New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

Published on: July 18, 2012

Defendant on Trial for Larceny by Embezzlement

by Stephen Bilkis

An Armored Courier Corp. warehouse in Bronx County was burglarized and robbed of some $11 million by individuals unconnected to the company, who were later apprehended and prosecuted. In the aftermath of the robbery, the Bronx County District Attorney’s office focused its attention on the company’s-own business practices. A series of indictments charging the company and its principals with various counts of grand larceny and misapplication of property ensued. A New York Criminal Lawyer said he question presented for consideration is whether the indictments’ allegations concerning the companies handling of the money entrusted to their care would, if proven, support convictions for the crimes charged.

The six indictments collectively charge the company officials, the Armored Courier Corp. and the Investigations Corp. with several counts of grand larceny in the second degree and misapplication of property. At the time the indictments were issued, the company was principally engaged in transporting and storing large sums of cash and performing related services on behalf of its clients. The company officials include the president of the Armored Courier Corp., the senior vice-president of that corporation, and the vice-president and cashier of the Valley National Bank, which played a role in one of the alleged misappropriation schemes.

The case has a complex factual and procedural history. The grand larceny and misapplication charges arose out of four separate courses of conduct, which the State of New York claim demonstrate the accused parties’ criminal mishandling of their clients’ funds. The first Grand Jury to consider the State’s evidence handed up five indictments. Of the five, three were dismissed entirely with leave to re-present. The other two indictments were sustained against the company president and senior vice-president but dismissed against the only named corporate opponent, the Armored Courier Corp. The second Grand Jury handed up four new indictments, naming the company president, the senior vice-president, the Armored Courier Corp. and the Investigations Corp. as opponents. All six outstanding indictments were dismissed by the Presiding Judge on the ground that the proof before the Grand Jury was legally insufficient. Two of the indictments, which named the company president and senior vice-president as opponents, were reinstated on the State’s appeal to the Appellate Division, and the State, as well as the company president and senior vice-president were granted leave to take cross appeals to the court.

Published on: July 17, 2012

Defendant Tries Complex Legal Argument

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York, the legislature decided that stronger steps had to be taken to ensure that repeat offenders of sex crimes were taken out of the community. A New York DWI Lawyer said that in order to ensure that repeat sex offenders did not recidivate in the community for as long as possible and to ensure that they were given whatever treatment that might be available to ensure that they do not repeat their crimes. This law is the Sex Offender Registration Act. SORA is what it is called for short.

SORA is designed to target sex offenders on their second or third offenses and provides harsher punishments and stricter supervision of these offenders. SORA sets guidelines that must be followed for all sex offenders. If a sex offender is found to have committed a sex offense before, he will most likely be categorized as a level two sex offender. If he has committed a third or subsequent sex offense, or the offenses were of a high and aggravated nature, he can expect to be categorized as a level one offender. Level one offenders are given stiffer sentences and tighter supervision. It is therefore, in a felon’s best interest to attempt to minimize his sentence within the scope of possibility. A New York DWI Lawyer said this would provide him with a greater amount of freedom when he is paroled as well as a shorter prison sentence.

A New York DWI Lawyer said most of these offenders appeal their categorization in an effort to reduce their sentence or their SORA level. One such offender, impressed the court with the scholarly letters that he wrote in an effort to reduce his categorization. He contends that in order for the court to apply a sentence to a non-sentence statute such as SORA, they must use Penal Law §70.3(1) and that to do otherwise would be inaccurate. However, he noted that the first sentencing guidelines statute was created in 1909 as the 1909 Penal Law. He contends that the 1909 Penal Law uses a different system of analysis. The court pointed out that one of the legal points that impressed them about these well written letters was the information regarding the 1909 Penal Law. The court admitted that until reading this man’s letters, they were not even aware that the 1909 Penal Law existed. They also contend that while it brings about an interesting question of law, it would not be correct to use this prior law when assessing a sentence on a person in the modern age.

