Sex Crimes

Published on: April 23, 2012

Court Decides Child Custody in Light of Domestic Violence Allegations

by Stephen Bilkis

On 4 September 1987, a man and a woman (or mother/petitioner and father) got married. Thereafter, on or about 24 July 1996, the couple divorced. A decree of divorce was entered and incorporated the terms of a separation agreement which provided that the parties were to share joint legal custody of their child, but that her primary residence was to be with the mother. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the agreement also provided that the Colorado court was to retain continuing personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the disputes relating to the enforcement of the agreement.

On or about 18 March 1998, the mother suffered a near fatal car accident in Colorado. On or about 22 March 1998, the child left her Colorado home for a previously scheduled visit with her father, who was then residing in Queens County, in New York City. The visit was to conclude on 28 March 1998.

On March 27, however, the father filed a petition in Family Court, Queens County, seeking custody of their child.

Published on: April 23, 2012

Defendant Charged with Weapon Found in Car

by Stephen Bilkis

On October 22, 1982 at around 2:00 am, car was parked in an alley near an apartment building. A man opened the car and sat in the car and slept in there. The man was able to get into the car because the car was owned by a friend of his.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said a resident in the apartment building called the police to report the man sitting in the car. When the police arrived at the scene, they found the car and they found the man sleeping in the car just as the resident of the apartment building described.

The police woke the man up and told him to get out of the car. When the man had gotten out of the car, the police checked and searched the car. Between the driver’s seat and the front passenger seat they saw a console. When they checked the console, they found a gun inside the console.

Published on: April 23, 2012

Defedant Contends Police Did Not have Probable Cause for Stop

by Stephen Bilkis

Two uniformed police officers were checking out an illegally parked car near the corner of 39th Street and 9th Avenue at 3am on June 15, 2005. One of them happened to look up and saw a man running. He was coming from the vicinity of 8th Avenue. When the police officers asked him why he was running, the man wouldn’t say. They stopped him and frisked him but found that he was not in possession of a weapon. When the police officers asked him what was going on, he said he had just been robbed. At that time, a New York Criminal Lawyer said the two police officers heard gunshots from the same area where the man had just come from. They reported over the police radio the gunshots fired.

At around the same time, two other police officers in an unmarked police car were in the vicinity of 8th Avenue when they also heard the gunshots fired. They then saw the white SUV they noticed on the street a while back. The SUV fired its engine and started speeding away. The two police officers followed the speeding SUV. They were tailing it when the SUV came to an abrupt halt because they came across the two other uniformed police officers.

The two uniformed police officers were standing on the street with their guns drawn when they heard the screeching of the tires of SUV and the unmarked police car that appeared to be chasing the SUV. A New York Criminal Lawyer said both the SUV and the unmarked police car were coming from the general direction of the area where the gunshots were fired.

Published on: April 22, 2012

Court Determines Jurisdiction in Domestic Violence Case

by Stephen Bilkis

Domestic violence cases are not stationary crimes. Frequently, one party will flee to a different state, when that happens it is important that the court orders that are in effect follow them. Prior to 1994, that was not the case. The federal government stepped in and issued the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 which requires that the states give full faith and credit to any order of protection issued by a court in any state. There are some restrictions though. Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America requires that Full Faith and Credit is given to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of all of the states. Congress is required to prescribe the manner in which the orders of the states are to be proved and given effect. With these orders, Congress made their intent to protect women who cross state lines, obvious.

Whenever a situation arises where the New York courts must make a determination regarding a domestic violence order from another state, they must take all of this into consideration. It is not enough to have a protection order in place from a different jurisdiction. The victim must also be able to prove that the person whom the order is against has been given due process under the law. That can be tricky. A New York Criminal Lawyer said when a person obtains an order of protection, it becomes important that they ensure that the court personnel handle all of the paperwork correctly. If the paperwork does not demonstrate that the person was served correctly and given the opportunity to address the order in court, there is not proof of due process and the order may not be valid.

In one case out of Richmond County, in April 7, 1997, a woman was in Staten Island when she noticed that her estranged father was following her. There was a protection order in place in New Jersey stating that her father was not allowed to harass, stalk, or follow her mother or any other member of the family pursuant to a domestic violence problem within the home. Her mother took out the order, but she was named as a secondary party of the protection order.

