Sex Crimes

Published on: May 25, 2012

Court Dicusses an Initial Robbery Conviction

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is being heard in the Second Department, Appellate Division, of the Supreme Court. The appellant of the case is Donald Booker. He is being represented by Patrick R. Garcia from Brooklyn. The respondent of the case is the People of the State of New York, et al. The respondents are represented by the office of the Brooklyn District Attorney, Charles J. Hynes with Camille O’hara Gillespie, Peter R. Chatzinoff, and Barbara D. Underwood for counsel. The case is being heard before Kooper J.P., Rosenblatt, Harwood, and Miller, JJ.

Appeal

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant is appealing a previous judgment made by the Supreme Court of Kings County. The previous judgment found the defendant guilty of burglary in the second degree through a verdict by a jury and an imposing sentence.

Published on: May 25, 2012

Sex Crime Causes Court to Weigh Penal Law 125.27

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is being heard in the Kings County Supreme Court. The Justice overseeing the case is Joel M. Goldberg. The defendant in the case is Otis Carr who is represented by Robert M. Baum from the Legal Aid Soc. The plaintiff in the case is the People of the State of New York. The People are represented by the Kings County District Attorney Charles J. Hynes and the Kings County Assistant District Attorney John Barker.

Case Issue

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the matter at hand involves whether the statutory language that is found in Penal Law 125.27 and states “more than 18 years old” means “at least 19 years old” as contended by the defendant.

Published on: May 25, 2012

Emotionally Disturbed Defendant Convicted of Homicide

by Stephen Bilkis

This is an appeal case being held in the Court of Appeals in the State of New York. The respondent of the case is the People of the State of New York. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the appellant of the case is Lydell Harris. The appellant is represented by De Nice Powell of New York City with Lynn W. L. Fahey for counsel. The respondent is represented by the District Attorney of Kings County, Charles J. Hynes with Leonard Joblove and Anthea H. Bruffee for counsel.

Case History

The defendant has been convicted of second degree murder. A New York Criminal Lawyer said in the trial the evidence supplied by the People established that the defendant, Lydell Harris, killed his friend of many years, Larry Amorose using a machete. The defendant was aided by his girlfriend and they decapitated and dismembered the victim’s body and placed the parts in garbage bags and then threw the bags into the ocean just off Coney Island.

Published on: May 25, 2012

Court Hears Petition to Change Name of Same Sex Couple

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is in regard to an application for Gena M. Daniels to amend her name to become Gena M. Zaks. The case is being heard in the Civil Court of the city of New York in New York County. The petitioner is represented by Yetta G. Kurland. The judge overseeing the case is Paul G. Feinman.

Case Background

The petitioner of the case, Gena M. Daniels is seeking to change her name to Gena M. Zak. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that Zak is the last name of her life partner of the same sex. Her partner has agreed to the application for the name change.

Published on: May 25, 2012

Defendant Charged with Sex Crime Against Child

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in Kings County. The plaintiff of the case is the People of the State of New York. The plaintiff is represented by Shawn Mallon from the office of the district attorney of Brooklyn, Charles J. Hynes. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the defendant in the case is Derrick Brown. The defendant is represented by Thomas McGivney from the Legal Aid Society in Brooklyn. The judge overseeing the case is William E. Garnett.

Case History

On the 31st of March in the year 2004, the defendant pled guilty to having a sexual performance of a child, which is a class E felony. The defendant, Derrick Brown, was promised a sentence of probation as long as he met the condition of registering as a sex offender with the Sex Offenders Registration Act.

Published on: May 24, 2012

Magazine Publisher Sues City Police Under Freedom of Information Law

by Stephen Bilkis

The complainants, a magazine publisher, two men and a woman seek a judgment declaring certain records of the accused, city police department subject to disclosure, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) and Public Officers Law (POL) to allow the complainants to inspect and obtain copies of records, declaring that certain practices of the city police department, in responding to FOIL requests, are unlawful, ordering the city police department to comply with FOIL, and awarding the complainants their attorney’s fees. The two men and the woman are the magazine’s reporters who made FOIL requests to the city police department on behalf of the magazine publisher.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that since the petition was filed, a number of the requests have been resolved, or partly resolved, through negotiations between the magazine publisher and the city police department. The requests that have not been resolved are for the records of a searchable electronic copy of the home address of each New York City resident who has been granted a license for a handgun; a searchable electronic copy of the residential address at which a hate criminal act occurred, from January 1, 2005 to the present; and a searchable electronic copy of the crime incident database, dating from January 1, 2004 to the present. The crime incident database contains information about each incident reported to the city police department, such as the date, location and nature of the incident, such as possession of a weapon, for example.

Penal Law provides that the name and address of any person to whom an application for any firearm license has been granted shall be a public record. According to penal law, the petitioner, a reporter for the Wall Street Journal, was entitled to inspect approved pistol license applications on file with the city police department. POL (Public Officers Law) provides, in relevant part, that when an agency has the ability to retrieve or extract a record or data maintained in a computer storage system with reasonable effort, it shall be required to do so.

Published on: May 24, 2012

Court Discusses Dealing with Mentally Ill Defendants

by Stephen Bilkis

Legality as it involves persons who are mentally ill can become convoluted. Many cases have reached crossroads where the offender is mentally ill. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the rights of the victim become confused with the ability of the offender to understand what occurred. In some cases, it is an even more horrendous injustice. At what point is a person mentally incompetent to understand that the actions that they took are wrong. If they are sent for treatment at a treatment facility, does that mean that they should not serve any prison time related to the offense that they committed. If they are not penalized for their actions, what message is the system sending to the victim of the crime?