Published on: July 17, 2012

Defense Finds Discrepancy in Handling Juvenile Proceedings

by Stephen Bilkis

In November of 2010, a situation was brought to the attention of the Queens County court system that they found disturbing. The situation involved a discrepancy in the handling of juvenile proceedings. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the courts had been using a computer generated report from the New York Department of Probation that prepared a numerical value that was supposed to predict the recidivism rate of juvenile offenders. This rate was then used to determine if the offender needed high supervision or no supervision from the Department of Probation.

The problem was brought to the attention of the courts by a defense attorney who became concerned about the supervision level that was recommended for his client. He began to do the math manually and discovered that the program was written to discriminate against male offenders. The program assigned a numerical score to several risk factors that were considered a sign that the offender might commit the same or similar offenses in the future. In this case, the computer program assigned fifteen points if the offender was a male. That meant that from the beginning, a male offender was considered in need of more supervision than a female offender who had committed the same crime, or even one that was more serious. The fifteen points that were assigned solely based on the gender of the offender was clearly gender discrimination. After evaluating all of the other risk factors, it became obvious that the risk factor appointment of an additional fifteen points to male offenders, made a significant difference in their chances for a less restrictive probationary regime.

The fact that the rate could increase by fifteen points solely based on gender was so offensive to this defense attorney and he presented eight cases that demonstrated the gender bias that was being committed by the use of this computer program to evaluate juvenile offenders. The Juvenile Department of Probation defended the computer system by claiming that the point system was merely an evaluation tool and that it would not be appropriate to disclose the exact process that was used to evaluate each offender. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the court did not accept this explanation and ordered the disclosure of the process. The court, upon discovering the obvious gender bias associated with the use of the program required the Juvenile Department of Probation to explain why it was defending the process. The Department presentatives claimed that they were attempting to find a way of evaluating each offender that limited the individual influence of probation officers in an attempt to remove personal bias from the process.

Published on: July 17, 2012

Court Discusses Conspiracy to Sell Drugs

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York, drug crimes are prosecuted according to the specifics of the case. Each case is determined on the merit of the totality of the circumstances. A New York Lawyer said issues such as the type of drug, amount of the drug, and whether or not a weapon was involved are considered when determining the severity of the offense. In New York, the courts also consider if the person is a drug addict, or a person who is involved in the sale and distribution of a narcotic drug. There are several actions that are available to assist a person who is convicted in New York of a drug offense if they can demonstrate that they are driven by a compulsion because of addiction to the drug. On the other hand, if the person is not an addict, but a dealer at any level of a criminal conspiracy to sell drugs, they are punished more severely

Another issue of relevance in a drug offense in New York, depends on the actions of the person engaged in the illegal conspiracy to sell drugs. A person becomes an agent of a dealer or purchaser of narcotic drugs when they actively take part in either the distribution or procurement of the illegal substance. In New York, the statute establishes a rule that anyone who acts solely as the agent of a purchaser of narcotics cannot be convicted of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance.

In one case, an undercover police officer was assigned to infiltrate the drug underworld in a certain area and make arrests based on the evidence that he uncovered. He began going to bars in the neighborhood, and eventually noticed that one particular man kept showing up. The undercover officer befriended the man and eventually asked him where he could purchase some narcotics. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the man stated that he knew where some narcotics could be procured, and he estimated the cost of four ounces of the narcotics would cost about three to four thousand dollars. The undercover officer stated that he was interested and the two men exchanged phone numbers.

Published on: July 17, 2012

Girl Being a Guest on Talk Show Ends with Rape

by Stephen Bilkis

A mother and a grandmother of a teenage girl filed a complaint of negligence act to one talk show. The show moved to dismiss the complaint brought by the complainants. The complainants allege that the show’s negligent actions are connected with the show’s motion on the chain of events which concluded with the girl’s rape.

It was started when the mother contacted a solicited show who presents out-of-control teen guests. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said that during conversations with the mother and grandmother, the show’s staff was advised that the girl was 14 years old, undergoing counseling, and taking medication for emotional illness, as well as that she recently had attempted suicide. The girl also lost a close immediate family member and reported sexual intercourse with one twenty nine year old man and five boys who were under age sixteen. It was agreed between the mother and the show that the teen would appear on the show and the show would provide the teen with follow-up psychological counseling and a corrective teen boot camp. The show will also provide the transportation, hotel arrangements and pay related expenses of the girl. The show further asked the mother and the grandmother to accompany the girl on the trip. Consequently, the girl, her mother and her grandmother were picked up by a limousine in their hometown and transported to a midtown hotel.