Published on: April 22, 2012

Court Discusses Battered Woman Syndrome

by Stephen Bilkis

Domestic violence laws have changed to become more responsive to the needs of battered victims even when their behavior seems to be erratic. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said that victims of domestic violence do not respond in predictable ways, they do have certain patterns of behavior that are common. In 2005, the Federal Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (VAWA 2005) was signed into law. This law prevents victims of domestic violence from eviction from their homes following incidents of domestic violence. Prior to this law, it was common for property owners to evict domestic violence victims from their homes following a violent episode. It was tantamount to victimizing the battered twice.

VAWA 2005 (42 USC § 1437f[c][9][B]) states that “An incident or incidents of actual or threatened domestic violence. . .shall not be good cause for terminating the assistance, tenancy, or occupancy rights of the victim of such violence.” Section C(i) provides that “criminal activity directly relating to domestic violence. . .shall not be cause for termination. . .if the tenant. . .is the victim. . .of that domestic violence. . .” In essence, the property owner can evict the primary aggressor. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the property owner may not evict the victim of domestic violence.

This law is important since many times, the victim is evicted because keeping them on the property exposes the property owner to complaints from other residents. The home is disruptive to neighbors who complain to the property owner or manager. The easy way out is to evict everyone in that home and rent to a family who does not cause a disturbance. Clearly, this is not fair to the victim. In fact, offenders will often threaten their victims to submit quietly so that the neighbors do not complain and they suffer eviction.

Published on: April 22, 2012

Woman Attacks Husband in Domestic Violence Incident

by Stephen Bilkis

The family court released a decision upon a fact-finding reason that a mother neglected her three children and now released two of the children to the custody of their father with 12 months of supervision by the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS). A New York Criminal Lawyer said the mother ordered by the court to comply with the terms of an order of protection. Based on records, the administration for children’s services protects the children from abuse and abandonment or even neglect. The administration for children’s services also provides neighborhood-based services with the help of the community partners, to ensure the children to grow up in safe, permanent homes with strong families

Majority of the evidence supports the court’s finding that the mother neglected her children below eighteen years of age, by committing acts of domestic violence against the children’s father in the children’s presence. Through such actions, the children’s physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of the failure of the parent to exercise a minimum degree of care.

The out of court statements made by one of the children regarding the mother’s attacks on the father were supported by the father’s testimony, the responding police officer’s testimony, and the out of court statements of the mother’s daughters. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that based on records, no expert or medical testimony is required to show that the violent acts exposed the children to an imminent risk of harm. Evidence also supports the court’s finding of educational neglect as to one of the children. The record shows that, for the 2008–2009 school year, the child missed 64 out of 181 days of school and was late 38 out of 181 days. It shows excessive unexcused absences from school that supports a finding of neglect. The child’s guidance counselor testified that he had contacted the mother on numerous occasions regarding the child’s absenteeism, and there is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations.

Published on: April 21, 2012

Court Rules on Custody Dispute

by Stephen Bilkis

Custody issues are never pleasant; however, they are often complicated by differing parenting styles and volatile relationships between the parents. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the court is responsible for determining what if anything will improve the child’s emotional and physical development. In some cases, these decisions are complicated further by domestic violence and poor choices that have been made by one or both parents who are involved in the custody case. In New York, the law is very concerned with the child involved being given the best opportunities. It is because of this outlook that New York courts appoint the child their own attorney to represent their best interests in a custody case.

This is the situation that one couple found themselves in. In May of 2002, a thirty-two year old man met and married a thirty year old woman in New York. The father was a first grade teacher at the time and the mother was an interpreter. They had only known one another for a short time prior to the marriage was in part decided due to the fact that the woman had become pregnant. During the pregnancy, the couple had a violent argument. The father threw his pregnant wife down a flight of stairs in front of her sister. When she attempted to call the police for assistance, he grabbed the phone and pulled it out of the wall to prevent her making the call. Her sister witnessed the incident.

The wife moved out of the house and was living apart from the man at the time that she gave birth to their son in December of 2002. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the couple admit that during the time they were together that a large amount of the time was marked by violence and arguments. During the next few years, the mother raised the son herself with little interaction with the father.

