Sex Crimes

Published on: July 21, 2012

Court Discusses Whistleblower Law

by Stephen Bilkis

A woman was employed from a not for profit agency. She worked as a coordinator of the employment services. A New York Criminal Lawyer said when she was still a probationary, she was terminated for alleged unsatisfactory job performance. Eleven months later, she initiated an action claiming that she was terminated because of her objection to and refusal to participate in the agency’s alleged fraudulent billing to the city for placements it never made. The agency finds employment for job applicants or places them in educational or training programs, for which it receives funding from the city.

The agency moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it failed to satisfy the two elements which are conditions precedent to the maintenance of an action under a whistleblower law. Based on records, the whistleblower law applies to relatively few situations and several proponents accepted to its narrow scope and urged broader application.

Consequently, the woman asserted that the agency’s billing practices constituted a grand larceny. The court then denied the motion and finding that the complaint states a valid reason for action under the labor law. Based on records, the part of the labor law provides that an employer shall not take any disciplinary personnel action against an employee because such employee does discloses or threatens to disclose to a supervisor or to a public body an activity, policy or practice of the employer that is in violation of law, rule or regulation which violation creates and presents a substantial and specific danger to the public health or safety.

Published on: July 21, 2012

Defendant Claims Hypnosis Made Him Commit Crime

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

On 27 March 1982, defendant, while driving a large, white, four-door car with a black vinyl roof, offered the complainant a ride. She accepted, initially intending to be taken to a nearby bus stop, but thereafter accepting defendant’s offer to take her a few blocks further. The complainant described the defendant as a man of medium build, medium to fair-skinned, scruffy or unshaven, and with blondish hair and blue eyes; that defendant wore a blue gas station uniform, had greasy hands and fingernails and smelled of liquor. As they drove, defendant told the complainant that he worked at an Exxon station in Elmont and that he had attended, but had not graduated from, Carey and Van Buren High School; and that he was divorced and had two children, a seven-year-old son and a two-year-old daughter. The complainant noticed a baby seat in the backseat of the car. Thereafter, defendant drove into an empty parking lot where he sodomized the complainant at knifepoint (sex crimes). The entire incident lasted approximately 35 to 40 minutes. After she was released, the complainant called her aunt and uncle, who notified the police.

Consequently, defendant was arrested approximately three months later when observed by the police in his girlfriend’s white, four-door Ford Torino with a black vinyl roof and a baby seat in the back. At that time, defendant had a moustache and was wearing a blue shirt with an Exxon patch. After waiving his Miranda rights, defendant stated that he worked at an Exxon station in West Hempstead, that he lived in Floral Park, that he had worked on the day of the crime and that on his usual route to and from work he drove by the intersection of Plainfield Road and Jericho Turnpike where the complainant had been picked up. Defendant also told the police that he had attended, but not graduated from, Carey and Van Buren High School and that he was divorced and had two children, a son and a daughter. On the day of defendant’s arrest, the complainant identified the defendant’s voice and also identified him in a lineup, notwithstanding that she had never described her attacker as wearing a moustache.

Published on: July 21, 2012

Court Discusses Probable Cause in Gun Crime

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

On 11 November 1976 at about 8:00 p.m., a man entered a liquor store and asked for a pint of vodka. According to the clerk, the man was in the store for about two minutes, the man spoke with a slight Slavic, Polish or Russian accent, and he told the man he had nothing smaller in vodka than a fifth. At 8:30 p.m., the man returned and asked for a fifth of vodka, placing a $20 bill on the counter, but when the clerk obtained the vodka from a shelf at the back of the store and returned to the counter, a criminal law violation or a felony ensued; there was a handgun crime (possession of a weapon); the man pointed a gun at him and ordered him to lie down on the floor. The clerk was clearing the cash register as the man came in and had left the drawer slightly ajar, but had not removed the bills from it. Lying on the floor, he heard the noise of the spring clips in the register compartments, indicating to him that the money was being removed and the noise of the door to the store opening and closing. After the robber left, the clerk noted that the $190 that had been in the register was gone and that the vodka was still on the counter. The elapsed time from beginning to the end of the man’s second visit was four to five minutes.

