Sex Crimes

Published on: February 11, 2012

Court Rules on Sex Crimes Comitted by Defendant with Mental Health Issues

by Stephen Bilkis

There are many sex crimes these days that are discovered by a New York Criminal Lawyer to have been caused by mental health or abnormality. Aside from SORA there is also the SOMTA or what is called as the Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act which deals with sex crimes that involve the Mental Hygiene Law. In this particular case, the defendant is convicted of promoting prostitution, kidnapping and also bail jumping. He was given the charge of 9 to 18 years for kidnapping, 4 to 8 years for the kidnapping, and 3 to 6 years for the bail jumping.

Nelson forced his victim and raped her over and over again. He even forced her to be a prostitute and even physically beat her including the involvement of drugs. He was a detained sex offender who was found out to have been suffering from some kind of mental abnormality. According to a New York law as discussed by a Bronx Criminal Lawyer describes SOMTA as crimes that are sexually motivated.

Hence, it is the court’s decision to find out if the previous sex crimes committed by an accused person are motivated by a mental abnormality that is driven with the need for sex. All these should go through the proper criminal proceeding to make it very fair and carry out justice pretty well. Such acts like SOMTA are meant to protect the society from the danger of these free roaming sex offenders. It is only through the programs for treatment and proper management to help the accused to recover and have a bright future and at the same time to protect the citizens of the society.

Published on: February 11, 2012

Court Rules on Drug Crime Case

by Stephen Bilkis

According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, in July of 1974, a man who pleaded guilty for sale prohibited drugs was charged of life imprisonment with no possibility of probation and lifetime parole. According to reports, this rule was first given the highest force of law in United States in 1910 which during that time was considered to be fair and just, but does it follow that what was fair and just 70 or more years ago applies now.

Based on reports, of all the class A felonies such as arson, kidnapping, murder, only the narcotics possession and sale offenses are prohibited from being reduced by plea bargaining. Thus, a person who kills intentionally, who causes serious physical injury in the course of a robbery, who rapes a child, who blows up an occupied building, faces a maximum term of 25 years, or a maximum of 30 years for a series of such acts before being imprisoned on any one of them. Although imprisonment is mandatory, no minimum term may be imposed unless the court gives reasons for concluding that the best interest of the public requires it because of the nature and circumstances of the crime and of the history and character of the defendant.

A New York Criminal Lawyer revealed that a man charged of cocaine possession will not remain on parole for the rest of his life, nor will he be denied the opportunity to engage in plea bargaining. Crack possession is considered to be worse than a person who kills intentionally, who causes serious physical injury in the course of a robbery, who rapes a child, who blows up an occupied building,whether he sells a bag of heroin for profit or to support his own addiction or whether he gives away a ‘fix’ to a desperately sick friend suffering from withdrawal pains (where the consequences to the ‘victim’ and to society are minimal, by any scale of values), the mandatory maximum penalty of life remains the same.

Published on: February 11, 2012

Court Rules of Constitutionality of the Drug Law of 1972

by Stephen Bilkis

On October 16, 1974, the Albany County Court in People v. Hollingsworth had an occasion to rule on the constitutionality of the penalty imposed by the Drug Law of 1973. The said law imposes a mandatory penalty of life imprisonment on certain drug crimes, making the penalty equivalent to that of heinous crimes, such as kidnapping or murder.

In the said case, the defendant was charged with the criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. Prior to trial, the defendant sought the dismissal of the case because, according to him, the law infringes on his constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, among others. He anchored his claim on the decision of the Monroe County Court in People v. Mosley, where it was held that certain provisions of the Drug Law is unconstitutional for being a cruel and unusual punishment.

In drug possession cases, it must be noted that the standard by which the court must determine whether a particular punishment is cruel and unusual, and hence violative of the Constitutions, is the modern concept of cruelty and unusualness prevailing in society at the time the question is raised.

Published on: February 10, 2012

Court Rules on Sex Crimes Case

by Stephen Bilkis

Sexual abuse can be everywhere, it might be occurring in our own home. According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, on September 5, 1995, the defendant was convicted by the County Court of crimes of sexual abuse and endangering the welfare of a child. During trial, the 13-year-old victim testified that prior to the commission of the crimes, the defendant, a 31-year-old live in companion of the victim’s aunt, told her that he wanted to rape her and have a baby with her. She further testified that he threatened to kill her whole family if she revealed his feelings about her to anyone. The victim indicated that she believed these threats and, for that reason, did not immediately report the crimes.

Based on the New York Sex Crime Lawyer, the defendant’ initial argument on his appeal was that the jury’s verdict finding him guilty of two counts of the crime of sexual abuse is not supported by legally sufficient evidence in that there is no proof of forcible compulsion. As relevant here, ‘Forcible Compulsion’ means to compel by either use of physical force; or a threat, express or implied, which places a person in fear of immediate death or physical injury to herself or another person. The higher court held that given the victim’s young age and the defendant’s dominance over her by reason of his age and relationship with her aunt, the jury could have reasonably inferred that he accomplished the sexual contact through the use of threats that placed the victim in fear of immediate death or physical injury to herself or members of her family.

Another argument that Archer had pointed out was that he was discriminated by the admission of evidence regarding prior bad acts of sexual nature that he purportedly perpetrated upon the victim. Generally, a Long Island Criminal Lawyer said, such evidence may not be offered to show the defendant’s bad character or his inclination toward crime but may be admitted if the acts help establish some element of the crime under investigation. This exception was said to be applicable in this case since the challenged testimony was admitted to establish that he engaged in a course of conduct that was likely to be injurious to the physical or moral of the victim, an essential element of the crime of endangering the welfare of a child that was charged in two counts of indictment.

