Articles Posted in Queens

Published on:

by

A man was arrested for alleged acts of sodomy with a 12-year-old male child and was indicted on five counts, all involving such acts. He pleaded not guilty. Although the record is incomplete as to the various steps which were taken thereafter, it is clear that the man was sent to the Hospital for some form of psychiatric examination and was reported insane. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the County Court thereupon committed him to the State Hospital. Almost two years later, he was returned to the County Court, certified as sane, and he withdrew his plea of not guilty and pleaded guilty to the fourth count of the indictment charging him with sexual assault with intent to commit the crime of sodomy. He was once again sent to the County Hospital for observation with pending sentence. The record contains no report or certificate from the Hospital indicating that the man received a psychiatric examination pursuant to the Penal Law, and there is no proof that the Court had or considered such a report before it sentenced the man. The record show that on April 6, 1955, upon motion of the man’s retained counsel, the report of the Psychiatric Division of the County Hospital, finding the man sane is confirmed. On May 16, 1955, the County Court ordered that the man be imprisoned in the State Prison at hard labor, under an indeterminate sentence, the maximum of such imprisonment to be his natural life and the minimum thereof one day. It is not contradicted that the year the man was sent to the State Prison’s psychiatric clinic that prison was closed after having been in operation for more than four years. The record does not disclose when the man was transferred from the State Prison to Attica Prison where he is presently held. The claim of the man’s counsel that Attica Prison does not have nor has ever had any facility for psychiatric treatment during the time of the man’s confinement therein is not refuted.

The man’s contention that he was not given a psychiatric examination pursuant to Penal Law was not explored at the County Court hearing. The man’s assertion that the report of the County Hospital made after his guilty plea does not disclose that the man was a psycho path or of violent character and was bare of any descriptive sexual abnormality finds support in the only record from that court dealing with the subject which simply confirmed a finding that the accused is sane. The notation supports the probability that the examination was in compliance with the Code of Criminal Procedure, indicating the man’s capability of understanding the charge and making his defense, rather than in compliance with Penal Law.

If the further hearing should confirm the man’s position, the Court is constrained to remit the matter to the County Court for proceedings consistent with the memorandum which specifically provides that no person shall receive the indeterminate sentence until a psychiatric examination shall have been made of him and a complete written report thereof shall have been submitted to the court. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the statute requires such an examination in every case in which a sentence of from one day to life may be imposed, regardless of whether such a sentence is in fact imposed.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said a man was convicted of rape, a sex crime, in South Carolina sometime in October 19, 1992. He was sentenced to a prison term and he has fully served his prison sentence. During his incarceration, the Sex Offender Registration Act was enacted which requires all convicted sex offenders to register their address within ten (10) days from changing one’s address. The man was designated as a level three sex offender. After his release, the man failed to verify his new address with the local law enforcement agency. He was charged with a violation of the Correction Law, that is, that he failed to register as a sex offender.

When he moved from South Carolina to the state of New York in July 6, 1999, after his release, he registered as a sex offender in New York. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said that sometime on November 12, 2002, the man changed his address from New York to Hoboken, New Jersey. He notified the Division of Criminal Justice Services of this change of address. After this, the Division of Criminal Justice Services has not received any other change of address from the man until July 2006.

Evidence has been acquired by the local law enforcement in Kings County that the convicted men changed residences from New Jersey back to King’s County in New York. He first lived on Herkimer Street and about two months later, moved from Herkimer Street to Gates Avenue but he did not inform the police of this change of address nor did he notify the Division of Criminal Justice Services.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

In the early morning hours of May 11, 2004, near Sheridan Avenue in Brooklyn, the man accosted the woman, grabbed her around the neck, pointed a knife at her, and demanded money. When she told him that she had none, he pulled her into a nearby yard and raped her at knifepoint. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said approximately one week after the sex crime, the complainant woman identified the man in a lineup, the fairness of which has never been challenged. The grand jury returned an indictment charging the man with rape in the first degree, sex abuse in the first degree, sexual misconduct, attempted robbery in the first degree, two counts of assault in the second degree, two counts of assault in the third degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree. He sought suppression of the woman’s potential identification testimony on the ground that, prior to the lineup, the police lacked probable cause to arrest him for the criminal acts committed against the woman.