Published on: April 21, 2012

Court Rules on Legality of Wiretapping in Domestic Violence Case

by Stephen Bilkis

In domestic violence cases, the court is often called upon to review actions that people have taken in contradiction to the law. In New York, the wiretapping laws are clear. If one of the two people involved in the conversation on a telephone line is aware of the taping, then the tape is legal and may be presented in a court of law. If however, the tape is made by a third person with no input into the call and without the knowledge or permission of anyone involved in the conversation, then the tape is not admissible in court and is considered an illegal wiretap. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the laws that control these wiretaps explicitly detail that anyone who wants to tape a conversation must obtain an order authorizing the wiretap from a Supreme Court judge.

In many domestic violence cases, one or both of the parties involved may attempt to gain information about the other to use in court. If the information is obtained without the proper judicial order, it must be reviewed to determine if one of the parties involved in the conversation gave permission for the tape. If it is proven that one of the parties in the tape gave permission for it to be made, then the court has other procedures that it must follow. A certified court recorded will make an official transcript of the conversation on the tape. In most cases, the defendant’s attorney will want to depose the people or person on the tape in order to establish the veracity. In some cases, this can become problematic for the court. This is the case if the person who gave permission for the tape is located more than 100 miles from the point of the trial. In the present case, a wife had in her possession in matrimonial issue, a tape that she contends will prove that her husband is lying. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the proposed that the conversation on the tape, that took place between he and his sister detailed his deceptive practices and is therefore critical to the defense of this woman and the custody issue at stake.

The judge ruled that the tape would have to be authenticated by official contact with the sister who gave permission for the tape to be made. A Queens Sex Crimes Lawyer said then the sister officially notifies the court that she did give permission for her brother’s wife to tape her conversation with her brother, then the court will authorize a transcript of the tape. The court further states that upon acceptance of the tape as legitimate, the sister will be made convenient to the defense for a deposition.

Published on: April 21, 2012

Defendant Charged with Gun Possession

by Stephen Bilkis

On March 11, 2007, two police officers were on motor patrol in an area known for gang activity. At around 11:30 pm, a man walked in front of the police officers’ unmarked car. The man was walking slowly, impeding the smooth flow of traffic on the street. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that as he passed the police officers’ car, one of the police officers noticed a shiny object glinting at the rear right pants pocket of the man who passed by.

As the man was walking slowly, the officer noted that the glinting object appeared to be metallic and it was inside his rear pocket. Only the clip was showing outside and the top part of the object was protruding from the pocket.

The police officer has had the experience of making 50 arrests for weapons possessions and he believed that the glinting object clipped to the man’s pocket was either a gravity knife or a small-caliber handgun.

Published on: April 20, 2012

Court Hears Battered Parent Defense

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Criminal Lawyer says that domestic violence comes in all shapes and sizes. Fifty years ago, domestic violence cases were not recognized. In many cases the victims of domestic violence were ignored. It was a dirty family secret that few people talked about. The victims were ignored. It was not until the late 1980s and into the 1990s that the psychology of domestic violence was finally studied. Now, courts often hear evidence related to the fear associated with being battered in domestic violence. Several syndromes are common place in court rooms today: battered child syndrome, battered wife’s syndrome, and battered women’s syndrome. Crimes against the elderly do not get as much attention. In fact, it has only been in recent years that some states have begun to recognize that the psychological issues associated with being battered are not gender specific. Their wives or their children can batter men. In fact, many states have enacted additional statutes that are designed to protect the elderly from being battered by their children by changing the language of their battering laws to make them non gender specific.

In New York, in 1999, there had never been a case that involved a father being battered by his child. On June 21, 1999, a man who had been arrested for the murder of his adult son, filed a CP: 250.10 notice to the court that he would be offering a battered defense at trial. He requested that his medical expert on the subject be allowed to testify on his behalf. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the District Attorney assigned to the case stated that the state of New York did not recognize a defense of Battered Parent Syndrome. The District Attorney further stated that even if Battered Parent Syndrome did occur, a medical expert would not be necessary because most jurors have the ordinary training and intelligence to evaluate if the person is suffering from that syndrome.

The defense argued that since battered parent syndrome is not normally referred to by the general public, it is necessary to have an expert explain the correlation between battered parent syndrome and other battered syndromes. By showing the jurors that other states have already begun to recognize this condition as non-gender specific, it becomes easier for them to relate to the defendant.