Sex Crimes

Published on: May 21, 2012

Court Discussed Multiplicity of Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

A man was indicted by a grand jury for the crime of Robbery in the first degree, Robbery in the Second Degree and criminal use of a weapon. At the arraignment, the man asked the trial court to first open the minutes of the grand jury proceeding to see if a prima facie case had been proved by the District Attorney that would justify the indictments for robbery. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the Court granted the motion of the accused and scrutinized he grand jury proceedings to determine if there was legally sufficient grounds as basis for the indictment.

The Court reviewed the minutes of the grand jury proceedings and found out that the police officer who arrested the man was presented to testify. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said in his testimony, he stated that the man was arrested following a conversation the arresting police officer had with the complaining witness and the co-defendant of the man.

The Court held that allowing the arresting police officer to testify regarding the conversations he had with the complaining witness and the man’s co-defendant allowed hearsay testimony to be admitted during the grand jury proceedings. But the Court also ruled that although errors were made, these errors were not serious enough to warrant the dismissal of the first two counts of the indictment for Robbery in the first degree and for robbery in the second degree. So the accused’s motion for dismissal of the first two counts of the indictment is denied.

Published on: May 19, 2012

Court Discusses Williams Roger Clemens Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiff and appellant in this case is William Roger Clemens. The defendant and appellee in the case is Brian BcNamee.

Appeal

The plaintiff in the case is appealing a ruling from the district court. A New York Criminal Lawyer said this court will determine whether or not the defamatory statements that were made elsewhere caused damages to the plaintiff and are sufficient in granting personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

Published on: May 19, 2012

Court Decides if There is a 14th Amendment Violation

by Stephen Bilkis

The petitioner of the case is the Commissioner of Correction of Connecticut, John R. Manson. The respondent/defendant of the case is Nowell A. Brathwaite.

Case Issues

This case involves the issue of whether or not the Fourteenth Amendment, under the Due Process Clause requires the exclusion of pretrial evidence that was obtained by a police procedure that is deemed suggestive and unnecessary.

Published on: May 18, 2012

Court Decides if Incriminating Statements are Admissible

by Stephen Bilkis

On September 30, 1974, three men wearing bandanas on their faces entered the house of a man and rounded up all the people in his house. The three men threatened the man of the house at gunpoint and told him that they will kill his children if he did not open his safe and give them all the valuables he had.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the man complied and opened his safe. As he was opening his safe, the bandana on the face of one of the three armed men came loose and fell off. The man of the house got a good look at his face. But just the same the man of the house gave the armed men all the cash in his safe, a diamond ring and his coin collection which was worth around $40,000.00. The armed man whose face he saw was the same man who pointed a gun to his head all the while that he was opening the safe.

A month later, the man of the house was summoned by the Nassau police. They asked him to identify one of the armed men, the one whose face he saw, from a line up they had. The man of the house positively identified the armed man whose bandana fell from his face.

Published on: May 17, 2012

Defendant Contends Improrper Jurisdiction

by Stephen Bilkis

The Grand Jury of the Special Narcotics Courts voted an indictment against the accused men charging them with criminal possession of a weapon and conspiracy in violation of the Penal Law. In summary, a New York Criminal Lawyer the court alleges that a confidential informant contacted one of the accused, offering him an opportunity to rob drug dealers of a valuable supply of narcotics and cash. The accused allegedly accepted the informant’s offer and engaged the three accused men to be part of the robbery gang. The case detectives instructed the informant to tell the accused men the robbery location. It is alleged that the informant and the four accused men loaded two vehicles with a number of weapons and went to that Bronx location with the intention to commit a burglary and a robbery.

The accused men filed omnibus discovery motions, to which the court responded. The State also supplied the grand jury minutes to the court for in camera examination. After examining the grand jury minutes, the court ordered the parties to submit additional memoranda of law on two jurisdictional questions. To enable the parties to fully brief the issue, the court found that release of certain portions of the grand jury minutes to the parties was necessary to assist the court in making the determination on the motion.

The Crime Investigator testified in the grand jury. In summary, the informant testified that he had continuous conversations with one of the accused; however, his testimony is devoid of any references to where he or his co-accused was located when they had the telephone conversations. Furthermore, it is apparent from the grand jury minutes that none of the face-to-face meetings between the informant and the accused men occurred in Manhattan. The sole reference to Manhattan in the informant’s testimony is contained in the informant’s recitation of why he was at a certain place at a certain time.

Published on: May 17, 2012

Court Discusses the Drug Law Reform Act

by Stephen Bilkis

In 1997, officers assigned to the New York City Police Department’s Narcotics Division were conducting a short-term undercover operation for the purchase of heroin. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that at midnight in the area of Bronx County, the accused, while acting with two other male individuals, sold a quantity of heroin to an undercover police officer. The accused was arrested and charged by indictment with criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. More than a year after the undercover operation, a jury convicted the accused of both offenses.

