Sex Crimes

Published on: July 24, 2012

Court Holds Defendant Fails to Establish Gender Discrimination

by Stephen Bilkis

Plaintiffs alleged that they were sexually assaulted and were subjected to unwanted and repeated sex crimes by their supervisor, one of the defendants in this case. New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the plaintiffs were employed as data entry technician in a company engaged in children’s clothing apparel, another defendant in this case. One of the plaintiffs alleged that she underwent abortion as a result of the rape committed against her.

Defendant supervisor moved for a summary judgment to dismiss the case against him. According to the defendant, plaintiff’s testimony is incredible as a matter of law. He argued that plaintiff did not make her claim of rape until six months after the first alleged rape and four months after the second alleged rape. Additionally, there are records of numerous telephone calls and text messages between him and the plaintiff at all times of day and night, indicating that they engaged in a consensual sexual relationship Defendant supervisor’s passport unequivocally demonstrates that he was in Colombia on August 19, 2005, the date of the second alleged rape. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said after some of the alleged acts of harassment occurred, the plaintiff signed a birthday card “Be healthy & wealthy” for the defendant on his birthday, and sent flowers to him on this occasion

The Court denied defendant supervisor’s motion for summary judgment.

Published on: July 24, 2012

Court Examines SORA Designation

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

The defendant appeared before the Court for a risk level determination pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act. The defendant has a criminal history which dates back to the 1950’s and includes a number of crimes committed in Virginia, viz: Rape in Virginia, in 1955; Felony Cutting with Intent to Maim in Virginia, in 1957; Rape in 1962; and Arson in the Second Degree in New York, in 1985.

First, defendant moved to have the Court declare SORA unconstitutional as applied and use the Static 99 rather than the SORA Risk Assessment Instrument (the “RAI”) to determine his risk for re-offense. He argues that the SORA Risk Assessment Instrument does not measure the risk of re-offense, as it purports to do, but reflects a moral judgment about how blameworthy sexually offending behavior is. He describes the instrument and risk level determinations under SORA as punitive rather than regulatory. For this reason, he alleges, the statute is unconstitutional.

Published on: July 23, 2012

Issue Revolves Around Whether Defendants Knew They Were in Possession of a Forged Instrument

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts

On 2 July 1982, defendant presented a check in the amount of $254.78 to a cashier employed by a Market to pay for a $30.06 bill for groceries. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the check was made payable to person-one and drawn against an account maintained by a corporation.

The check was presented with the Market’s customer check cashing card which had been issued to person-one. At the time the check was presented to the cashier, it bore the signature of person-two, as maker on behalf of the corporation, and was indorsed on the reverse side of the check in the name of person-one. In order to receive cash to return to defendant, the cashier went to the service counter where she handed the check and the check cashing card to the head cashier. The head cashier recognized the check as one for which an alert had been received by the store a few days earlier, thus, he instructed the cashier to detain defendant, and called the police and the assistant store manager. Thereafter, defendant indicated to the assistant store manager that the check was his. (Defendant repeatedly denied that this conversation with the assistant store manager ever occurred.) While the assistant store manager attempted to detain defendant, defendant left the store. The assistant store manager followed defendant out of the store and identified him to the police.

Published on: July 23, 2012

Defendant Appeals Sentencing

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

Defendant was employed as an assistant comptroller of a Hospital. Allegedly, a New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant was depositing checks payable to his employer in his own checking account. Thus, he was charged with five counts of grand larceny in the second degree. An audit by the Hospital revealed, and defendant admitted, that during the period from 1967 to 1972, such defalcations amounted to approximately $68,000.

According to defendant’s memorandum, and not controverted by the prosecution, the defendant was advised between his arraignment on 27 January 1976, and his plea of guilty on 24 February 1976, that if he made satisfactory restitution to his employer’s insurance carrier he would be allowed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor in satisfaction of the indictment.