Thereafter, the clerk called the police, and two patrolmen arrived within 10 to 15 minutes. The clerk told patrolman-one that the man was about 5 feet 9 inches with long hair roughly to his collar and light brown in color, with a long thin face and a slight mustache, that he was wearing a long leather-type jacket with a belt and baggy pants of navy blue, and that the gun was black, with a short barrel and short chamber. Patrolman-two sought witnesses outside and was advised by witness-one that she had seen a tan van, possibly rust color too, with two male occupants and bearing out-of-State plates circle the area approximately four times, that it had stopped about 50 yards from the liquor store, and thereafter proceeded south. Patrolman-one broadcast the description of the robber received from the clerk and patrolman-two added, as part of the same broadcast, the description he had received of the van. Patrolman-two then went back to witness-one and asked her whether the van was colored like a U-Haul van to which she responded that she believed so since there was writing on the side, that the driver of the van had asked for directions, and that he was a white male, with brown curly hair, a slight mustache and a thin face. Patrolman-two then made a second radio broadcast stating that the van could possibly have been a rental van, a U-Haul van. A Suffolk County Criminal Lawyer said his testimony does not reveal whether the second broadcast included the description of the driver of the van that he had received from witness-one.

Published on: July 21, 2012

Court Discusses Rules that Apply to Direct Evidence

by Stephen Bilkis

Many questions of law dictate the admissibility of evidence in criminal trials. One of the most common motions that are made by defense attorneys is to suppress evidence. Evidence in a criminal case may be either direct or indirect evidence. It may by physical evidence or it may be testimonial evidence. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said because evidence is the crux of any criminal trial, it is important that the rules of evidence are followed carefully by the police and prosecution. The ability to contaminate evidence at any step in the location and collection process can have devastating results on the prosecution’s case against a defendant. Whenever a person is arrested, it is the responsibility of the police officers involved to ensure that the rules of evidence are carefully observed.

The rules that apply to direct evidence are easier to apply than those that apply to indirect evidence. Direct evidence is that evidence that directly links one particular individual to the crime that they have been charged with. Common direct evidence can be fingerprints on a murder weapon, or DNA belonging to the defendant located at the crime scene. Direct evidence must be carefully photographed, logged, isolated, and protected. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said there must be a definable chain of custody of the direct evidence in order to maintain the validity of the evidence. If the evidence is mishandled in any way, there can be grounds to have it suppressed and not allowed to be mentioned to the jury during the trial of the person who was indicted. These rules of evidence are critical to protect the rights that American citizens hold dear. A criminal defense attorney considers himself the guardian of the rights of all American citizens to ensure that evidence that is submitted in court, has not been obtained in illegal means in violation of the United States of America’s Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. Direct evidence is often physical evidence, but not always.

Physical evidence is evidence that has a physical component to it. Physical evidence can be a bullet, a body, or even a gun. Anything that can by physically touched is physical evidence. Physical evidence is usually direct evidence, but there are always exceptions. A Nassau County Sex Crimes Lawyer said it can be debated that photographic evidence is not physical evidence, but is actually a more solid form of indirect evidence.

Published on: July 20, 2012

Court Discusses Search Warrants

by Stephen Bilkis

The issue of search warrants and the rights of Americans to be free from illegal and unreasonable search and seizure in their own homes is balanced by the responsibility of the legislature and law enforcement to ensure that those laws are fair and enforced lawfully. What that means is that a judge has to be very conscious of the impact that signing a search warrant has on the community as a whole. A New York Sex Crime Lawyer said that every time that a search warrant is signed in the United States, a judge is permitting law enforcement to encroach on the sanctity of the home that the warrant is for. In criminal cases, the lines are often drawn clearly. However, in civil cases involving code violations, the laws are not so clear.

