Articles Posted in Nassau

Published on:

by

The accused, a bachelor of approximately thirty-seven years of age met an incoming plane at LaGuardia Airport, from which disembarked a twenty-year-old petite, attractive second-year student woman, an unworldly girl, evidently unacquainted with New York City and the sophisticated city ways, a girl who proved to be, as indicated by the testimony, incredibly gullible, trusting and naive.

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the testimony indicates that the accused struck up a conversation with her, posing as a psychologist doing a magazine article and using a name that was not his, inducing the woman to answer questions for an interview.

The evidence further shows that the accused invited the complainant woman to accompany him in an automobile to the Grand Central Station in Manhattan. They were accompanied in the automobile by other persons, some of whom were introduced by the accused as colleagues on a professional basis. There were numerous detours before they found their way to the Grand Central Station. First, they were taken to an apartment on the east side where some of the parties were left behind.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

The Facts:

Two male persons, defendants, forcibly abducted the victim (of the assaults) in an automobile. While being carried away in the car, the victim was given a choice of either participating in sodomy or submitting to rape but refused either alternative. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said after having been slapped around and frustrated in an attempt to escape, she was raped by each defendant, in turn, while the other held a knife-point to her throat and threatened to cut her if she didn’t stop screaming. Nevertheless, she resisted, but in vain. She was not examined by a doctor until 10 August 1965 and the police were not notified until 12 August 1965. She made no immediate disclosure to her parents although, within a day or two after the event, she told a neighbor about it. Other than the victim’s own testimony, there is no evidence that she was abducted by anyone, or that she was in the company of these defendants on the occasion in question or that at or about the time of the occurrences narrated by her, she bore visible marks of recent physical violence or rape.

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the defendants were apprehended and questioned but denied having been in the girl’s company on the evening in question and specifically denied the charges made. There was no evidence that any knife was found or that either of the defendants had been known to possess one.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

In New York when an offender commits a sexually related offense, he or she is charged a fee that is designed to defray some of the costs that are incurred by the courts for the prosecution of their case. The surcharge is usually $200.00 plus a victim fee of $10.00. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said that some offenders are entitled to request that the court defer their surcharge if they can show that it will pose an undue hardship to them or their families. However, anyone who is charged with a crime that requires that they serve more than 60 days in jail are determined to not be able to defray the surcharge. The money is removed from their inmate pay for work that they perform while they are incarcerated. It is therefore, not considered to pose an undue burden to them to pay it.

Even if the charge is deferred, the offender will be expected to repay the fee, it only postpones the debt until a time when the offender is more capable of repaying the debt. The court has also ruled that it is not practical to file a motion to defer this payment until an offender has completed the term of his sentence. In other words, if a person has committed a sexually based offense and is convicted, he is responsible to pay this debt to the state. If he files to have the debt deferred before he has completed his prison sentence, it will be denied as a premature request. It is not considered to be an undue burden on a person who is incarcerated. A Nassau County Sex Crimes Lawyer said it can only be deferred if a person demonstrates that the cost of the debt is an undue burden on the offender after they have been released from incarceration and are actively attempting to support themselves or their families.

On July 10, 2003, an offender in Kings County, New York, was convicted of attempted burglary in the second degree. He filed a motion on March 24, 2007, to defer payment of the surcharge because he stated that it was posing an undue hardship on his family. He was sentenced upon his conviction of five years to serve, then five years on parole. He contends that he is not working while in prison and receives no prison wages. He stated that he does not have a means of income or property and that he is indigent. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the prosecution argued against his deferral of the payment. They contend that he committed the crime and that he is sentenced. He will be incarcerated for five years and then on parole for five years. To grant his request to defer payment would be an injustice to the citizens of the state and to the victim. The intent of the surcharge is to help the courts defray the costs that this offender created when he violated the crimes of this state. He is not entitled to defer the surcharge as it is an important way to insure that offenders are made responsible for their actions.

Continue reading

by
Posted in: , and
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

In the early 1970’s the rape law in New York required that the complaint of the victim had to be corroborated by a third person in order to obtain a conviction. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said this seems archaic these days and made it almost impossible for a rape victim to obtain justice against her attacker. In one case of a woman who was walking home from the bus stop late at night, a man with a knife followed her and forced her into an abandoned stairwell. He told her that he was going to rape her and forced her to undress while holding the knife to her throat and face. Once she was disrobed, he held his cigarette lighter up to her lady parts. She felt the heat from the lighter and fought to get away. He threatened her again at which time she stopped resisting for fear that he would cut her.

