Sex Crimes

Published on: November 24, 2012

Defendant Claims Unreasonable Delay in Sentencing

by Stephen Bilkis

The People of the State of New York are the plaintiffs in this case and the defendant is E.S.. The case is being heard in front of the Supreme Court of Bronx County.

Case Background

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the defendant has a history of being a violent predicate felon. In June of 1996 he was charged with assaulting three correctional officers using a sharpened toothbrush. During this time he was in prison at the Rikers Island Correctional Facility. He entered a guilty plea for second degree assault regarding this matter.

Published on: November 24, 2012

People Move to Have Expert Testimony Precluded from Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The case involves the People of the State of New York against the defendant A.S.. The defendant has been charged with three robberies. He allegedly robbed a Gymboree store located on Third Avenue on the 18th of April, 2001 and again on the 15th of June, 2001. He is also charged with robbing the American Airlines office located on Broadway later on the same day of June 15th, 2001.

Case Background

On the 17th of June, an eyewitness a robbery at Gymboree picked the defendant’s picture out of a photo line up. A witness of the American Airlines robbery was shown the same group of pictures, but did not make identification.

Published on: November 23, 2012

Appellant Contends Malicious Prosecution

by Stephen Bilkis

A.R. is the appellant and respondent of this particular case. The respondent and appellant of the matter is the City of New York.

Case Background

The plaintiff, A.R. was a college student in 1984 and was studying to be a teacher. He was employed part time at the Concourse Day Care Center as a teacher’s aide. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the claim against the plaintiff was made by a five year old child that attended the day care. The child had previous records of sexually provocative behavior and had previously fabricated a claim of sexual abuse against one of her classmates while attending the Day Care Center. The mother of the child is E.H.

Published on: November 23, 2012

Appellant appeals Rape Conviction

by Stephen Bilkis

The People of the State of New York are the respondents in this case. The defendant and appellant in the matter is E.M. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. The defendant is appealing an order made by the Supreme Court of Bronx County that convicted him after a jury trial of the crime of rape in the first degree and sentenced him to a lesser sentence concurrent with a conviction of rape in the first degree.

Court Records

A New York Criminal Lawyer said in review of the case it is found that the defendant offered statements to the court standing by his plea of guilty. He bargained for this plea and did not want to withdraw it. The statements made to the probation officer that were thought by the court to be a protestation of innocence were not inquired into the court in any extent. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the order of the court to vacate the guilty plea must be set aside in this particular case.

Published on: November 22, 2012

Court Hears Mental Hygiene Proceeding

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a matter being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, and Fourth Judicial Department. The case deals with the State of New York as the petitioner and respondent and N.W., who is also known as S.J., as the respondent and appellant.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the respondent and appellant, S.J. is appealing a decision made in the Supreme Court of Chautauqua County that denied the motion made by the respondent/appellant to dismiss the proceeding.

Case Background

Published on: November 22, 2012

Court Discusses Risk Assessment Factors

by Stephen Bilkis

The People of the State of New York are the plaintiffs in this case. The defendant of the case is W.F.. The County Court of the City of New York in Madison County is the location where this case is being heard.

The defendant was convicted based on a guilty plea, to rape in the second degree, which is a class D felony. He was sentenced on the 5th of September, 2002 to an indeterminate period of 1 to 3 years. He is scheduled to be released to parole on the 25th of April, 2004. The court is being called upon to assess the risk of the defendant.

Defendant’s History

Published on: November 21, 2012

Court Decides Narcotics Sales Case

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that in May 1990, members of the narcotics teams arrested three men for street narcotics sales to undercover police officers. In each case, both the arrest and the evident conduct constituting the crimes was charged occurred entirely within the county and pursuant to an agreement between the district attorney and the special narcotics prosecutor, the criminal actions were commenced by the filing of felony complaints in court.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that all the three men were arraigned and their cases adjourned for action by the special narcotics grand jury and/or possible disposition by way of waiver of indictment and the filing of superior court’s information. The counsel orally moved for dismissal of the felony complaints on the ground that the court had lacked of geographical authority as defined in law. With the concurrence of all the parties, the court reserved decision and set a schedule for the filing of written motions and memoranda of law.