One case that involved a search warrant for a code violation occurred on September 25, 2003 when a judge in the Village of Westbury in Nassau, New York, signed a search warrant on a code violation. The code violation was for running an illegal boarding house in the Village. The investigation that resulted in the issuance of the warrant was a lengthy one. The details of the warrant that established that an illegal boarding house was being operated in the Village involved months of stakeouts and a recording of numerous license plates that demonstrated that more than one family was living in the one family dwelling house. In fact, the warrant was issued for evidence of more than one family including locked doors to individual rooms, illegal plumbing, and multiple vehicles located at the residence. A New York Sex Crime Lawyer said the warrant was signed by a Village judge based on the facts that were presented by a code enforcement officer to the judge. The details of the evidence were well documented and the warrant was issued. The judge placed on the warrant that it could be executed by any police officer of the County of Nassau.

However, a code enforcement officer is not usually considered a police officer. A code enforcement officer is more commonly considered a peace officer of the state of New York. So in essence, the officer who obtained and possessed the warrant was not named as an official for the purposes of executing the warrant. However, the code enforcement officer took with him several police officers of the County of Nassau to execute the warrant, so that issue became moot. The problem with the warrant was that during the execution of the warrant, several of the law enforcement officers photographed occupants and asked questions of the occupants.

Published on: July 19, 2012

Defendant Contends Identification Procedures by Police Incorrect

by Stephen Bilkis

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court rendered on January 6, 1981, upon a verdict convicting a man of the criminal act of rape in the first degree.

On the evening of July 4, 1979, at approximately 9:45 p. m., the female victim, aged 19, was walking up Baker Avenue in Cohoes, New York, en route to Cohoes Memorial Hospital. A man walked past her, turned and came up behind her, put his hands over her eyes and mouth and told her not to scream. A New York Criminal Lawyer said he then dragged her off the shoulder of the road into some bushes, punched her for a number of times, removed her clothing, and raped her.

When the man left, she donned her clothing and ran to the emergency room at the hospital where she received medical attention for her injuries and notified police. She thereafter gave a detailed description of her assailant to the police stating that he was a white male, age 20 to 25 years, about five feet nine inches tall, weighing 150 to 160 pounds, with shoulder length dirty blonde hair parted in the middle, wearing blue denim pants with a belt, a light pullover shirt, and sneakers. On September 25, 1979, she examined a series of six photographs at the Police Department and quickly identified a photograph of the accused as the man who had raped her. The man was indicted and his trial commenced. A New York Criminal Lawyer said he was positively identified in court by the victim as the man who raped her on July 4, 1979. His defense was mistaken identity and he contended, among other things, that at or around the time of the incident his hair was not even collar length. In addition, both the man and his wife testified that he was at home the entire night the criminal act was committed. Rebuttal witnesses for the Sate contradicted the testimony.

Published on: July 18, 2012

Defendant on Trial for Larceny by Embezzlement

by Stephen Bilkis

An Armored Courier Corp. warehouse in Bronx County was burglarized and robbed of some $11 million by individuals unconnected to the company, who were later apprehended and prosecuted. In the aftermath of the robbery, the Bronx County District Attorney’s office focused its attention on the company’s-own business practices. A series of indictments charging the company and its principals with various counts of grand larceny and misapplication of property ensued. A New York Criminal Lawyer said he question presented for consideration is whether the indictments’ allegations concerning the companies handling of the money entrusted to their care would, if proven, support convictions for the crimes charged.

The six indictments collectively charge the company officials, the Armored Courier Corp. and the Investigations Corp. with several counts of grand larceny in the second degree and misapplication of property. At the time the indictments were issued, the company was principally engaged in transporting and storing large sums of cash and performing related services on behalf of its clients. The company officials include the president of the Armored Courier Corp., the senior vice-president of that corporation, and the vice-president and cashier of the Valley National Bank, which played a role in one of the alleged misappropriation schemes.

