Sex Crimes

Published on: May 10, 2012

Policeman Charged with Recieving a Bribe

by Stephen Bilkis

Police operated sting operations can be set up for many different reasons. Most of the time, they are set up like drag net to catch everyone that they can in a determined crime and location. However, sometimes, a sting operation can be set up in order to trap one person whose actions are so abhorrent to the public definition that to allow their conduct to continue would be a breach of justice. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that is usually the case when a public servant who has been entrusted with the well-being of the society goes astray and violates that sacred public trust.

When a police officer violates that public trust, the case is even more important to the other police officers whose names have been sullied by the dishonor that another person has placed on their positions. In August of 1994, the police in Queens County received information from an informant that a police officer was engaging in illegal activities. The police department decided to set up a sting in order to catch this criminal police officer in the act. They arranged for an officer that the criminal officer did not know to pose as a drug dealer. This undercover officer was assigned to approach the suspected officer with a deal to protect a felony shipment of drug money for the undercover officer who was posing as a drug dealer. The two officers met and surveillance officers were taping the encounter. A deal was struck for the criminal police officer to work for the drug dealer to ensure that the drug money was transported safely. The police officer was arrested and charged with a bribery for public service in the third degree, receiving reward for official misconduct in the second degree, official misconduct, and computer trespass.

The defendant appealed his conviction on the grounds that he would not have considered the offense if it had not been created and sold to him so effectively. While this allegation may sound like entrapment, it falls just short of entrapment in that the officers conducting the sting were acting on a tip from an informant. They did not simply single this officer out in an arbitrary manner to tempt him into committing a crime. The officer contends that it is exactly what they did. He claims that he was innocent of any crime until the sting operation seduced him into committing the crime.

Published on: May 10, 2012

In Gambing Case, Court Determines Each Bet as a Individual Offense

by Stephen Bilkis

There is a good deal of specific legality, which is involved in cases of gambling or racketeering. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the fact that a person is engaged in a criminal enterprise must be proven. In order for a case to be considered a criminal enterprise, the person must have committed three or more acts that constitute separate and distinct crimes that relate to the same enterprise. The crimes must be separate and able to be tried an convicted on their own without being a drawn out version of just one crime. A crime is not a criminal enterprise if it just takes a long time to commit the one crime. In gambling or numbers operations, it can sometimes be difficult to show that the gambling operation is actually a criminal enterprise.

In one case from 1997, the court arrested several subjects and charged them with conspiracy and operating a criminal enterprise in Queens County. The police alleged that the gambling operation was started around August 15, 1996 and continued until the arrests of the subjects on November 7, 1997. The indictment charged that the defendants in the case were all members of a notorious gambling organized crime ring that was run by the Conigliaro family. The police brought forth evidence that demonstrated that the enterprise was organized in Queens, Kings, and Richmond Counties in the state of New York. It showed that there was a bookmaker, who was in control of ensuring that the operation ran smoothly. There was a controller, who handled the daily business of the enterprise and all of the accounting details. There were several clerks who took the betting information by phone and had runners meet with the bettors each week to settle the accounts.

The defense maintained that the organization could not be convicted for operating a criminal enterprise because their crimes were gambling only. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the pattern of illegal gambling activity was documented from November 1988 to July of 1991. The legislators maintained that illegal enterprises were specifically considered in the written statute to include “syndicated gambling.” The question of law was whether these actions constituted on criminal purpose and objective or not. If it is one purpose and objective, then the case cannot be a criminal enterprise because there has to be three distinct acts.

Published on: May 10, 2012

Court Discusses Probable Cause in Drug Possession Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The police officers of the 32nd precinct in New York City were assigned to conduct surveillance over the corner of 128th Street and 8th Avenue because this was known as a high-drug crime area. A New York Criminal Lawyer said many arrests for cocaine possession and heroin possession have been made at this corner.

One police officer saw perched atop a condemned building, holding binoculars and observing the goings on at the street corner. His partner was near the street corner, waiting for a signal from his partner on the rooftop.