At the hearing, two retired detectives who had been assigned to the Special Victims Squad testified for the court; the man offered no evidence. The detectives testified that they were assigned to the investigation of the criminal acts. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said that two days after the incident, one of the detectives interviewed a person who had been working as a security guard in the vicinity of the incident on the date and at the approximate time it occurred. He told detective that he had seen a man in the area whom he recognized as someone who lived in his neighborhood and had played on the basketball team in a school. The man matched the general description of the assailant provided by the complainant woman. The witness accompanied the detective to a school and looked through three or four school yearbooks. In the 2002 yearbook, he came upon the man’s photograph, pointed to it and identified the man.

A Nassau County Sex Crimes Lawyer said as a result of that identification, the other detective put out what is called an inquiry card with reference to the man, that if he’s stopped, apprehended or identified, the detective’s office would be notified. On May 18, 2004, only one week after the sex crime, the detective was notified that the man was arrested in Queens. The detective had the man transported to Brooklyn and, when he arrived, his supervisor arrested him for the rape. He arranged for the man to stand in a lineup, and had the complainant brought to the precinct station house. She viewed the lineup and identified the man as her attacker.

Published on:

by

The Facts:

On 15 November 1988, the respondent was arrested in Kings County and subsequently indicted for robbery in the first degree and related offenses. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said on 15 November 1989, he entered a plea of guilty to attempted robbery in the first degree. Sentencing was scheduled for 9 January 1990, at which time the respondent failed to appear and a warrant was ordered.

Subsequent to the issuance of the Kings County warrant, the respondent was arrested in North Carolina and charged with having sexual contact with four children. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said on 25 January 1991, following a three-day trial, he was convicted of one count of first degree sex offense and related charges and was sentenced to life in prison.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

This case is being heard in the Criminal Term of the Supreme Court of Kings County. The plaintiff of the case is the People of the State of New York. The defendant of the case is George Whitmore Jr. The Justice overseeing the case is David L. Malbin.

Case History

On April 23, in 1964, a woman who worked as a nurse at a hospital in Brooklyn was on her way home when she was allegedly attacked by a man who tried to rape her. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said she defendant was arrested the next morning and identified by the victim as her assailant.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

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.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

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.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

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.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

Two police officers were patrolling in a police car which they parked near Washington Heights. They were assigned here because the area of Washington Heights was known as a high traffic area for selling drugs especially to people from outside of New York, particularly, from people in New Jersey.

As the two cops were walking, they saw a Cherokee Jeep with New Jersey license plates. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said they saw a Caucasian male park the Jeep and get down from it. They saw him approach a Hispanic looking man who was yelling for the Caucasian passenger of the Jeep to come over to where he was.

As the Caucasian male was walking toward the Hispanic man, he saw the police officer walking toward them. The Caucasian man backtracked and ran to his vehicle, and drove away.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

The man was charged with criminal possession of a controlled substance, in particular of possession of a narcotic drug with the intent to sell and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, in particular of knowing and unlawful cocaine possession with 500 milligrams or more. The man moved to cover up the physical evidence recovered upon his arrest. After the suppression hearing, the trial court denied the man’s motion. A Sandoval hearing was also held at which the man sought to cover up his nine prior drug crime convictions.

Consequently, the man proceeded to trial but did not testify. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the evidence adduced at the trial established that the arresting officer saw the man twice, reaching into a brown paper bag and drop vials into an unidentified woman’s outstretched hand. The officer, who observed the man from a distance, also testified that it appeared to him as if the man were counting out the number of vials he was depositing into the woman’s hand. As the officer approached the man, the woman fled and the man was arrested. The brown paper bag, which contained thirty-one vials, was recovered from the man. Upon analysis of the contents of the vials by police chemists it was concluded that the vials contained 1,591 milligrams of cocaine. The jury acquitted the man of the possession with intent to sell count but convicted him of the fifth degree possession count.

The legislature had decided that persons who illegally possess larger quantities of controlled substances should be punished more severely. The conduct is more repugnant and presents a greater threat to society because drug possession is not a strict liability crime, however, an individual is not deserving of enhanced punishment unless he or she is aware that the amount possessed is greater. A purpose of the knowledge requirement is to avoid over penalizing someone who unwittingly possesses a larger amount of the controlled substance than anticipated.

Continue reading

Contact Information