On the day of the taping at the studio, a woman and a show staff allegedly told the girl to act sexually provocative and also requested to look sexier by wearing her thigh-length top without slacks. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said that in accord with that theme, the girl claims that her sexual experience was exaggerated five-fold during the show.

Published on: July 17, 2012

Defendant Claims he was Denied a Right to a Speedy Trial

by Stephen Bilkis

The genesis of the proceeding is a notorious incident involving a brutal rape and robbery in 1973 in Manhattan. The issues presented are whether the man’s statutory and constitutional rights to a speedy trial were violated, and also whether the trial court should have conducted an inquiry of the jurors to determine whether they had read an article in a prominent newspaper about the trial on the day it commenced.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said while awaiting trial on his case, the man was arrested for an attempted murder and rape. When arrested, the man gave his name, his date of birth and his residence in Kings County, and his prior residence in Manhattan. He claimed that he had a wife who lived in Bronx. The man was tried but the jury, however, could not reach a verdict, and a mistrial was declared.

The man, under the different name, was convicted in Queens County of attempted murder and rape, and sentenced to a term of 10 years. He pleaded guilty in his case, with the understanding that he could seek to have his plea vacated if his conviction in Queens were reversed on appeal. The man was sentenced to a term of 10 years, which was to run concurrently with the term imposed on the Queens County conviction.

Published on: July 16, 2012

Defendant Claims No Probable Cause for Arrest

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiff in this case is Julius Bailey. The defendants in the matter are the Suffolk County Police Department and the Suffolk County Legal Department. The case is being heard in the District Court of Suffolk County in the state of New York. Judge C. Stephen Hackeling is overhearing the case.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the plaintiff is seeking to recover $1,492 for damages sustained to his vehicle while it was in the custody of the defendant, the County. The County has placed an application through the court to have the complaint against them dismissed. This application has been deferred and will be decided along with the small claims action of the case.

Case Facts

Published on: July 15, 2012

Court Determines Double Jeopardy Doesnt Apply in this Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiff’s of the case are the People of the State of New York. Kendrick Roopnarine is the defendant of the case. The District Court of Nassau County is where the case is being heard, with Judge Kenneth L. Gartner overseeing the proceeding.

The defendant of the case, Kendrick Roopnarine has been charged with two counts of driving while intoxicated (DWI) as well as three traffic infractions that were committed at the same place during the same time. All of the charges were calendared to be heard in the Nassau County Court. An administrative error resulted in the traffic infractions also being calendared in the Traffic and Parking Violations Agency of Nassau County. The defendant has plea-bargained with the Traffic and Parking Violations agency for a resolution regarding the traffic violations. He is now seeking to have the criminal charges of the case dismissed on the grounds of double jeopardy.

Defendant Argument

Published on: July 15, 2012

Defendant Claims He was not Prosecuted in a Timely Manner

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case of appeal involving the appellant, the People of the State of New York and the respondent, William Balken. The judges overseeing the appeal case are Santucci, J.P., H. Miller, and Joy S. Miller.

Case Background

This case arises from an accident involving one vehicle that occurred on the seventh of December, 1996. The defendant was driving his vehicle at almost twice the legally posted speed limit in the area. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer was passing a friends vehicle by driving in a center turn lane on the road. While driving at this fast rate and in a turn lane the defendant lost control of his vehicle on a curve in the road. This caused the vehicle to turn over and two of the passengers of the vehicle died as a result.

Published on: July 15, 2012

Defendant Gives Voluntary Confession

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is being heard in the District Court of Suffolk County, First District. Judge Salvatore A. Alamia is hearing the case. The plaintiff of the case is the People of the State of New York. The defendant in the case is Colin O’Reilly.

Case Background

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant has been charged with driving while intoxicated, failing to maintain lane violating traffic law 1128, and two counts of failing to stop at a stop sign, violating traffic law 1172.