At 1:30 pm of February 26, 1977, the police officer on the rooftop saw one man at the corner. Most passersby hurry on by but that man stayed put. He kept having brief conversations with those who come by him but those people moved on. The man stayed. The officer observed the man for forty-five minutes.

Published on: May 9, 2012

Judge Acquits Man Found Guilty by Jury

by Stephen Bilkis

On August 11, 1980, a man was walking outside his apartment. Two men who also frequented the apartment building where he lived came up to him and talked to him. Thinking that they were just being friendly, he stopped to chat.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said one of the men blocked his way and the other asked him for his money. When he said he didn’t have any money on him, the man grabbed his hand and forcibly took the ring he was wearing on his finger.

The two men immediately turned and left the man. He reported the robbery to the police. He gave their names to the police and their description and they were arrested. They were charged with robbery in the second degree. The indictment alleged that the two men acted in cooperation with one another and being physically present at the same time and forcibly stole the ring from the man.

Published on: May 9, 2012

Defendants Claim Trial Court Abused its Discretion

by Stephen Bilkis

On December 7, 1984, at approximately 5:00 P.M., a 20-year-old taxi driver met his friend who spent the evening with him riding in the front seat of his cab. At about 8:30 P.M. he proceeded to Union Place pursuant to a radio dispatch and picked up two young men, the accused and the co-accused. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that although the taxi driver did not know the pair, his companion recognized them from the neighborhood. The taxi driver was directed by the men to take them to Yonkers. During the trip, which took approximately four minutes, no one spoke.

When they arrived at the destination, the accused told the taxi driver that he was going inside the building to find some friends and asked to wait for him. The co-accused remained in the back seat of the taxi while the accused went inside. Shortly thereafter, the accused returned, accompanied by another male, and asked the taxi driver to drive them back to Union Place.

As the taxi was travelling down the hill that approached Union Place, the accused placed a gun to the taxi driver’s neck and told him to give his money. He saw the gun and felt it pressed to his neck. In response to the demand, he gave the robbers approximately $20 he had in his shirt pocket and an additional sum of approximately $100 from his wallet. The three men then exited the taxi and ran off into the darkness. During the robbery, the co-accused pushed the driver’s companion forward in the front seat to keep her head down.

Published on: May 9, 2012

Defendant Claims Illegal Search

by Stephen Bilkis

Police officers who work drug related crimes require specialized training to ensure that they conduct themselves appropriately while they are performing their duties. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the nature of drug crimes is that it changes frequently. The fluidity of the laws surrounding the actions of the police and prosecutors means that occasionally, the fall behind the law in matters that relate to the arrests and prosecutions of offenders. That means that a person who has obtained a good attorney is more capable in most cases of interpreting recent case law as well as statutory law. One case that helped to define the criteria of modern drug law occurred in January of 1981.

On January 31, 1981, two detectives were in an unmarked undercover vehicle in an area where drug problems had been reported. They were using binoculars to survey the area. They observed a car at 8:15 at night pull up and park on the curb about 100 feet away from them. They watched with their binoculars for several minutes while suspected customers came up to the car and transactions took place. Specifically, what the officers observed was that another car would pull up, and a person would approach the driver of the parked vehicle. A conversation would ensue. Money would be handed to the driver, or the passenger, who was later identified as the defendant’s wife. A small tinfoil ball would be handed to the person out of the car window. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the officers observed the purchaser hold the tinfoil ball to his nose and smell it before leaving. After watching two of these transactions, the officers approached the vehicle and notified the marked patrol backup unit to respond to the location.

The officers handcuffed the driver and his male companion and searched them. They located an envelope of marijuana on the driver’s person. The detectives identified themselves and placed the two male subjects in the back of the detective car handcuffed while they interviewed the additional suspects. When the marked unit arrived and the detective started to transfer the prisoners, they located a clear plastic baggie of angel dust in the driver’s coat pocket. A Nassau County Sex Crimes Lawyer said one the prisoners were properly searched and placed into the marked unit, the officers checked their back seat and discovered that there were four tinfoil balls of angel dust on the seat of the vehicle. At the precinct, the officers recovered $237 cash from the driver and his wife.

