Sex Crimes

Published on: November 19, 2012

Defendant Contests Immigration Issues in Relation to Sex Crimes

by Stephen Bilkis

The case involves the People of the State of New York against the defendant Floyd F. The Criminal Court of the City of New York in Kings County is hearing this case. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant has motioned to have his plea of guilty to sexual abuse in the third degree vacated. The plea was taken on the 10th of November, 1994 and he was convicted for the crime (sex crimes) on the 12th of January, 1995.

Defendant’s Argument

The defendant is requesting that the judgment against him be vacated based upon ineffective counsel and because the plea was entered without him fully understanding what it met. The defendant argues that when he entered the plea of guilty he was not informed by his attorney of the potential immigration consequences. He states that if he had known about these consequences he would have chosen to not enter the plea and would have gone to trial instead.

Published on: November 17, 2012

Court Discusses Search Warrant

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is about the validity of a search warrant which authorized a search of the premises where defendant resided, and also of another residential unit distantly located. A New York Criminal Lawyer said whether the warrant itself is sufficient; and whether by collateral estoppel the infirmity of the warrant may be argued or applied to the other residence; has to be determined by the Court.

On September 10, 1985, a New York City Police officer applied by telephone to a Queens County Criminal Court Judge for a search warrant for two premises in Queens: 155-47 116th Avenue; and the second floor of a two family dwelling at 116-66 231st Street. The application was based on the information provided to the Police Officer by an unregistered and unidentified informant, who had provided information in the past. According to the informant, there were two black males who had been abducted, beaten and were near death from a ruined drug crime transaction (drug possession) at the 116th Avenue location. The informant also said to the Police Officer that he had just left the location twenty minutes earlier and that he had been in the company of three of the suspects who were going to the 231st Street location, at about 8:00 P.M., in order to cut and distribute drugs.

The judge authorized a “no-knock” search of both premises and authorized the arrest of all persons found therein, as well as the seizure of any contraband found. The search of the 116th Avenue location resulted in the arrest of seven people and the recovery of misdemeanor quantities of narcotics and several rifles. The search of the 231st Street location, which is defendant’s home, resulted in the arrest of defendant and five others, and the recovery of substantial amount of narcotics, handguns, cash, and drug paraphernalia.

Published on: November 16, 2012

Court Discusses Elements of a Criminal Conspiracy

by Stephen Bilkis

The two accused men, charged with the crimes of Criminal Sale of a Dangerous Drug and Conspiracy (drug possession), move to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that the prosecution puts them in jeopardy again for crimes of which they already have been convicted in another jurisdiction. They contend, in short, that their prosecution in Nassau County of the crime of Conspiracy included therein acts which are alleged in this indictment and thus fall within the proscriptions of the Criminal Procedure Law which prohibit such a second prosecution. The Court ordered a hearing on the contentions of the accused men and the facts and circumstances of the issues as testified to at the hearing.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the accused men with others met the undercover Police Officer who was accompanied by an informer at a restaurant owned by one of the accused in Queens County Restaurant. There was a discussion concerning the buying and selling of cocaine and the accused men quoted prices to the undercover detective. An agreement was made the next day to meet at the same place for the purchase of 1/8 of a kilo and at the subsequent meeting the accused delivered the 1/8 of a kilo to the officer and received from him the sum of $4,000 as a payment. Having established a basis for doing business, the accused men and undercover officer, entered into another deal at a Restaurant for the sale of a kilo for $32,000. The actual sale for the kilo was made in Nassau County.

Subsequently,a Nassau County Criminal Lawyer said the accused men were indicted in Queens County charged with the crime of Criminal Sale in the First Degree, involving the $4,000 sale and the conspiracy which led up to that substantive crime. They were also indicted by the Nassau County Grand Jury for crimes involving the $32,000 sale, Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance, Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance and Conspiracy.

Published on: November 15, 2012

Court Decides if Powell was Unlawfully Excluded from Seating in Congress

by Stephen Bilkis

During the 89th Congress, a Special Subcommittee on Contracts of the Committee on House Administration conducted an investigation into the expenditures of the Committee on Education and Labor, of which petitioner Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., was chairman. A New York Crirminal Lawyer said the Special Subcommittee issued a report concluding that Powell and certain staff employees had deceived the House authorities as to travel expenses. The report also indicated there was strong evidence that certain illegal salary payments had been made to Powell’s wife at his direction. No formal action or criminal charges was taken during the 89th Congress. However, prior to the organization of the 90th Congress, the Democratic members-elect met in caucus and voted to remove Powell as chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor.

