Nassau

Published on: August 19, 2012

Defendant Claims Delay in Trial was a Violation of His Rights

by Stephen Bilkis

The People of the State of New York are the plaintiff’s in this matter against the defendants. This case is being heard in the Westchester County Court. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said one of the defendants has moved for an order to dismiss the instant indictment against him claiming that his rights to a speedy trial have been violated.

Case Background

The defendants have been charged in an indictment for a number of different crimes including forcible rape and forcible sodomy of a woman over a period of time from the 25th through the 26th of November, 1992. One defendant is charged with 10 separate counts of rape in the first degree and 9 separate counts of sodomy in the first degree. All three of the defendants have been charged with an additional count of unlawful imprisonment in the second degree.

Published on: August 17, 2012

Thirteen Year Old Robbed at Knife Point

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in New York County. The case involves the People of the State of New York versus the defendant.

Case Background

On the second of June in 2005 at around 3:20 in the afternoon, the victim, who was thirteen years old at the time, was on her way home from school. She was going down the well lit stairs of the subway station near the corner of Essex and Delancey Streets in Manhattan. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said she was descending the stairs a man she did not know approached her and asked for some change. The man stood face to face with her and she states that she did not think he was going to hurt her. She says that she looked directly at him and told him that she didn’t have any change.

Published on: August 15, 2012

Defendant Moves to Have Verdict Struck

by Stephen Bilkis

The People of the State of New York are the respondents in this case of appeal. The appellant is James Lavender, who is appealing a verdict that was made by a jury in the Supreme Court of Bronx County on the 19th of March, 1984. This verdict convicted the defendant of attempted rape in the first degree and sentenced him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 25 years to life.

Case Background

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the appeal in this case is made by the defendant as a result of a jury trial. A hearing testimony was held and took place over a period of four days. The jury commenced into deliberations at close to 12 p.m. on February 6, 1984. After deliberations and a rereading of some of the testimony of the case, the jury went to their hotel for the night at 11 p.m.

Published on: August 14, 2012

Court Discusses Plea Bargain

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case involving the People of the State of New York against the defendant George P. Tobler. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Criminal Term in Suffolk County, Part I. The defendant of the case has moved to compel a cooperation agreement with the plaintiff’s. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said he states that he will provide information in support of indictments of others in exchange for consent by the District Attorney to a plea of a lesser charge against him and a recommendation that he should not be incarcerated.

Additionally, the defendant seeks a dismissal of the indictment because of the legal insufficiency of the Grand Jury minutes, prosecutorial misconduct, and selective prosecution. Following this relief he moves for a change of venue and discover and inspection.

Case Background

Published on: August 13, 2012

Defendant Appeals a Ruling for Malicious Prosecution

by Stephen Bilkis

Bronx County Rape 7

Alberto Ramos is the appellant and respondent of this particular case. The respondent and appellant of the matter is the City of New York.

Case Background

Published on: August 12, 2012

Court Discusses Mental Hygiene Law

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case for appeal being heard in the Third Department, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the State of New York. Mark S. is the appellant of the case and the State of New York is the respondent. Mark S. is appealing two orders that were made by the Supreme Court. The orders found the appellant to be to be a dangerous sex offender and confined him to treatment in a secure facility.

Case Background

The defendant has an extensive criminal and psychiatric history that includes being convicted for two rapes and forcibly touching three different females. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said he was charged with third degree rape, third degree sodomy, and endangering the welfare of a child by having sexual relations with a girl who was less that 17 years old in June of 2003. The defendant states that the sex with the young girl was consensual and he thought that she was 17, even though he had been told that she was younger. He pled guilty to the third degree rape charge in May of 2004 to satisfy all of the charges that were made against him. He was sentenced to five months in jail and ten years of probation.

Published on: August 10, 2012

Court Orders New Trial

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is taking place in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department. The appellant in the matter is the People of the State of New York. The respondent in the case is Frederick Wilkinson. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the defendant is appealing a judgment made by the County Court of Suffolk County that convicted him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled sentence in the third degree.

The issue being argued on appeal is whether admission of evidence that the defendant, who was on trial for a single sale of cocaine, sold drugs to the same buyer on more than one occasion was an error in the case that requires a new trial in the matter.

Case Background

Published on: August 9, 2012

Court Looks at Legality of State Statute

by Stephen Bilkis

The complainant trader who committed an error was indicted and convicted, under the Revised Statutes of the State, for the criminal act of selling liquor without a license. The indictment contained several specifications but they were all similar.

The jurors, for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, upon their oath present, that a trader man from Georgetown, in said county, he not being then and there first licensed as a retailer of wine and spirits, as provided in the Revised Statutes of said Commonwealth, and without any license therefor duly had according to law, did presume to be, and was, a retailer of wine, brandy, rum, and spirituous liquors, to a buyer, in a less quantity than twenty-eight gallons, and that delivered and carried away all at one time, and did then and there sell to the said buyer, two quarts of spirituous liquors, and no more, against the peace of said Commonwealth and the form of the statute in such case made and provided.

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said a criminal conviction having taken place under the indictment upon the statutes, the trader filed several exceptions. It appeared upon the trial that some of the sales charged in the indictment were of foreign liquors, and his Honor directed the jury that the license law of the Commonwealth applied as well to imported spirits as to domestic, and that the Commonwealth could constitutionally control the sale of foreign spirits by retail, and that said law is not inconsistent with constitution or revenue laws of the United States. The accused trader excluded to the ruling.

Published on: August 8, 2012

Court Discusses Prima Facie Evidence Provision

by Stephen Bilkis

Respondents committed criminal acts of burning a cross and properties during a gathering. They were convicted of violating Virginia’s cross-burning statute, Sec. 18.2-423.

The statute provides:

“It shall be unlawful for any person or persons, with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons, to burn, or cause to be burned, a cross on the property of another, a highway or other public place. Any person who shall violate any provision of this section shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony.

Published on: August 6, 2012

Defendant Claims he was Denied a Right to a Speedy Trial

by Stephen Bilkis

The right to a speedy trial is a right that is essential to the Constitution of the United States of America. Each person is granted the right to a speedy trial before a jury of their peers. However, the Constitution does not define the term speedy. Lawyers and legislatures have argued for two hundred years about the definition of what constitutes a speedy trial. When does the time start?

If an offender commits a crime, does the time allowed for a speedy trial begin at that point? Or, does the time start to run at the point when the authorities become aware of the crime? What about situations where the offender is not identified? Does the time start at the point when the offender is identified? A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said all of these are questions that have plagued the court systems from the Federal Courts to the smallest city court. Defining the term, speedy, has baffled law makers for a very long time. Some cases call this problem into question in a more obvious manner. In cases where the defendant attempts to conceal his identity and abscond, when does the time start for a speedy trial?

In New York, the prosecutors generally are given six months to prepare a felony case and be ready for trial. However, capital cases where the offender is possibly going to receive the death penalty or life in prison, the courts have generally allowed more time based on the severity of the punishment that the person could face. One case of this nature began in 1972 when a man was arrested for being on a fire escape with tools to commit the crime of burglary. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said at that time, he provided a false name and date of birth. He provided an address in Kings County where he said that he lived. The next year, he was arrested in June for rape. He provided a different name and date of birth than he had the first time and a different address than he had provided before. He told the officers that he had never been arrested. Computer systems were not in effect at that time and the deception was not caught until much later.