Articles Posted in Nassau

This case is being heard in the Criminal Term of the Supreme Court of Kings County. The plaintiff of the case is the People of the State of New York. The defendant of the case is George Whitmore Jr. The Justice overseeing the case is David L. Malbin.

Case History

On April 23, in 1964, a woman who worked as a nurse at a hospital in Brooklyn was on her way home when she was allegedly attacked by a man who tried to rape her. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said she defendant was arrested the next morning and identified by the victim as her assailant.

Continue reading

This case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in Kings County. The plaintiff of the case is the People of the State of New York. The plaintiff is represented by Shawn Mallon from the office of the district attorney of Brooklyn, Charles J. Hynes. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the defendant in the case is Derrick Brown. The defendant is represented by Thomas McGivney from the Legal Aid Society in Brooklyn. The judge overseeing the case is William E. Garnett.

Case History

On the 31st of March in the year 2004, the defendant pled guilty to having a sexual performance of a child, which is a class E felony. The defendant, Derrick Brown, was promised a sentence of probation as long as he met the condition of registering as a sex offender with the Sex Offenders Registration Act.

Continue reading

A man was indicted by a grand jury for the crime of Robbery in the first degree, Robbery in the Second Degree and criminal use of a weapon. At the arraignment, the man asked the trial court to first open the minutes of the grand jury proceeding to see if a prima facie case had been proved by the District Attorney that would justify the indictments for robbery. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the Court granted the motion of the accused and scrutinized he grand jury proceedings to determine if there was legally sufficient grounds as basis for the indictment.

The Court reviewed the minutes of the grand jury proceedings and found out that the police officer who arrested the man was presented to testify. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said in his testimony, he stated that the man was arrested following a conversation the arresting police officer had with the complaining witness and the co-defendant of the man.

The Court held that allowing the arresting police officer to testify regarding the conversations he had with the complaining witness and the man’s co-defendant allowed hearsay testimony to be admitted during the grand jury proceedings. But the Court also ruled that although errors were made, these errors were not serious enough to warrant the dismissal of the first two counts of the indictment for Robbery in the first degree and for robbery in the second degree. So the accused’s motion for dismissal of the first two counts of the indictment is denied.

Continue reading

On 9 August 2003, an officer, formerly a detective with the Town of Glenville Police Department in Schenectady County, received a report that a local McDonald’s restaurant had been robbed by a man brandishing what appeared to be a handgun and an axe; a handgun crime. That information was distributed to other law enforcement agencies, including the State Police. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer upon learning of the robbery, a police officer (the officer), who was on patrol with his partner, contacted another officer, a senior investigator with the State Police, who then instructed the officer to set up surveillance on defendant’s residence and, if defendant appeared, to execute a “felony stop” utilizing extreme caution to ensure officer safety.

The police officer and his partner took up position nearby and, as defendant rolled through a stop sign en route to his residence, he identified defendant, whom he described as a “very distinctive looking individual,” as the operator of the pickup truck in question to which the GPS tracking device previously (and validly) had been affixed. The police officer and his partner pulled in behind defendant in his driveway and, as defendant was exiting his truck, drew their weapons, ordered defendant from the vehicle and down to the ground, handcuffed defendant and placed him in the back of their marked police vehicle. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said numerous police officers responded to the scene, including the senior investigator, who instructed another investigator to access the GPS tracking information. While waiting for this information, the police officer observed an axe and a bag of clothing, in plain view, in the bed of defendant’s pickup truck.

The GPS tracking information revealed that defendant’s pickup truck had been in the vicinity of the McDonald’s restaurant at the time of the robbery in Schenectady County; the truck then returned to the Town of Clifton Park, Saratoga County and made a brief stop on Maxwell Road, where defendant apparently was employed, before proceeding to defendant’s residence.

Continue reading

Two police officers were patrolling in a police car which they parked near Washington Heights. They were assigned here because the area of Washington Heights was known as a high traffic area for selling drugs especially to people from outside of New York, particularly, from people in New Jersey.

As the two cops were walking, they saw a Cherokee Jeep with New Jersey license plates. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said they saw a Caucasian male park the Jeep and get down from it. They saw him approach a Hispanic looking man who was yelling for the Caucasian passenger of the Jeep to come over to where he was.

As the Caucasian male was walking toward the Hispanic man, he saw the police officer walking toward them. The Caucasian man backtracked and ran to his vehicle, and drove away.

Continue reading

The man was charged with criminal possession of a controlled substance, in particular of possession of a narcotic drug with the intent to sell and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, in particular of knowing and unlawful cocaine possession with 500 milligrams or more. The man moved to cover up the physical evidence recovered upon his arrest. After the suppression hearing, the trial court denied the man’s motion. A Sandoval hearing was also held at which the man sought to cover up his nine prior drug crime convictions.

Consequently, the man proceeded to trial but did not testify. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the evidence adduced at the trial established that the arresting officer saw the man twice, reaching into a brown paper bag and drop vials into an unidentified woman’s outstretched hand. The officer, who observed the man from a distance, also testified that it appeared to him as if the man were counting out the number of vials he was depositing into the woman’s hand. As the officer approached the man, the woman fled and the man was arrested. The brown paper bag, which contained thirty-one vials, was recovered from the man. Upon analysis of the contents of the vials by police chemists it was concluded that the vials contained 1,591 milligrams of cocaine. The jury acquitted the man of the possession with intent to sell count but convicted him of the fifth degree possession count.

