the same time promoting prostitution. He was fighting for the fair trial of his rights thinking that they were actually violated. He was accused of sexually violating high school boys for 17 months with all the victims being under 17 years of age. During the trial, it was proven that the boys got money for it and that there was no physical harm imposed on them.

Police officers from the New Rochelle Police Department came out with a search warrant after hearing enough from a wire tapped procedure ordered by the court. They learned that two friends of Shapiro would be bringing in two teenagers who are male prostitutes so as to perform sexual acts for a fee. Another adult by the name of Brian Dowling is set to join them too. When they reached the home, they found Dowling, the defendant and two teenagers all naked in the second floor.

As per the New York criminal lawyer who researched on this case as well, Shomer and Shenn were guilty of promoting prostitution and risking the life of the two minors, aged 15 and 13. Their cases were tried separate from Shapiro. The young males attested that anal sex was performed on them while Shapiro reacted to this telling the court that he was just simply a man of weak sexual desires tempted by the two pimp friends. He wanted to establish the role that his options were limited at that time.

Published on: February 23, 2012

Court Decides Unusual Sex Crimes Case

by Stephen Bilkis

It may be common for anyone of us to hear or watch rape cases in the news but we never realize how hard it is to handle with the right legal procedurures. One case that was very complicated to assess and it involved three men as the ones who are making an appeal. The ones that were mentioned in the proceedings were Michael De Vito, Theodore Buckley and Gary Mandel. In rape cases like this one, the mental background and reliability of the one who is complaining is very important.

The alleged victim was contacted via phone by Mandel for a good number of times last April 4, 1975. It appears that their houses are just several blocks apart and that Mandel invited her to his house to discuss a fresh course at the Brooklyn College. She went to his house and after a short conversation at the kitchen, she was given a glass of water which she consumed but made her too dizzy to still hold consciousness. According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, the next thing she knew, she was already in the basement struggling against Mandel. Then came the other two, De Vito and Buckley, to the basement through a back door and with that the worst sexual things happened.

The victim running away half naked when she finally saw the opportunity. She hid in some bushes and wait till the alleged suspects left. She ran and knocked into another home which was owned by Lila and Murray Raber. The three denied all these and said that what happened was with the consent of the victim. They claim that she only reported and filed a complaint out of utmost humiliation she suffered from during the sexual activity when water balloons burst inside her bra.

Published on: February 21, 2012

Defendant Challenges Sex Offender Rating

by Stephen Bilkis

It is common to find with any sex crimes that the offender appeals to the court of lessening the risk level category that they were assigned to in going through the treatment program for their benefit. This case of Allan Barnes, the offender,who takes issue to his being rated as a level three offender. It was clear that he never denied the physical injury he has done to his victim like scars and stitches on the victim’s lip and legs. Not to mention the memory problems she has suffered from due to the head injuries Allan inflicted too.

It was just a bit weird how he never denies this but keeps on telling the court that all these may have just been hearsay for the absence of convincing proof. It is more uncomfortable to unravel that despite his challenge on the judgment, he did not present any other version of the facts, at least his very own. A New York Criminal Lawyer said such proceedings are suggested by the court for the protection of the rest of the citizens of the community.

It is likely that a sex crime offender may reoffend again. The court does not deprive the offender to present any evidence that would not limit him in fighting for his own rights and for the greater interest of his liberty. When basing on the criminal background of the criminal, he has been an offender since his younger days charged with a burglary case. In Georgia, he was also once convicted of a drug possession way back in the early 80s. It was also interesting according to a New York child pornography lawyer who also studied this appeal that he was also once involved in a case for cruelty to animals.

Published on: February 21, 2012

Court Rules on Rape Case

by Stephen Bilkis

Sex crimes cases are the crimes that many wish would really go down in numbers these days. This is because majority of the victims of these cases are the women and the minors. This particular case is about Webster L. Chapman who was convicted of sex offenses that deal with a minor. The incidents happened last 2006 in the months of March and February. The victim involved was the cousin of the defendant who was 17 years old then. The rest of the convictions included vandalism acts in the home of Joan Osbourne who used to be the mother in law of Webster. It happened during the time when his former wife and three kids were still residing there.

According to the New York Criminal Lawyer who studied the case, there are no solid evidence presented for the convictions of rape he was accused of. The testimony of the victim did not straightly say that there were physical force dealt on her for it all started when she was just lying in bed and he started touching her in the most sensitive parts of her body. At first, the victim said that it was somehow consensual. But when the time came that she wanted to stop already, he forced himself on her still.

The victim also said to another NYC Criminal Lawyer who was part of the team that she has attempted to leave the house for a lot of times already but still returned on her own liking. She said that the accused can be way too loud and mean especially when it is under the influence of alcohol. There were also threats coming from Chapman on several occasions when she would refuse to have sex with her. If the court would just base its judgment from these testimonies, then it truly is not sufficient to win the case against the accused.

Published on: February 19, 2012

Court Decides Whether Defendant Will Attend Sex Offender Program

by Stephen Bilkis

Sex crime violators are very rampant these days according to a New York Criminal Lawyer who once gathered surveys and studies about it. The factors that led to this are way too many to mention but what is important is that there are solutions and programs provided to help even the offenders to pay for what they have done or be treated if it was found out to be some kind of mental sickness. This is the same as the case here of Gonzalo Gonzales. He was fighting for his ability to complete the specific sex offender program set for him.

Based on the facts presented, it was last April 24, 2006 when the counselors from the correction program asked him to sign a form stating that he refused to take the said treatment which means failure of acknowledging his responsibility for the crime he was accused of. According to Gonzalez, he did not sign it for he never denied that responsibility for what he has done. He was very certain of himself that he did comply with the program.

The counselor Groge Pundy is responsible for screening and interviewing the sex offender program candidates. According to him who was further interviewed by Queens Criminal Lawyer, Gonzales did not take the program while still being in New York and under the custody of the state’s correctional services. One of the main requirements for the program is that the offender must be responsible to pay what’s due for the crimes he has done. If in the screening process alone, the responsibility is denied, then this just means refusal to enter the program as well.

Published on: February 15, 2012

Court Rules on Murder Case

by Stephen Bilkis

A husband was convicted after a jury trial, of attempted murder, assault in the first degree and assault in the second degree. His terms were to run concurrently.

The husband repeatedly stabbed his wife, causing her serious and permanent injuries, and forced her seven year old step-daughter to fall out of a window. A New York DWI Lawyer explained that the principal question is whether the husband was entitled to the requested charge of reckless criminal assault, as a lesser included offense of intentional assault. The husband contends that the court should have granted his request, arguing that it was inherently inconsistent for the court to charge intoxication but not the lesser included offense of reckless assault arising out of that intoxication.

To establish entitlement to a lesser included offense charge, the defendant must show that the additional offense he seeks to have charged is a lesser included offense, an offense of a lesser degree. He must also show that it is theoretically impossible to commit the greater crime without also committing the lesser one and there is a reasonable view of the evidence that would support a finding that he committed the lesser offense but not the greater. A New York Criminal Lawyer contends that with the circumstances presented, it was impossible to commit intentional assault without also committing reckless assault. While the evidence of intoxication may be considered as negating the element of intent, there was insufficient evidence of intoxication for a reasonable person to entertain a doubt as to the husband’s. Thus, as the court argued in opposing the husband’s request for a charge on intoxication, no reasonable view of the evidence show that he was intoxicated. The issue of his intoxication should not have been submitted to the jury, and the court’s failure to charge reckless assault under the theory he was intoxicated was not an error and does not warrant reversal.