The court adjudicated the accused, a second felony offender and entered judgment against him, imposing two indeterminate concurrent terms of twenty-two years imprisonment with a mandatory minimum period of eleven years. The basis of the adjudication was a judgment of conviction for attempted robbery, a class D violent felony offense.

The Appellate Division affirmed the accused man’s conviction, but modified his sentence to an indeterminate term of twelve years imprisonment with a mandatory minimum period of six years. The Court of Appeals denied the accused man’s application for leave to appeal.

Published on: May 16, 2012

Are the Actions of Private Security Subject to Constitutional Restraints?

by Stephen Bilkis

Facts:

A security officer, a retired member of the New York City Police Department which the court takes judicial notice of, at the Long Island Jewish Hospital, was instructed by his security supervisor, via radio transmission, to proceed to a Children’s Hospital parking lot. He was told to locate a certain auto reportedly containing a handgun. A New York Criminal Lawyer said he was also informed that the New York City Police Department had been notified and would arrive shortly. When he located the auto, he observed the handgun in a holster on the front seat. He immediately radioed his supervisor who replied that the police will be on the scene. The security officer checked the auto door and found it locked. The defendant himself, a security officer at the Children’s Hospital, arrived on the scene and saw the responding uniformed security officer standing by his auto. Defendant, without prodding, told the security officer that the auto was his. He then opened the auto door and gave the gun to the security officer.

Defendant then left the scene. The New York City police arrived within minutes, and the responding security officer reported his findings and handed the gun to the police. Defendant then returned to the scene. A New York City Police Officer asked the defendant if the auto was his; defendant replied affirmatively. The officer then asked defendant if he had a permit for the gun. Defendant replied he did not. The police officer then placed the defendant under arrest. While in a police car on the way to the police station defendant was read his Miranda warnings. He then told the officer that he had gotten the gun down south.

Published on: May 16, 2012

Court Decides Possession of a Weapon Charge

by Stephen Bilkis

Defendant allegedly fired a handgun at two individuals, who just prior to his firing, had fired a handgun at him causing him serious physical injury; handgun crimes.

Defendant was charged with two counts of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree and one count of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Third Degree for.

Subsequently, a New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant requested that the defense of justification be charged and that the presumption not charged. Both requests were denied.

Published on: May 16, 2012

Defendant Contends Use of GPS Tracking Device by Police was Unlawful

by Stephen Bilkis

On 9 August 2003, an officer, formerly a detective with the Town of Glenville Police Department in Schenectady County, received a report that a local McDonald’s restaurant had been robbed by a man brandishing what appeared to be a handgun and an axe; a handgun crime. That information was distributed to other law enforcement agencies, including the State Police. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer upon learning of the robbery, a police officer (the officer), who was on patrol with his partner, contacted another officer, a senior investigator with the State Police, who then instructed the officer to set up surveillance on defendant’s residence and, if defendant appeared, to execute a “felony stop” utilizing extreme caution to ensure officer safety.

The police officer and his partner took up position nearby and, as defendant rolled through a stop sign en route to his residence, he identified defendant, whom he described as a “very distinctive looking individual,” as the operator of the pickup truck in question to which the GPS tracking device previously (and validly) had been affixed. The police officer and his partner pulled in behind defendant in his driveway and, as defendant was exiting his truck, drew their weapons, ordered defendant from the vehicle and down to the ground, handcuffed defendant and placed him in the back of their marked police vehicle. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said numerous police officers responded to the scene, including the senior investigator, who instructed another investigator to access the GPS tracking information. While waiting for this information, the police officer observed an axe and a bag of clothing, in plain view, in the bed of defendant’s pickup truck.

The GPS tracking information revealed that defendant’s pickup truck had been in the vicinity of the McDonald’s restaurant at the time of the robbery in Schenectady County; the truck then returned to the Town of Clifton Park, Saratoga County and made a brief stop on Maxwell Road, where defendant apparently was employed, before proceeding to defendant’s residence.

Published on: May 16, 2012

Court Rules Verdict Can Be Set Aside

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

Defendant, his brother, and another man entered the house of a woman and robbed her at gunpoint. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the woman identified defendant as the one who wielded the gun during the robbery. A police officer was on patrol when he saw three men run out of the woman’s house, followed by her screaming for help. The officer gave chase and managed to arrest the brother, who was found to have a loaded revolver in his front pocket. The brother provided defendant’s name and stated that the defendant had placed the gun in his pocket while they fled the woman’s residence.

Thereafter, defendant was arrested at his home. Upon arrest, defendant stated that the arresting officers got nothing on him and that they got the gun of his brother.