The legislature had decided that persons who illegally possess larger quantities of controlled substances should be punished more severely. The conduct is more repugnant and presents a greater threat to society because drug possession is not a strict liability crime, however, an individual is not deserving of enhanced punishment unless he or she is aware that the amount possessed is greater. A purpose of the knowledge requirement is to avoid over penalizing someone who unwittingly possesses a larger amount of the controlled substance than anticipated.

Continue reading

The Facts of the Case:

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said that on 10 September 1992 evening, two people arrived at the corner of East 213th Street and Bronxwood Avenue in a BMW. Already present were Defendant and seven (7) other people, two of which were brothers. All of these individuals were known to each other, had some type of criminal background. Four (4) of them all sold drugs in the vicinity, with one working for Defendant.

Meanwhile, two other brothers, one went into a nearby restaurant while the other did the same or used a nearby telephone.

Continue reading

Defendant is a New York City police officer who was arrested in a “sting operation” wherein he was made to believe that he was being hired by a drug dealer for the purpose of protecting transported drug money (the fruit of a drug crime).

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the Supreme Court, Queens County convicted him of bribery receiving by a public servant in the third degree, receiving reward for official misconduct in the second degree, official misconduct, and computer trespass; a number of criminal law violations.

Defendant appeals the court’s decision.

There is a good deal of specific legality, which is involved in cases of gambling or racketeering. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the fact that a person is engaged in a criminal enterprise must be proven. In order for a case to be considered a criminal enterprise, the person must have committed three or more acts that constitute separate and distinct crimes that relate to the same enterprise. The crimes must be separate and able to be tried an convicted on their own without being a drawn out version of just one crime. A crime is not a criminal enterprise if it just takes a long time to commit the one crime. In gambling or numbers operations, it can sometimes be difficult to show that the gambling operation is actually a criminal enterprise.

In one case from 1997, the court arrested several subjects and charged them with conspiracy and operating a criminal enterprise in Queens County. The police alleged that the gambling operation was started around August 15, 1996 and continued until the arrests of the subjects on November 7, 1997. The indictment charged that the defendants in the case were all members of a notorious gambling organized crime ring that was run by the Conigliaro family. The police brought forth evidence that demonstrated that the enterprise was organized in Queens, Kings, and Richmond Counties in the state of New York. It showed that there was a bookmaker, who was in control of ensuring that the operation ran smoothly. There was a controller, who handled the daily business of the enterprise and all of the accounting details. There were several clerks who took the betting information by phone and had runners meet with the bettors each week to settle the accounts.

The defense maintained that the organization could not be convicted for operating a criminal enterprise because their crimes were gambling only. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the pattern of illegal gambling activity was documented from November 1988 to July of 1991. The legislators maintained that illegal enterprises were specifically considered in the written statute to include “syndicated gambling.” The question of law was whether these actions constituted on criminal purpose and objective or not. If it is one purpose and objective, then the case cannot be a criminal enterprise because there has to be three distinct acts.

Continue reading

Police officers who work drug related crimes require specialized training to ensure that they conduct themselves appropriately while they are performing their duties. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the nature of drug crimes is that it changes frequently. The fluidity of the laws surrounding the actions of the police and prosecutors means that occasionally, the fall behind the law in matters that relate to the arrests and prosecutions of offenders. That means that a person who has obtained a good attorney is more capable in most cases of interpreting recent case law as well as statutory law. One case that helped to define the criteria of modern drug law occurred in January of 1981.

On January 31, 1981, two detectives were in an unmarked undercover vehicle in an area where drug problems had been reported. They were using binoculars to survey the area. They observed a car at 8:15 at night pull up and park on the curb about 100 feet away from them. They watched with their binoculars for several minutes while suspected customers came up to the car and transactions took place. Specifically, what the officers observed was that another car would pull up, and a person would approach the driver of the parked vehicle. A conversation would ensue. Money would be handed to the driver, or the passenger, who was later identified as the defendant’s wife. A small tinfoil ball would be handed to the person out of the car window. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the officers observed the purchaser hold the tinfoil ball to his nose and smell it before leaving. After watching two of these transactions, the officers approached the vehicle and notified the marked patrol backup unit to respond to the location.

The officers handcuffed the driver and his male companion and searched them. They located an envelope of marijuana on the driver’s person. The detectives identified themselves and placed the two male subjects in the back of the detective car handcuffed while they interviewed the additional suspects. When the marked unit arrived and the detective started to transfer the prisoners, they located a clear plastic baggie of angel dust in the driver’s coat pocket. A Nassau County Sex Crimes Lawyer said one the prisoners were properly searched and placed into the marked unit, the officers checked their back seat and discovered that there were four tinfoil balls of angel dust on the seat of the vehicle. At the precinct, the officers recovered $237 cash from the driver and his wife.

Continue reading