A neighbor in the area called the police because he saw the woman get shoved into the stairwell and reported that a robbery was in progress at that location. A police car with two officers responded to the area. The officers found the man still raping the woman. They arrested him and collected the cigarette lighter and the knife as evidence. They also noticed that the woman had a cut on her cheek from the knife, just below her right eye. The woman was transported to the hospital where a doctor performed an examination. He noticed that the victim had a cut on her chin as well and that there were physical signs that the rape was culminated.

At the trial of the man, the judge did not inform the jury that corroboration was required to convict on the crime of rape. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the defense filed a motion to overturn the guilty verdict that the man received based on that fact. The defense claimed that it was a fatal error to not instruct the jury that corroboration was necessary. Their contention being that since no one saw whether the woman agreed to have sex with him or not, minus corroboration, the jury would have been unable to convict him of rape.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

On March 1982, a police officer assisted in the arrest of a man after a search of his rented car. The search was allegedly based on probable cause. Drug paraphernalia amounting to $8,605 was found on the floor behind the driver’s seat and several suitcases of marijuana were also found in the trunk of the car. The police officer states that the man confessed that he was a runner from Florida who brought marijuana to the New York City area for sale and returned to Florida with the proceeds of the sales. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the man was arrested on felony and misdemeanor charges but was permitted to plead guilty to disorderly conduct and was sentenced to a conditional discharge.

The property clerk contends that the $8,605 is the proceeds of or derived from the sale of a controlled substance and is therefore subject to forfeiture pursuant to administrative code. The code provides that where moneys or property have been unlawfully obtained or stolen or are the proceeds of crime or derived through crime or derived through the use or sale of property prohibited by law from being held, used or sold, a person who so obtained, received or derived any such moneys or property, or who so used, employed, sold or held any such moneys or property or suffered the same to be used, employed, sold or held, or who was a participant or accomplice in any such act, or a person who derives his claim in any manner from or through any such person, shall not be consider to be the lawful claimant entitled to any such moneys or property.

The property clerk also argues that the assignee of the man cannot possibly meet his burden under administrative code and that the money should therefore be declared to be forfeited. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the subdivision states that a claimant of property, who derives his title by assignment, must establish that his assignor had a lawful title in such money and lawfully obtained possession thereof and that such money was held and used in a lawful manner.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

A drug dealer in New York contacted a Lebanese courier who would be bringing ten kilograms of heroin into the United States. The drug dealer’s business constituted street-dealing heroin in Brooklyn.

He agreed to meet the Lebanese courier in Boston, Massachusetts. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said that in exchange for the ten kilograms of heroin, the Brooklyn drug dealer agreed to pay a courier fee of $120,000.00. He withdrew money from his bank in New York to complete the sum he needed to pay for the courier fee. He then purchased round trip tickets to Boston and back to New York for his three people: his girlfriend, his right-hand man and a pharmacologist they nicknamed “the professor.” He also made hotel reservations for his people at the Ramada Inn in Boston.

The drug dealer instructed his girlfriend to bring the money; his right-hand man will speak with the Lebanese courier and bring a sample of the drugs to “the professor’ who would be in a separate room at the hotel to test the drugs. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the plan was for them to plane into Boston, complete the deal in Boston, test the drugs in Boston and fly directly back to New York with the drugs where the drugs would be repacked and sold on the streets.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

A man was arrested for alleged acts of sodomy with a 12-year-old male child and was indicted on five counts, all involving such acts. He pleaded not guilty. Although the record is incomplete as to the various steps which were taken thereafter, it is clear that the man was sent to the Hospital for some form of psychiatric examination and was reported insane. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the County Court thereupon committed him to the State Hospital. Almost two years later, he was returned to the County Court, certified as sane, and he withdrew his plea of not guilty and pleaded guilty to the fourth count of the indictment charging him with sexual assault with intent to commit the crime of sodomy. He was once again sent to the County Hospital for observation with pending sentence. The record contains no report or certificate from the Hospital indicating that the man received a psychiatric examination pursuant to the Penal Law, and there is no proof that the Court had or considered such a report before it sentenced the man. The record show that on April 6, 1955, upon motion of the man’s retained counsel, the report of the Psychiatric Division of the County Hospital, finding the man sane is confirmed. On May 16, 1955, the County Court ordered that the man be imprisoned in the State Prison at hard labor, under an indeterminate sentence, the maximum of such imprisonment to be his natural life and the minimum thereof one day. It is not contradicted that the year the man was sent to the State Prison’s psychiatric clinic that prison was closed after having been in operation for more than four years. The record does not disclose when the man was transferred from the State Prison to Attica Prison where he is presently held. The claim of the man’s counsel that Attica Prison does not have nor has ever had any facility for psychiatric treatment during the time of the man’s confinement therein is not refuted.