When the 90th Congress met to organize in January 1967, Powell was asked to step aside while the oath was administered to the other members-elect. Following the administration of the oath to the remaining members, the House discussed the procedure to be followed in determining whether Powell was eligible to take his seat. A Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer said after some debate, by a vote of 363 to 65 the House adopted House Resolution No. 1, which provided that the Speaker appoint a Select Committee to determine Powell’s eligibility. Although the resolution prohibited Powell from taking his seat until the House acted on the Select Committee’s report, it did provide that he should receive all the pay and allowances due a member during the period.

The Select Committee, composed of nine lawyer-members, issued an invitation to Powell to testify before the Committee. The invitation letter stated that the scope of the testimony and investigation would include Powell’s qualifications as to age, citizenship, and residency; his involvement in a civil suit, and matters of alleged official misconduct.

Published on: November 14, 2012

Courts Discuss Population Cap for Prisons

by Stephen Bilkis

This case originated almost two decades ago when the plaintiff-prisoners, complaining of the conditions in the Harris County jails, filed a class action lawsuit against certain Harris County officials (“County”). The district court, based on extensive hearings, found the conditions in the jail to be inhumane. Subsequently, on February 4, 1975, the plaintiffs and the County entered into a “Consent Judgment” calling for renovations of existing facilities, the development of a new jail, and improvements in staff and security at the jails. New York Criminal Lawyer said the litigation, however, was far from over, and the “district court retained jurisdiction to issue interim orders.” Ten months later, the district court issued an opinion providing guidelines for streamlining the criminal justice system, implementing an effective pretrial release program, and improving the living conditions in the jails.

A Suffolk Criminal Lawyer said that, by 1982, the County had completed a new jail (the “Franklin Jail”), with more than three times the capacity of the old central jail (the “old San Jacinto Jail”). The County also maintained a detention center in Humble, Texas, and upon the opening of the Franklin Jail, the County closed the old San Jacinto Jail. The district court, however, remained involved in the jails’ operation and addressed staffing and supervision concerns in the jails. After consulting with an expert, the County determined that it would need additional space, and therefore the County authorized construction of a third jail (the “new San Jacinto Jail”) and the renovation of the old San Jacinto Jail.

A Suffolk Criminal Lawyer said that, eager to be free from the yoke of litigation, the County filed a motion for final judgment and permanent injunction. In order to assess the County’s compliance with its prior orders and to determine the maximum capacity of the jails, the district court appointed three monitors–a special master, a medical monitor-assessor, and a jail monitor-assessor (collectively the “monitors”). The monitors examined eighteen conditions and found that the County had complied fully with nine conditions, had complied partially with seven conditions, and had failed to comply with only two conditions of the court’s prior orders. Additionally, the monitors found that, as of June 1, 1987, the county jails’ population exceeded their design capacities by only five percent. Although the County had made substantial progress in conforming the jails to constitutional requirements, the monitors recommended that the court continue supervising the jails in light of the County’s “inordinate delay in achieving substantial compliance.”

Published on: November 13, 2012

Respondent Claims Constitutional Rights Were Violated

by Stephen Bilkis

Two suits, permitted to proceed as class actions, were brought in District Court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by respondents, individuals and organizations, against petitioners, the Mayor of Philadelphia, the Police Commissioner, and others, alleging a pervasive pattern of illegal and unconstitutional police mistreatment of minority citizens in particular and Philadelphia residents in general. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the petitioners were charged with misconduct ranging from express authorization or encouragement of the mistreatment to failure to act in such a way as to avoid recurrence.

The principal antagonists involved in one case were two police officer, not named as parties, who were found to have violated complainants’ constitutional rights in three of eight incidents as to which the District Court made detailed factual findings and as to which a five-day suspension had resulted in one incident and no disciplinary action in another. In the other case, in only two of 28 incidents did the District Court conclude that the police conduct amounted to a deprivation of a federally secured right; it found no police misconduct in four incidents; in another, departmental policy was subsequently changed; and, though the court made no comment on the degree of misconduct occurring in the remainder, there were arguably 16 police violations of citizens’ constitutional rights in the year involved.

A Bronx Criminal Lawyer said that, the District Court found, that the evidence did not establish the existence of any policy on the part of petitioners to violate the constitutional rights of respondent classes but found evidence of departmental discouragement of complaints and a tendency to minimize the consequences of police misconduct. The court found that only a small percentage of policemen commit violations of the rights of Philadelphia residents generally but that such violations could not be dismissed as rare or isolated. Petitioners were directed to draft for the court’s approval “a comprehensive program for dealing adequately with civilian complaints” to be formulated in accordance with the court’s “guidelines” containing detailed suggestions for revising the police manuals and procedural rules for dealing with citizens and for changing procedures for handling complaints. On petitioners’ appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Published on: November 12, 2012

Defendants Move for Summary Judgment

by Stephen Bilkis

This involves a case where the Supreme Court Appellate division held that conceivability is not equivalent to foreseebility. The Court herein granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the plaintiff was a tenant in a building located at 584 Academy Street in Manhattan, owned by defendant holding company and managed by defendant development company. In the early afternoon of February 26, 2002, plaintiff entered the building through the lone entrance available to the tenants. A man whom plaintiff did not recognize entered the building immediately after her. The man walked ahead of plaintiff up a staircase, which plaintiff was using to reach her unit on the second floor. As plaintiff opened the door to her apartment, the man, who had continued up the staircase when plaintiff walked from the staircase to her unit, ran down the staircase and pushed plaintiff into the apartment. The man then sexually assaulted plaintiff at gunpoint.

Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries, claiming that defendants failed to provide adequate security for the building. Specifically, a New York Criminal Lawyer said the plaintiff’s theory of liability is that defendants failed to maintain a working lock on the door to the tenants’ entrance, which failure allowed the assailant to gain entry to the building and assault plaintiff.

Published on: November 11, 2012

Defendant Denied Right to Counsel

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is about the Prosecution’s appeal from the order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated May 12, 1982, which granted defendant’s motion to suppress certain statements since his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights were violated by the Police Officers.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said on March 12, 1981, the defendant was arrested on charges of murder in Pemberton, New Jersey. The murder occurred on May 23, 1980 in Queens County, New York. The detectives took the defendant to the local police station in Pemberton, where he was read his Miranda rights. He was then transported to the Burlington County’s prosecutor’s office where he was again given his Miranda rights. Later that day, at approximately 3:00 P.M., defendant was produced before a Judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey where he waived his right to extradition and agreed to return voluntarily to New York.

Specifically, the New Jersey Judge exhaustively explained to defendant his options as well as the concept of extradition considering that he is also wanted in the City of New York for the crime of murder. The said Judge also offered to give him a lawyer if he could not afford one, in case he opts for extradition. After having been apprised of his options, Defendant unequivocally chose to go back to New York voluntarily, thereby waiving his right to extradition.

Published on: November 10, 2012

Defendant Claims He was Denied Due Process

by Stephen Bilkis

In a disciplinary case, the Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts vacated an order imposing a two-year suspension on K. and entered a judgment suspending K. from the practice of law for four years, retroactive to October 24, 1997. K’s disciplinary proceeding in Massachusetts arose as a result of K’s unlawful payment of $12,000 to a congressman for the purpose of arranging a transfer of K’s uncle from one federal prison to another.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that the Florida Bar filed a complaint against K and attached a copy of the Massachusetts judgment to the complaint. In his response to the complaint, K admitted that he had been suspended in Massachusetts and that the order attached to the Bar’s complaint setting forth the facts leading to his suspension was genuine and admissible as evidence. The Bar filed a motion for summary judgment. K did not appear for the hearing on the motion. Instead, he filed a pleading entitled “Respondent’s Objection to Complainant’s Motion for Summary Judgment” in which K alleged that he had been denied due process in the Massachusetts proceeding. Following the hearing, the referee granted the Bar’s motion.

In her report, the referee found that K. did not demonstrate that he had been denied due process in the Massachusetts disciplinary proceeding. The referee further determined that the Massachusetts adjudication of misconduct constituted conclusive proof of K’s misconduct in the instant disciplinary proceedings pursuant to Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 3-4.6.

Published on: November 9, 2012

Defendant Retracts Her Confession

by Stephen Bilkis

On 2009, a seventeen years old girl was arrested and subsequently accused of felony charges in two separately docketed felony complaints. She was charged with criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (drug possession) when an undercover police officer alleged in the complaint that she along several others, were selling narcotics from a first-floor apartment window of a building. The officer specifically alleged that the girl, who he saw at the window inside the apartment, handed three bags of crack cocaine to his colleague, who was standing on the sidewalk outside the window. The man then immediately delivered the crack cocaine in her possession to the officer.

In a separate complaint, a New York Criminal Lawyer said the girl was also charged with crack possession. Another police officer alleged that, at about the same time the sale occurred, he entered the aforementioned apartment and found the girl and a twenty-three-year-old man, inside. The officer further stated that he recovered fifteen clear bags containing crack cocaine sitting in plain view on the dining room table. While the police officers were in the apartment, the girl’s brother entered and asked what is going on. The brother was also arrested, along with the girl and the man.

The girl appeared for her arraignment and the court assigned the public defender organization to represent her. A very experienced staff attorney from the organization was designated to be the girl’s attorney. The attorney met with the girl to discuss the case prior to her court appearance. He went over the factual allegations in the accusatory instruments with her, and she then told the attorney her version of the events. When the girl appeared, she entered pleas of not guilty to all charges. The cases were deferred for grand jury action.