Published on: July 23, 2012

Court Discusses Constitutionality of Police Stop

by Stephen Bilkis

In a criminal proceeding, a New York Criminal Lawyer said that, a computer store located at West 57th Street between Eighth and Ninth Avenues was burglarized. Police Officer Maselli, on patrol in an unmarked yellow cab, heard a radio run of two Black males who were involved in the burglary. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said he proceeded to the scene of the computer crime where he spoke to the doorman of the building in which the store was located. This witness gave him the additional information that the two men were wearing blue jeans and sneakers and had last been seen running west on 57th Street toward Ninth Avenue.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, Maselli then began to drive around the area until he reached Eighth Avenue between 47th and 48th Streets, where he saw two Black people wearing jeans and sneakers, walking south. One, a man, was carrying what Maselli believed to be a television set. The other appeared to be female. Maselli stopped the cab approximately twenty feet from them and approached, displaying his shield, while his partner approached from the other side. Without making any inquiry whatsoever, Maselli put the two up against the wall and, after discovering that the “television” which the male put down was actually a computer, placed both under arrest. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the defendants were then taken to the computer crime scene where they were displayed to another witness, Linda Siegfried, who lived in an apartment above the store. After the witness identified them, defendants were taken to the stationhouse and booked; a cord belonging to the computer which Washington had been carrying was recovered from Perry’s pocket.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, Maselli testified to an incident prior to his initial arrival at the computer crime scene which allegedly connected Perry and Washington to the crime and explained his subsequent stop of them. Maselli told of seeing “two male blacks” turning into Eighth Avenue from 54th Street, where they had been walking in an easterly direction. One of the men was carrying a television, and it was his recollection of the two which caused him to drive to a more southerly area of Eighth Avenue after interviewing the doorman.

Published on: July 23, 2012

Attorneys Accused of White Collar Crime

by Stephen Bilkis

The rights that are provided to all citizens of the United States by the United States Constitution are considered integral to the operation of our government as a whole. One of these inalienable rights is spelled out in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. A New York Criminal Lawyer said it is the right against self- incrimination in a criminal trial. The question of how far the right against self-incrimination extends can be argued as it was in 1960 when a group of attorneys were indicted for illegally soliciting legal business for their firm. They were later found guilty of criminal contempt of court and appealed their convictions.

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the attorneys were charged with contempt of court for refusing to testify in a case against another attorney and invoking the Fifth Amendment protections toward that end. They contend that they could not testify against one of the attorneys that they worked with without incriminating themselves. They further contend that the Grand Jury was being used illegally by the office of the prosecutor to obtain statements from them that would be used in later cases to prosecute them. They were subpoenaed to testify before the Grand Jury in regards to a case against a co-worker involved in illegally soliciting business. The attorneys each appeared as they were subpoenaed, however, upon being called to testify, they each presented the court with a letter invoking their rights to remain silent in order to not incriminate themselves.

The prosecutor then asked to speak with them outside of the hearing of the Grand Jury. Each attorney was told that the Grand Jury was prepared to grant them immunity in the current case if they testified before the Grand Jury. Each one was called back in and the foreman of the Grand Jury was instructed by the prosecutor to direct each of them to answer the question. The question was posed and the order was given. The attorneys still refused to testify. A New York Criminal Lawyer said following the Grand Jury court, the prosecutor presented each of the attorneys with the charge of contempt of court. They were arrested, tried, and found guilty. Each of them filed appeals of the verdict stating that it was unconstitutional to charge them with contempt of court for failing to provide testimony that would tend to incriminate them.

Published on: July 23, 2012

Court Decides jurisdiction Between State and Federal Court

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiff in the matter is the Greenview Trading Company. The defendants in the matter are Hershman & Leicher, P.C., Harold M. Hershman, Indu Craft, PLC of New York, Incorporated, and Richard Rottman. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the case is being heard in the Supreme Court in the state of New York located in New York County. The acting justice in the case is David B. Saxe.

The question before the court in this case is whether state courts have concurrent jurisdiction with federal courts to hear private civil actions regarding damages under the RICO act, or are these actions only within the federal domain.

Case Background

Published on: July 22, 2012

Court Defines Meaning of Criminal Enterprise

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a criminal case about the defendants who were indicted for forty one counts of Enterprise Corruption, Bribing a Labor Official, Bribe receiving by a Labor Official, and various Labor Law violations. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendants moved for inspection of the grand jury minutes and dismissal of the indictment, specifically for dismissal of Count One, (the Enterprise Corruption count) on various grounds.

