New York Criminal Lawyer Blog
Queens Rape 10
A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said this case involves the People of the State of New York versus the defendant George Barrow. The case is being heard in the Criminal Term of the Supreme Court of the State of New York in Queens County. Justice J. Irwin Shapiro is hearing the case.
In an answer to an indictment that accused him of felonious possession of a knife for use as a dangerous weapon, the defendant pleads that he is not guilty. He is motioning for an order to amend his prior plea to one of not guilty based on the reason of a former conviction and by an order for inspection of the Grand Jury minutes. Alternatively, he moves to have the indictment dismissed on the grounds of Double Jeopardy.
Case Facts
It is not disputed that the plea made by the defendant was a result of his prosecution for committing the crime of disorderly conduct. The incident occurred at a subway arcade located on Roosevelt Avenue and 74th Street. He held a knife in his hand during this time and blocked free and proper passage from the area.
The prosecution also does not argue the testimony made by the officer that states that he heard someone scream, turned and saw the defendant holding a knife in each hand at the throat of a female. There was a group around the defendant and the woman. The policeman approached the defendant and told him to hand over the knife. The defendant placed it in his pocket and the police officer approached him and removed it.
A trial was held and the defendant was found guilty. He was committed to the Workhouse for a period of 90 days.
Case Discussion and Decision
The defendant argues that his plea of not guilty should be amended as he has already been tried and convicted in this charge and that by charging him again it is in violation of the double jeopardy laws that are in place to protect people from being tried twice for the same crime.
In this particular instance, the court finds that the two cases are similar in nature, but not identical. A Nassau Sex Crimes Lawyer said there are significant differences in the two cases that the defendant has been accused of. The defendant has been convicted of disorderly conduct for disrupting a crowd and not allowing people to pass by a peaceful location.
The other case at hand involves the use of the knife as a weapon. This case deals with the fact that he held a woman by the throat with a knife at the incident. These two particular cases are extremely different in nature. He was disrupting a crowd and he was yielding a knife at the time of the incident. The basis for the defendant’s argument is moot. The only connection with the two charges is that one of the charges directly resulted from the other.
For these reasons, the motion by the defendant is denied. A Queens Sex Crimes Lawyer said the disorderly conduct charge and the unlawful possession of a knife charge are separate and distinct acts.
Stephen Bilkis & Associates offers free consultations to anyone in need of legal advice. If you are involved in any situation and need help from an expert lawyer, contact one of our offices. Our offices are located throughout the city of New York for your convenience. You may call us any time to set up an appointment to come in and discuss your case with one of the expert members of our team.