Articles Posted in Suffolk County

The right to a speedy trial is a right that is essential to the Constitution of the United States of America. Each person is granted the right to a speedy trial before a jury of their peers. However, the Constitution does not define the term speedy. Lawyers and legislatures have argued for two hundred years about the definition of what constitutes a speedy trial. When does the time start?

If an offender commits a crime, does the time allowed for a speedy trial begin at that point? Or, does the time start to run at the point when the authorities become aware of the crime? What about situations where the offender is not identified? Does the time start at the point when the offender is identified? A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said all of these are questions that have plagued the court systems from the Federal Courts to the smallest city court. Defining the term, speedy, has baffled law makers for a very long time. Some cases call this problem into question in a more obvious manner. In cases where the defendant attempts to conceal his identity and abscond, when does the time start for a speedy trial?

In New York, the prosecutors generally are given six months to prepare a felony case and be ready for trial. However, capital cases where the offender is possibly going to receive the death penalty or life in prison, the courts have generally allowed more time based on the severity of the punishment that the person could face. One case of this nature began in 1972 when a man was arrested for being on a fire escape with tools to commit the crime of burglary. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said at that time, he provided a false name and date of birth. He provided an address in Kings County where he said that he lived. The next year, he was arrested in June for rape. He provided a different name and date of birth than he had the first time and a different address than he had provided before. He told the officers that he had never been arrested. Computer systems were not in effect at that time and the deception was not caught until much later.

Continue reading

Statutory law is not as fluid as case law, but there are frequently changes that occur in the law that require the courts to adjust their actions in different cases. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said tne case presented in New York, involved an inmate who wanted to be resentenced under the Sex Offender Registration Act. His argument was that he was sentenced as a higher level sex offender than he actually was. He wanted to be reclassified in order to obtain a lighter sentence and less controls on his liberty upon his release. He prepared his argument himself and incorporated his defense into a letter to the courts.

The court officers were impressed with his ability to research the law and to apply his research to his current case. He located a 1909 penal law that the court was not even aware existed. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said his contention that the law established sentencing provisions that should apply to his case was an intriguing notion to the court. However, the court did not agree that the differences between the 1909 and the 1967 penal law established a premise to bring otherwise ineligible sentences under provisions that would enable them to be resentenced under the 2009 DLRA. The defendant stated that the 2005 provisions for DLRA are overly complicated is an opinion that is shared by the court. It does not enable the court to ignore the standards of law that are presented. The 2009 provisions are not as restrictive as the 2005 DLRA, but the two statutes are different. They do not negate the applicability of the case law.

The defendant argues that certain statements regulating the calculations of repeat felony offenders that are present in the 2009 DLRA mirror the wording of Article 70. He contends that this wording makes it possible for certain repeat felony offenses to be recalculated for the purposes of resentencing and eligibility for resentencing under the SORA statute. The court does not agree with his argument. The calculation provisions that are in place are there to restrict the offenders of violent or sexual offenses. A Nassau County Sex Crimes Lawyer said these provisions are aimed at offenders who are likely to repeat their offenses and endanger the public welfare. The court reviewed the subject’s history and determined that he would not be eligible for resentencing even if his argument was correct. It is up to the panel to determine who is and is not a good risk as far as their recidivism rates for the offenses that are listed in the law. In the case of this particular offender, he had so many offenses that even if some were reclassified, he would not have a sentence difference. According to the evaluation by the Supreme Court, his sentence of three and one half years to seven years would remain unchanged even if he were to have his offense reclassified.

Continue reading

Issues that involve mentally ill suspects can be difficult to manage in the criminal justice system. Mentally ill suspects are a special population of offenders that do not fit squarely in the legislative intent in most cases. A New York Criminal Lawyer said when a violent crime involves a person who is clearly mentally ill, the court must balance the rights of the victim’s family to see justice done with the ethical problem of managing an offender who may not be able to comprehend the trial process, his charges, or that what he did was wrong. There have been several laws throughout history that were designed to create a balance of determination where it regards mental competency to stand trial. The McNaughten Rule was the common choice for the last 100 years. The McNaughten Rule established that the offender had to know that what he had done was wrong.

In 1963, the New York Legislature passed document No. 8. On pages 18-19 of this docuent, the courts revised the McNaughten Rule’s theory of the offender knowing that what he did was wrong. The more modern view that encompasses the scientific knowledge of the day as it relates to mental illness, only requires that an offender has a substantial capacity to know or appreciate that what they have done is wrong. Some states include this wording in legal statutes that claim the person may be guilty, but still mentally ill. In states that have a guilty, but mentally ill statute, the person who is found guilty of the crime is sentenced to a mental institution until they are deemed cured, then they are transferred to a penitentiary where they will serve the remainder of their sentences. In 1970, this option was not available. One particularly heinous crime brought this legal problem to the forefront of public attention.

In 1970, a sixteen year old boy was working in a New York apartment building as a porter. One of his duties was to fix minor problems within the apartments. One day, a woman called in a problem with her blinds, the porter responded to fix them and entered her apartment. She was later found raped and brutally stabbed numerous times. The knife was left protruding from her buttocks when the offender left the scene. A New York Criminal Lawyer said before her body was found, the porter had shown up at the fire station next door to the apartment building with a severe cut on one of his hands. He told the firemen that he had cut his hand on some barbed wire. The firemen transported him to the hospital to receive stitches. The boy went home and told his mother that he had fallen on a bag that had glass in it and cut his hand. He was later arrested and told the police a different story about how he had cut his hand.

Continue reading