New York

Published on: July 3, 2012

Defendant Contends that he did Not Receive a Fair Trial

by Stephen Bilkis

The People of the State of New York are the respondents of this case. Eric Maier is the appellant of the case. The case is being heard in the Second Department, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant is appealing a judgment that was issued from the County Court of Suffolk County. The judgment convicts the defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree. He is also convicted of failing to stop at a stop sign. The conviction was made by a jury.

Case Background

Published on: July 3, 2012

Court Finds Burden of Proof Not Met

by Stephen Bilkis

The respondent for this particular case is the People of the State of New York. The appellant of the case is Robert J. Wofford. The case is being heard in the Second Department, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court.

The defendant is appealing a judgment that was made by the Kings County Supreme Court. The judgment was made during a nonjury trial and the defendant was convicted of murder and possession of weapons. He was charged with a misdemeanor and is now serving a 20 years to life sentence for the murder charge.

Case Facts

Published on: July 2, 2012

Court Discusses Mental Hygine Act

by Stephen Bilkis

The petitioner of the case is the State of New York. The respondent of the case is P.H. This case is being heard by Judge Daniel P. Conviser.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the respondent, P.H., is a sex offender and this case involves the civil management petition that has been filed, pursuant to the mental hygiene law. A hearing was conducted on the 22nd of September, 2008 to determine whether or not probable cause existed in the case to believe the respondent was in need of civil management as set by the Mental Hygiene Law section 10.06.

The petitioner called one witness during the hearing, Dr. Erika Frances. The court determined her testimony to be credible in the matter. There were no witnesses called by the respondent of the case.

Published on: July 2, 2012

Murder Charge Brings Up Estate Issues

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involves the accounting done by Dennis Gleason as the acting Executor of the Estate of Dianne Edwards who is deceased. The case is being presented in the Surrogate Court of Suffolk County.

This is a motion to dismiss the objections that have been filed in regard to the account of the estate fiduciary and a cross motion by the objectant for a summary judgment to be granted to dismiss the complaint.

Case Background

Published on: July 2, 2012

Court Determines Deadlock Jury Instruction Used

by Stephen Bilkis

This is an appeal case. The appellant is Stephen S. Lavalle. The respondent for the case is the People of the State of New York. The case is being heard in the Court of Appeals of the state of New York.

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said Stephen S. Lavalle, the appellant, was found guilty of first degree murder in the course of a first degree rape by a jury in Suffolk County. Lavalle has received a death sentence for these crimes. He is appealing the death penalty.

Case Background and Facts

Published on: July 1, 2012

Defendant Claims 4th Amendment Rights have been Violated

by Stephen Bilkis

The people of the state of New York are the respondents in this particular case. The appellant in the case is Jessie Dunn. The case is being heard in the Fourth Department, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court.

This case for appeal deals with the question of whether the rights of the defendant were violated under the fourth amendment of the constitution.

Case Background

Published on: July 1, 2012

Court Says Special Parole is a Discretionary Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

Suffolk Drug Crime 87

The petitioner in the case is James Kenneth Brown III. The matter deals with an application for a judgment that is pursuant to the Civil Practice Law and Rules, Article 78. The respondents of the case are Andrea D. Evans, the Chief Executive Officer for the NYS Division of Parole and the Chairwoman of the NYS Board of Parole. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in the County of Franklin.

Legal Background

Published on: July 1, 2012

Defendant Claims Insufficient Evidence for an Indictment

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involves the plaintiffs, the People of the State of New York versus the defendant, Edward Cicciari. The case is being heard in the Criminal Term of the Supreme Court of the state of New York in Queens County.

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the counsel for the defendant is seeking an inspection of the minutes presented to the Grand Jury that resulted in the defendant being indicted for first degree rape, first degree sodomy, first degree burglary, aggravated sexual abuse, attempted burglary, criminal mischief, and resisting arrest.