The man’s contention that he was not given a psychiatric examination pursuant to Penal Law was not explored at the County Court hearing. The man’s assertion that the report of the County Hospital made after his guilty plea does not disclose that the man was a psycho path or of violent character and was bare of any descriptive sexual abnormality finds support in the only record from that court dealing with the subject which simply confirmed a finding that the accused is sane. The notation supports the probability that the examination was in compliance with the Code of Criminal Procedure, indicating the man’s capability of understanding the charge and making his defense, rather than in compliance with Penal Law.

If the further hearing should confirm the man’s position, the Court is constrained to remit the matter to the County Court for proceedings consistent with the memorandum which specifically provides that no person shall receive the indeterminate sentence until a psychiatric examination shall have been made of him and a complete written report thereof shall have been submitted to the court. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the statute requires such an examination in every case in which a sentence of from one day to life may be imposed, regardless of whether such a sentence is in fact imposed.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said a man was convicted of rape, a sex crime, in South Carolina sometime in October 19, 1992. He was sentenced to a prison term and he has fully served his prison sentence. During his incarceration, the Sex Offender Registration Act was enacted which requires all convicted sex offenders to register their address within ten (10) days from changing one’s address. The man was designated as a level three sex offender. After his release, the man failed to verify his new address with the local law enforcement agency. He was charged with a violation of the Correction Law, that is, that he failed to register as a sex offender.

When he moved from South Carolina to the state of New York in July 6, 1999, after his release, he registered as a sex offender in New York. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said that sometime on November 12, 2002, the man changed his address from New York to Hoboken, New Jersey. He notified the Division of Criminal Justice Services of this change of address. After this, the Division of Criminal Justice Services has not received any other change of address from the man until July 2006.

Evidence has been acquired by the local law enforcement in Kings County that the convicted men changed residences from New Jersey back to King’s County in New York. He first lived on Herkimer Street and about two months later, moved from Herkimer Street to Gates Avenue but he did not inform the police of this change of address nor did he notify the Division of Criminal Justice Services.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

In the early morning hours of May 11, 2004, near Sheridan Avenue in Brooklyn, the man accosted the woman, grabbed her around the neck, pointed a knife at her, and demanded money. When she told him that she had none, he pulled her into a nearby yard and raped her at knifepoint. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said approximately one week after the sex crime, the complainant woman identified the man in a lineup, the fairness of which has never been challenged. The grand jury returned an indictment charging the man with rape in the first degree, sex abuse in the first degree, sexual misconduct, attempted robbery in the first degree, two counts of assault in the second degree, two counts of assault in the third degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree. He sought suppression of the woman’s potential identification testimony on the ground that, prior to the lineup, the police lacked probable cause to arrest him for the criminal acts committed against the woman.

At the hearing, two retired detectives who had been assigned to the Special Victims Squad testified for the court; the man offered no evidence. The detectives testified that they were assigned to the investigation of the criminal acts. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said that two days after the incident, one of the detectives interviewed a person who had been working as a security guard in the vicinity of the incident on the date and at the approximate time it occurred. He told detective that he had seen a man in the area whom he recognized as someone who lived in his neighborhood and had played on the basketball team in a school. The man matched the general description of the assailant provided by the complainant woman. The witness accompanied the detective to a school and looked through three or four school yearbooks. In the 2002 yearbook, he came upon the man’s photograph, pointed to it and identified the man.

A Nassau County Sex Crimes Lawyer said as a result of that identification, the other detective put out what is called an inquiry card with reference to the man, that if he’s stopped, apprehended or identified, the detective’s office would be notified. On May 18, 2004, only one week after the sex crime, the detective was notified that the man was arrested in Queens. The detective had the man transported to Brooklyn and, when he arrived, his supervisor arrested him for the rape. He arranged for the man to stand in a lineup, and had the complainant brought to the precinct station house. She viewed the lineup and identified the man as her attacker.

Published on:

by

The Facts:

On 15 November 1988, the respondent was arrested in Kings County and subsequently indicted for robbery in the first degree and related offenses. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said on 15 November 1989, he entered a plea of guilty to attempted robbery in the first degree. Sentencing was scheduled for 9 January 1990, at which time the respondent failed to appear and a warrant was ordered.

Subsequent to the issuance of the Kings County warrant, the respondent was arrested in North Carolina and charged with having sexual contact with four children. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said on 25 January 1991, following a three-day trial, he was convicted of one count of first degree sex offense and related charges and was sentenced to life in prison.

Continue reading

Contact Information