The case has a complex factual and procedural history. The grand larceny and misapplication charges arose out of four separate courses of conduct, which the State of New York claim demonstrate the accused parties’ criminal mishandling of their clients’ funds. The first Grand Jury to consider the State’s evidence handed up five indictments. Of the five, three were dismissed entirely with leave to re-present. The other two indictments were sustained against the company president and senior vice-president but dismissed against the only named corporate opponent, the Armored Courier Corp. The second Grand Jury handed up four new indictments, naming the company president, the senior vice-president, the Armored Courier Corp. and the Investigations Corp. as opponents. All six outstanding indictments were dismissed by the Presiding Judge on the ground that the proof before the Grand Jury was legally insufficient. Two of the indictments, which named the company president and senior vice-president as opponents, were reinstated on the State’s appeal to the Appellate Division, and the State, as well as the company president and senior vice-president were granted leave to take cross appeals to the court.

Published on: July 18, 2012

Defendant Claims Court Abused its Discretion

by Stephen Bilkis

Appeals from two orders of the Supreme Court were made. The proceedings found the accused man to be a dangerous sex offender and confined him to a secure treatment facility.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the accused man has an extensive psychiatric and criminal history that includes convictions for two rapes and forcible touching involving three different female victims. At age 23, he was charged with rape in the third degree, sodomy in the third degree and endangering the welfare of a child for having sexual relations with a girl under the age of 17 who was living with him.

According to the victim, they initially had a consensual (but illegal) sexual relationship, but the accused man thereafter repeatedly forced her to have sexual contact with him against her will. The accused man claimed that it was consensual and that he believed she was 17 years old, although he admitted having been advised that she was younger. He entered a guilty plea in satisfaction of all charges, and was sentenced to five months in jail and 10 years of probation. While on probation, the accused was charged with forcible touching for forcibly grabbing the private body parts of an 18-year-old employee of his drywall business. He later entered an Alford plea to that charge and was sentenced to a two-month jail term. After a hearing, New York Criminal Lawyer said the accused man was classified as a risk level III sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act. That same month while still on probation, the accused was charged with first-degree rape for an incident in which he went with a friend to a female acquaintance’s apartment and forcibly held her down and raped her in her bedroom where he had lured her by deceiving her into believing that they needed to speak privately. He again was permitted to enter an Alford plea to the proceedings. Although he was released on parole supervision, the accused man’s parole was revoked months later when he was charged with numerous instances of violating the conditions of his release, including having prohibited contact with women and viewing erotic images of women, and admitted to one parole violation charge of exchanging electronic messages with a woman.

Published on: July 18, 2012

Court Considers Reversing Indictment

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

A member of the New York City Police Department was detailed to work with the Drug Enforcement Administration Task Force (Task Force). His usual assignment with the Task Force was as an undercover officer (office-one), and that was the assignment he was performing, when, on 16 July 1981, he met with an informant who later introduced him with the co-defendant

Thereafter, a New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said meetings were set and arrangements were made for officer-one to buy quantities of cocaine. The co-defendant said that he could deliver a pound from someone that he knew, the herein defendant. Accompanied by another officer (officer-two), upon their meet, defendant only promised to deliver two ounces of cocaine for the reason that they didn’t know each other. Subsequently, the parties agreed to buy the two ounces of cocaine. Shortly after officer-two produced a brown bag with money, and, while defendant was looking into the money bag, officer-two placed defendant under arrest.

Published on: July 17, 2012

Defendant Claims he was Denied a Right to a Speedy Trial

by Stephen Bilkis

The genesis of the proceeding is a notorious incident involving a brutal rape and robbery in 1973 in Manhattan. The issues presented are whether the man’s statutory and constitutional rights to a speedy trial were violated, and also whether the trial court should have conducted an inquiry of the jurors to determine whether they had read an article in a prominent newspaper about the trial on the day it commenced.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said while awaiting trial on his case, the man was arrested for an attempted murder and rape. When arrested, the man gave his name, his date of birth and his residence in Kings County, and his prior residence in Manhattan. He claimed that he had a wife who lived in Bronx. The man was tried but the jury, however, could not reach a verdict, and a mistrial was declared.

The man, under the different name, was convicted in Queens County of attempted murder and rape, and sentenced to a term of 10 years. He pleaded guilty in his case, with the understanding that he could seek to have his plea vacated if his conviction in Queens were reversed on appeal. The man was sentenced to a term of 10 years, which was to run concurrently with the term imposed on the Queens County conviction.