The defendant is seeking that a number of counts on the indictment be dismissed based on the fact that the indictment was not founded on competent and sufficient legal evidence.

Published on: June 30, 2012

Supreme Court Discusses Date Rape

by Stephen Bilkis

On February 18, 1992, The Supreme Court for New York County, New York, discussed the application of punitive damages in civil suits against criminally convicted perpetrators would be appropriate in rape cases. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the case in question granted $10,000,000.00 in damages to the victim of a sexual assault in 1988. Her attacker was charged and convicted of rape, sodomy, and sexual abuse. The victim subsequently filed a civil suit to recover damages. The victim was a fashion model who relied on her unblemished physical beauty for her source of income. During the course of the rape, her attacker had slashed her with a knife. The slashing made it impossible for her to continue gainful employment as a model.

The 1991 amendment to the Civil Rights Law § 50-b demands that all victims of sex offenses regardless of their age be protected from having their identities disclosed to the public. The reason that rape victims identities require protection from disclosure is associated with the societal stigma that is placed on victims of sexual assault in general. This is especially true in the case of date rape. Date rape which is sometimes called acquaintance rape, is the most common form of rape in this country. Most cases of date rape go unreported. Prior to 1974, a rape victim had to have corroboration in the form of an eye witness or physical evidence to substantiate her claim of rape. That created an atmosphere of danger for any woman who was alone with a man. The court recognizes that date rape is a crime so old that it is recorded in the bible. For many years, if a woman willingly went to a man’s apartment or bedroom, the general opinion was that she knew that she would be expected to have sex with that man. If she then told him that she did not want to have sex with him and he forced her to have sex, society had the view that she had asked for it. She was considered to have known what she was getting into when she agreed to be alone with a man in an area that “good” girls did not go.

In 1988, mainly as a result of a book about it, date rape was put into the spot light. Many women reported during a comprehensive study to have suffered from forced sexual intercourse by dates. In fact, a staggering 20% of college students reported in 1985 that a date had forced them to have sexual intercourse against their will at least once. Many women did not even call forced sex on a date, rape. The FBI estimated that in 1988 60 to 80% of the women who were raped, were raped while on a date with their attacker. It was not until 1991, when the Violence Against Women Act was proposed that these issues were brought to the forefront of criticism in American public view. These proposed laws would make federal penalties available for rape prosecutions and require mandatory restitution to the victims.

Published on: June 30, 2012

Court Discusses Changes in Law for Rape Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

Prior to 1974, a rape conviction was not able to be obtained on the uncorroborated testimony of the victim. In order to corroborate a testimony, the victim would have to be able to produce an eye witness or some other type of physical evidence. Prior to 1974, there was no such thing as DNA evidence. The ability to obtain a conviction on rape would be almost impossible. There is rarely an eyewitness to testify on behalf of a rape victim.

In fact, in 1967, rape was a misdemeanor offense. Rape in the present day is considered a felony offense. Attitudes have changed dramatically concerning sexual offenses. It seems incomprehensible in the present day that a rape conviction would require an eye witness or other physical evidence in order to get a conviction. However, even in 1967, some prosecutors were aware that the legislature needed to create changes in the laws to make them equitable to societal attitudes of the time. In fact, in one rape case the defendant was charged with assault in the second degree with the intent to rape and assault in the third degree. The defendant testified that he had completed the rape. The reason that he chose to testify to the completed rape was because a completed rape required eye witness testimony or other corroborating evidence. The offense of attempted rape or assault with the intent to rape, did not require the addition of corroborating evidence.

The defendant appealed the conviction because he contended that the prosecution was attempting to circumvent the requirement of corroborating evidence in rape cases by charging a crime that does not require corroboration. The court reviewed the case and determined that the fact that a prosecutor could conceivably circumvent the requirement of corroboration by charging a lesser included offense would result in a sentence that is greater for the lesser offense than it was for the completion of the rape.