The indictment was based on an investigation of the Carpenters’ Union. A Union Official was caught receiving a bribe and thereafter agreed to cooperate with the district attorney’s office. The prosecution contends that the defendants and the Union official were a group of persons engaged in a “criminal enterprise.” The defendants assisted each other to arrange or commit bribery from contractors to the Union Official to influence him to condone various violations of labor laws.

Count One charges the crime of Enterprise Corruption in violation of Article 460 of the Penal Law. Article 460, part of the New York “Organized Crime Control Act” (“OCCA”), was inspired by the federal “Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations” Act (RICO). 18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq. (Cf. Penal Law Article 460 at 552, McKinney’s Cons.Laws of N.Y., Book 39, ed. Donnino, Practice Commentaries).

Published on: July 22, 2012

Court Discusses Jury Selection in Possible Death Penalty Case

by Stephen Bilkis

Crime occurs in every type of neighborhood. Domestic violence is not located in some other neighborhood, it is located in every neighborhood in the United States. When domestic violence advances to homicidal violence, it is especially tragic. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said that family violence effects more than the two adults who participate in the fighting, it also affects the children of the adults. In some cases, the primary aggressor will batter the victim in front of the children. The effect on the mental stability of children of this type of violence is obvious. No child should have to see one of their parents murdered by the other parent, but it happens.

In a nice middle class home in Spafford, Onondage County, New York on a spring day in April of 1998 a couple determined that they could no longer remain married. Pursuant to New York divorce law, they filed a separation agreement and proceeded to wait the allotted time before they could file for the divorce. They decided that the divorce would be amicable and that they would continue to live in their home together but separately until they could file for the divorce. However, on April 21st, the couple engaged in a violent argument with their young children at home. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the husband and father grabbed a baseball bat and bludgeoned his wife about the head with it. During the assault, the woman cried out for her children to call the police before he killed her. The children were frozen in fear.

Following the assault, the husband realized what he had done. The wife was not dead and was moaning incoherently and bleeding profusely on the floor of the kitchen. The husband contacted his parents and they came over to help him. After his parents arrived, they summoned his brother who called a family friend who was a doctor to come with him to the house. When they arrived, they contacted the police. Upon arriving on the scene, the police found the wife still on the kitchen floor, barely alive. She had the imprint of the baseball bat in her left temple area. The husband had superficial cuts on his person that he claimed were the result of the wife attacking him with a knife from the kitchen. He stated that he had struck her in the head with the bat in self -defense.

Published on: July 22, 2012

Court Discusses Jury Selection

by Stephen Bilkis

When a person is charged with a felony crime, their case is sent to a Grand Jury in most states before the indictment is confirmed and sent to trial. The Grand Jury is a group of jurors who review the circumstances surrounding a case and determine with the guidance of the prosecutor from the District Attorney’s office if the elements of the crime have been met to proceed with a prosecution. At each stage of a criminal trial, there are requirements that must be met in order for the state to prosecute a person for the commission of a crime.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said these steps are important to protect the rights of every citizen in the United States. While it may seem to some that criminals are provided with too many rights and the ability to escape justice based on mistakes that are made by the prosecution team, it is important to remember that these safeguards are in place to enable a defense team to protect an innocent person from being incarcerated for a crime that they did not commit. At any stage of a criminal prosecution, the defendant is considered innocent until proven guilty. The job of the defense attorney is to protect the rights of all citizens by ensuring that the prosecution is not allowed to circumvent the safeguards that the legislature has placed in effect. Toward this end, many times defense attorneys notice improprieties in legal process that could have long reaching effects on all people.

One case of this type was heard in New York on March 17, 1975. In this case, the defense team noticed that the statutory requirements that were on the law books were not being followed by the Kings County New York court system. The process for the selection of grand jurors was detailed in the Judiciary Law § 609. The statute requires that the county clerk of each county must make an investigation of persons who are qualified to serve as trial jurors. The clerk will then require that the jurors provide legible fingerprints of both hands in order to ensure that they have not been convicted of any felony and certain misdemeanor charges in the state of New York. In this statute, the wording of the statute itself refers to the juror pool as applicants for the Grand Jury.