Published on: February 10, 2012

Court Rules on Drug Charges Case

by Stephen Bilkis

On September 8, 11 and 12, 1972, an undercover police officer bought cocaine from a man at the Franz Segal Park. The police officer’ back-up team in the area did not actually see the exchange of money for the cocaine. The police officer just showed his back-up team the evidence of the cocaine he bought from the man in the park which was confirmed to be cocaine.

On September 13 and 18, 1972, the defendant again sold cocaine to another undercover police officer at the same area of Franz Segal Park. When the police arrested the defendant in his apartment they discovered marijuana in a bookcase and cocaine hidden inside the inner door of a refrigerator.

The man was charged with selling cocaine on September 8, 11 and 12, 1972. He was charged also for cocaine possession and selling on September 13 and 18, 1972. And he was charged for marijuana possession and cocaine possession for the drugs found in his apartment during his arrest.

Published on: February 4, 2012

Under the law: Celebrities cited for tax discrepancies respond in different ways

by Stephen Bilkis

Consider the following phrase: Tax season. What thoughts come to mind? If you find yourself cringing, you are not alone. Several notable celebrities have failed to maintain their obligations to Uncle Sam, as observed by a New York Criminal Lawyer.

Did you ever consider that Batman might have tax trouble? A popular star of “Batman Forever” fame was issued a $498,165 IRS lien last November for failing to fully pay taxes in 2008, according to the Associated Press. However, the star righted this wrong in a responsible way in 2009 by paying up, according to an entertainment website called TMZ.

What about the “A-list” “National Treasure” star who faced several successive IRS tax liens in the past few years, which at one point amounted to a tab of $13.3 million owed. The details included a disagreement between the star and a financial advisor/manager as well as a legal action on the part of both men, against one another. Again, a Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer notes that the actor smoothed over his troubles responsibly: according to People.com he is “under new business management and am happy to say that I am current for 2009.”

Published on: February 3, 2012

Ex-Cop faces Prison

by Stephen Bilkis

A former police officer was convicted of sex crimes and now faces many years in prison for his crimes. He abused his position of power and used that power to victimize two women. The now ex-cop offered jobs and child care programs to two women when he was not in authority to offer either to the women. He was convicted by a jury trial and one of the female jurors used the term “disgusting” when referring to the Defendant and his actions. He was also convicted of other charges at the trial including official misconduct and unlawful imprisonment.

Following his conviction, the ex-cop now faces up to seven years in prison for his illegal activities. He is due to be sentenced in July unless there is an extension of his sentencing date, according to a New York Criminal Lawyer.

His legal problems do not end with this sentencing. He was fired from the New York City Police Department last January for allegedly propositioning a teenager for sex. No further information is available at this time in regards to any further legal procedures involving this accusation. He also now faces a rape trial for charges related to two alleged assaults. He is accused again of abusing his position of power by luring two women to provide personal information to him while he was in uniform. He then took their personal contact information to get in touch with the two women at another time. Meeting up with the women he then allegedly attacked them sexually. The rape trial is pending.

Published on: February 2, 2012

Man found guilty of DUI, weapon charges, awaits trial for arson

by Stephen Bilkis

A Kane County judge found an Elgin, Illinois man guilty of aggravated DWI and unlawful use of a deadly weapon. He was also found guilty of violating an order of protection. The judge dropped the most severe charge of armed violence and harassing a witness charge, a New York Criminal Lawyer was told.

The police were called to the residence of the 32-year-old man’s former girlfriend’s residence. They found the man asleep in a Jeep with a butcher knife outside the apartment complex at 2:45 a.m. April 7, 2010. The woman called the police because the man had knocked several times throughout a four-hour period. She never answered the door. Instead, she hid in fear until he went away.

At the trial, the police officers, who responded to the 911 call, testified that the man appeared intoxicated. He threatened his former girlfriend, one of the police officers said in court. At the time of the incident, he had been released on bond for an arson charge where he set fire to a house where one of his children, who was two-years-old, was inside. The child was not injured. The home belonged to his parents.

Published on: February 1, 2012

Passenger in critical condition, police book driver

by Stephen Bilkis

A driver, police believe was driving drunk, will face charges after her 17-year-old passenger suffered severe injuries from the crash. The 22-year-old woman driving crashed into a tree, a New York Criminal Lawyer was informed.

Police were called to the scene of the accident around 2:40 a.m. Sunday. The 17-year-old male passenger was unconscious when officials responded. He had visible facial injuries. The accident happened in Morgan Hill, California.

The driver is not the only person believed to have been drunk during the time of the crash, the minor was believed to have been under the influence too, as police officers reported to a New York Criminal Lawyer. A helicopter transported the 17-year-old male to a nearby hospital in California. At this time, the male is in critical condition, but the hospital was not able to go into any further detail about his health.

Published on: January 31, 2012

Mother Charged in Crash with DWI

by Stephen Bilkis

A Sag Harbor woman was charged with driving while intoxicated after she ran her car into a utility pole, according to reports from a New York Criminal Lawyer. The driver and her two small children sustained injuries in the crash.

The 34-year-old mother was charged with an aggravated felony, DWI, and a misdemeanor, endangering the welfare of a child, following the accident, a New York Personal Injury Lawyer was told. In Southampton Town Justice Court, her plea was not guilty, sources told New York Car Accident Lawyers. She was released on $5,000 bail.

The woman lost control of her vehicle while driving in Bridgehampton. She swerved into the northbound lane and knocked over several poles, dropping live wires over the road. Authorities had to close the street for several hours.