These questions have plagued the criminal justice system since the beginning of time. The question becomes one of intent. Is the intent of the criminal justice system to punish; or is the intent of the system to rehabilitate? Are prisons, just places to keep the public safe for a time from the behavior of inmates; or are they places to rehabilitate them? Some states have adopted laws that allow for a guilty but mentally ill finding in a trial. In cases of guilty, but mentally ill, the offender is sent to a secure mental illness hospital until they are determined to have been cured of their illness; only then do they report to the prison to begin serving their time for the offense that they committed. In that manner, they are fully aware that an insanity defense is not a get out of jail free card. They are required to serve the time for the crime that they committed.

In 1984, many of these issues were brought to the attention of the general public when a man was convicted of rape among several other heinous crimes in New York. He was convicted on January 8, 1981, in front of a jury for his crimes. However, he was determined to be mentally incompetent to understand or take responsibility for his crimes. He was determined to be suffering from a dangerous mental disorder. He was sentenced to an indeterminate sentence in a secure mental illness facility. The Commissioner of Mental Hygiene was responsible for reviewing the case on a regular basis. In September of 1981, and again on October 27, 1982, the Orange County Court signed first and second retention orders ensuring that the defendant was continued in the care of the secure mental hospital that he had been sent to originally.

Published on: May 23, 2012

Defendant Contends No Probable Cause for Search of Glove Box

by Stephen Bilkis

A man is charged with criminal possession of a weapon; criminal possession of stolen property and one count of bribery. He moves to suppress physical evidence seized at the time of his arrest and any custodial statements attributed to him.

On the morning of January 23, 1982, a police officer received a phone call at the precinct from an unidentified male who reported that automatic weapons could be found in the trunk of a maroon Oldsmobile parked near a bar.

Two officers responded and staked out the vehicle. At approximately 2:35 a.m. they observed the accused enter the car and followed him to the parking lot of a bar in a nearby town. When the accused exited the vehicle, the officers approached him, identified themselves and requested his driver’s license and registration.

Published on: May 21, 2012

Class Action Filed Against Handgun Manufacturers

by Stephen Bilkis

On June 24, 2003, several families of victims of gun crimes (possession of a weapon) filed a class action suit against seven firearms manufacturers to recover damages as a result of their family members deaths. The concept behind this lawsuit was that the manufacturers of these handgun had created a situation in which it was too easy for a subject to obtain a handgun and use it to assault another person. The court is forced to evaluate who is responsible for illegally possessed handguns. The complaint states that these illegally obtained handguns are a public nuisance because they endanger the health and safety of most of the population. The contention that was made in this complaint was that the manufacturers of these handguns are knowledgeable of the fact that their product is used to commit crimes and that they have chosen to contribute to these crimes by continuing to manufacture, distribute and market handguns to people who they know are likely to use them in an unlawful manner. The complaint maintains that the manufacturers of these handguns are aware that certain types of guns and certain areas where guns are sold, are disproportionately responsible for a large number of crimes in which handguns are used. The complainants seek an order directing the manufacturers of firearms to stop making them in New York state and to stop selling them in New York state which will stop the nuisance that they have created.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the court evaluated the complaint in the light that it would be improper to penalize one person for the actions of another. Handguns are not the only legally manufactured and sold item that can be used illegally in the hands of a person who intends to commit an illegal act. With that contention, the manufacturers of kitchen knives, hunting knives, hatchets, or machetes could also be forced to stop manufacturing their products because some people use them to perform illegal and violent crimes. The court finds it improper to hold a person who is conducting themselves in accordance with the laws of the State of New York responsible for the actions that a third party. If a person is going to break the law, they will find a tool to use.

A good example of this type of logic is found in a particular well-known motorcycle gang. A Long Island Criminal Lawyer said their weapon of choice for most of their crimes is a claw hammer. Should companies that make claw hammers stop producing them? Is the government in a position to limit the types of people who are allowed to purchase a claw hammer?

Published on: May 21, 2012

Court Discusses Reasonable Suspicion of Police

by Stephen Bilkis

Two police officers in a patrol car received a report over the radio that a fight had just been witnessed and called in at 1411 Grand Concourse. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that the anonymous report stated that one of those who engaged in the fight had a knife. The only descriptions the witness gave about the two persons who were involved in the fight wore a red jacket and a dark jacket with a white stripe.

The two police officers drove to the address given in the report but they saw no one wearing the red jacket and dark jacket with a white stripe. When they got there a call for assistance was broadcast over the car radio. The two police officers responded. As they were heading toward the location of the other police officers who called for back-up, they saw three men. The officers got off their police car and headed for the three men. One of the men saw the two uniformed police officers and started running. The police officers gave chase and as they were chasing down the man, they saw him throw something. They finally caught up with the man and they also found what he threw away: it was a handgun. The police officers arrested him and charged him with criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

Even before the arraignment, the accused (the man who ran and threw away a handgun) moved to suppress the gun as evidence. He claims that the gun is not admissible as evidence as it was obtained by the police without probable cause. The police officers’ actions were not justified in chasing the man and in arresting him.