While the court was waiting from the city of New York’s response, the prosecutor presented the two men’s matters to a special narcotics grand jury. A true bill was voted with respect to each and the charges were filed. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the indictments are currently pending in other special narcotics Supreme Court parts. One of the men has actually entered a guilty plea to a lesser included offense. Consequently, the city of New York moved to dismiss the charges against the other men because the laboratory report showed that the items sold contained no controlled substance. Apparently, the motion was granted by the court.

Published on: November 21, 2012

Court Decides if Military Tribunal is Considered a Court of Jurisdiction

by Stephen Bilkis

This matter involves H.B. and L.C as the Judge of the Jefferson County Court as the respondents. The appellant in the case is J.K. as the Jefferson County District Attorney. The other case involves the respondents L.B. and L.C. as the Judge of the Jefferson County Court and J.K. as the Jefferson County District Attorney as the appellant.

The District Attorney of Jefferson County is appealing two cases. He is seeking to overturn the grant of writs of prohibition that prevent his office from prosecuting serious crimes that were committed by two solders on military property. The soldiers were off duty at the time.

The petitioner soldiers were tried and convicted by a general court martial for identical conduct that they were indicted for in Jefferson County. The issue in each of the cases is whether a military tribunal is considered a court with any jurisdiction in the United States. If a military tribunal is considered a court with jurisdiction than the double jeopardy protection laws of the state of New York would bar the successive prosecution of the issues in these cases.

Published on: November 20, 2012

Court Discusses 5th Amendment Double Jeopardy Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

On the morning of December 15, 1971 two men and a woman were observed entering the New York residence of the husband and his wife carrying empty shopping bags or, in Grant’s case, with a collapse valise. A New York Criminal Lawyer said when they departed, the three left with their once empty receptacles, filled. They were then followed to different distribution points where they were arrested. Searches conducted incident to the arrests revealed that they each had over one pound of heroin possession (drug possession). A subsequent search of the couple’s residence produced large amounts of narcotics, money, weapons and drug packaging materials.

On December 28, 1971 the three were indicted by the Bronx County Grand Jury which, by five indictments, charged the three and the wife with criminal law violation through crack possession. The indictments also charged one of the three complainants with two counts of attempted murder, two counts of reckless endangerment and possession of a weapon; and the complainant couple with two counts each of possession of weapon and criminally using drug paraphernalia.

Thereafter, in November, 1972 the complainants and 14 others were indicted by a Federal Grand Jury for conspiring to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute narcotic drugs. A Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer said the indictment set forth 18 overt acts that the complainants allegedly committed in furtherance of the conspiracy, the last of which stated that the three together with the husband did distribute and possess with intent to distribute a total of eight and one-half (8 1/2) kilograms of heroin hydrochloride, and, in addition, did obtain $70,000 income and resources from prior heroin distributions.

Published on: November 20, 2012

Court Discusses Whether Constitution Rights of Inmates has been Violated

by Stephen Bilkis

Respondent inmates brought this class action in Federal District Court challenging the constitutionality of numerous conditions of confinement and practices in the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC), a federally operated short-term custodial facility in New York City designed primarily to house pretrial detainees for federal criminal offense. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the District Court, on various constitutional grounds, enjoined, the practice of housing, primarily for sleeping purposes, two inmates in individual rooms originally intended for single occupancy (“double-bunking”); enforcement of the so-called “publisher-only” rule prohibiting inmates from receiving hard-cover books that are not mailed directly from publishers, book clubs, or bookstores; the prohibition against inmates’ receipt of packages of food and personal items from outside the institution; the practice of body-cavity searches of inmates following contact visits with person from outside institution; and the requirement that pretrial detainees remain outside their rooms during routine inspections by MCC officials. The Court of Appeals affirmed these rulings, holding with respect to the “double-bunking” practice that the MCC had failed to make a showing of “compelling necessity” sufficient to justify such practice.

The issue in this case is whether the constitutional rights of the inmates has been violated because of the conditions of confinement and practices imposed by the MCC, a facility designed to house a pre-trial detainees who committed federal criminal offense.

The Court held that, “double-bunking” practice does not deprive pretrial detainees of their liberty without due process of law in contravention of the Fifth Amendment.