Published on: May 8, 2012

Defendant Brings Case for Sentencing Error

by Stephen Bilkis

On 3 May 1995, defendant was convicted of two counts of Robbery in the First Degree, six counts of Robbery in the Second Degree, one count of Assault in the Second Degree, one count of Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fifth Degree, and two counts of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree.

On 15 May 1995, defendant was sentenced, as a second violent felony offender, to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of ten to twenty years for each Robbery in the First Degree conviction, an indeterminate term of imprisonment of seven and one-half to fifteen years on five of the six counts of Robbery in the Second Degree, an indeterminate term of imprisonment of three and one-half to seven years on the Assault in the Second Degree conviction, one year determinate on the Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fifth Degree conviction, and one year determinate for both Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree counts.

The sentencing Court ran the two Robbery in the First Degree sentences, and two of the Robbery in the Second Degree sentences consecutive to one another, for a total indeterminate sentence of thirty-five (35) to seventy (70) years.

Published on: May 8, 2012

Robbery Defendant Claims Misidentification in Line Up

by Stephen Bilkis

On 10 November 1988, early in the evening, A New York City Police Officer and his partner, both assigned to the 34th Precinct, were on routine motor patrol, when they received a radio message directing them to the corner of 213th Street and Broadway, New York County.

As the officers were approaching the location, one of the officers saw one man holding another man, with a woman standing nearby.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said one of the men, informed the officer that, after he had heard a woman screaming, he saw the man, who he was now holding and who was later identified as the defendant, running from Inwood Park, carrying a brown pocketbook, and he responded by seizing and holding the defendant, while a bystander summoned the police. At that point, the man gave the officer a rubberized hammer handle, as well as the pocketbook, and he told the officer that he had taken both of those items from the defendant. Further, the man explained to the officer that the defendant had attempted to strike him with the hammer handle.

Published on: May 8, 2012

Court Decides if Accomplice will be Convicted

by Stephen Bilkis

Five men formed a gang whose only purpose was to prey on drug dealers. They targeted drug dealers who were always awash with cash and robbed them. They also took the drugs they found on the drug dealers and sold these on the street. One night, on February 12, 1997, all five men planned to rob a drug dealer who had a first floor apartment on Riverside Drive.

Of the five men, one was to be the driver and wait for them in the car while the others entered the apartment of the drug dealer. A New York Criminal Lawyer said their plan was to ring the doorbell and when they were buzzed in, they would force themselves inside the apartment of the drug dealer. The group came late and they missed the drug dealer who had already left his apartment. There was no one home. So the five men went their separate ways.

A few hours later four of the five men came together to see if the drug dealer had come back to his apartment; the driver did not go back with his four friends on the second robbery attempt. He went home.

Published on: May 8, 2012

Court Discusses Various Degrees of Robbery

by Stephen Bilkis

In just one afternoon of April 7, 2009 a man snatched the purse of an old lady as she was about to enter a store inside a shopping mall. Later that afternoon, that same man walked into a bank. He walked up to the counter and grabbed a teller by her shirt and jacket. He pulled the teller onto the counter and made her give him money. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the teller gave the man the cash that was available to her in the sum of $1464. The man took the money and escaped running from the bank.

Two days later, the man came to a police station in Schoharie County and surrendered. He confessed to the robbery he committed. He was charged with first degree robbery, fourth degree grand larceny for the bank robbery and grand larceny for snatching the old lady’s purse. Because the man had voluntarily surrendered and confessed to the commission of the robbery and the larceny, he was tried without a jury. The trial was only to submit evidence other than the man’s confession that a crime had been committed by the man.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the man was convicted of the same charges of robbery and grand larceny, He was later sentenced to concurrent prison terms. He was sentenced to serve ten and a half years for robbery and one to four years of grand larceny. But the trial court ordered that the prison sentence for the other grand larceny charge be served consecutive to the other grand larceny sentence. The trial court also ordered the man to pay restitution to the bank of $1500 plus a 5% surcharge. The man appealed his conviction.