The Facts:
Defendant is charged with two counts of grand larceny in the third degree arising out of a homosexual incident between the complainant and defendant.
The People allege that the incident was consensual in nature and that defendant thereafter extorted money from the complainant by threatening to expose him as a homosexual and to bring charges of homosexual rape.
The Facts:
On 7 June 1982, defendant and his wife separated after fourteen years of marriage. Defendant moved out of their marital residence and rented an apartment.
A New York Criminal Lawyer said that on 3 November 1982, defendant was summoned and appeared before the Family Court to answer charges that he harassed his estranged wife. A Temporary Order of Protection was issued.
A female college student from Columbia University surfed the net looking for other Columbia students with whom she can chat. She began an online conversation through email with the accused who was also a student from Columbia University.
The accused shared his interests in the occult and the bizarre. He mentioned his fascination with a known photographer who used corpses for models. The woman shared her fascination with snuff films (pornographic films where the female is shown being slain by the person who was raping her). She and the accused began talking of possible plots for snuff films that they would create.
Two months of emails, chatting, instant messaging passed until the woman shared her phone number with the guy and he called her. They had several long phone conversations.
It is no secret that people make mistakes when they are young. It is not unreasonable to offer a second chance to those who are able to mature past their youthful indiscretions. The Rockefeller Drug Law reforms were created as a means to offer second chances to those offenders who were addicted to illegal drugs and were arrested. It requires that they submit themselves to an in-house drug treatment program while they are incarcerated, and that they successfully complete the program. These drug reform laws are directed at addicts who are encouraged to fight their addiction and become functioning members of society through intervention. These laws are not intended to provide a person who is not an addict, but who was a trafficker of narcotics a means to have their narcotics felony charges sealed.
However, on May 17, 2011, a man who was arrested in 1999 for trafficking in heroin (heroin possession) prepared a motion to the court that would allow him to have his record sealed. He stated that his felony narcotics trafficking conviction was preventing him from obtaining gainful employment. He presented transcripts from a six month drug treatment program that he enrolled himself in when he was on parole. He demonstrated that he has matured by presenting to the court, documents showing that he has successfully completed that program. He also presented several documents to the court that showed that he has completed all of the requirements to be a commercial pilot, but states that the 1999 narcotics conviction is preventing him from obtaining employment. He requests that the court seal his conviction under the drug reform laws. The court reviewed his request and had several matters that created resistance.
First, the drug treatment program that he registered for was only six months. Additionally, it was not a sanctioned program and he did not participate in it while he was under the supervision of the department of corrections. Further, the drug reform laws are directed at giving a second chance to addicts who have won their fights against their drug addiction. In this case, the defendant was not an addict. He was arrested during a heroin sale in which he contends that he was only acting as a body guard for his brothers who were the ones who were actually selling the narcotics. The court further points out that the Rockefeller laws are not intended to provide relief for felony narcotics traffickers. This case demonstrates the situation in which a man was convicted of felony narcotics trafficking eleven years ago. He is haunted by the fact that he is a convicted felon and must accept that label for the rest of his life. There are many privileges in life afforded to a person who is not a convicted felon. Once, those privileges have been taken away because of a felony drug conviction, they are noticed. Convicted felons cannot possess a firearm (possession of a weapon). Convicted felons cannot vote. Convicted felons may be searched and they have no right to privacy from their parole officers. In this case, the defendant contends that he was not actively involved in the sale of the heroin.
On November 17, 1990, a thirty-two year old plumber who was married with three children lived on West 143rd Street in Manhattan. At around 6:43 in the evening, the plumber met his brother’s wife’s boyfriend in front of 225 West 129th Street. The began to argue. They parted and went their separate ways. Later that night, the plumber and the boyfriend ran into each other again. This time, the boyfriend had another man with him. They were in a park near West 129th Street in Manhattan.
During this confrontation, a New York Criminal Lawyer said the boyfriend punched the plumber in the face. He fell to the ground and pulled out a handgun that he possessed a target license to carry. He fired at the boyfriend from his position on the ground. The boyfriend was struck in his chest and was killed. The plumber left the area, but later turned himself in to the police on November 26, 1990. The plumber stated that the shooting occurred in self-defense. He stated that when he was on the ground, he believed that the boyfriend was going to shoot him. He stated that he only shot him to prevent being shot. The police reports of the incident indicated that the boyfriend was not armed at the time of the shooting. The defendant plumber claimed that in 1982, the plumber had been shot by another man in a vehicle accident because the other man had hit his parked car. The plumber was shot twice during that incident after the other man went back to his own car to obtain his registration and insurance paperwork. When he returned to the plumber’s vehicle, he had a gun and shot him twice. In that incident, when the plumber was incapacitated on the ground, the other man attempted to shoot him again at close range. The gun misfired and the plumber’s life was spared. The plumber stated that the way that the boyfriend moved and his mannerisms, along with the 1982 history, made him believe that the boyfriend was in possession of a weapon and that he intended to use it.
The plumber did not have any criminal history, and at trial the Assistant District Attorney requested that he be sentenced to the minimum sentence required for his offense. That sentence would have been fifteen years to life. He was first eligible for parole in 2005. He was not a problem when he was in prison and did not have any disciplinary reports in his file. He worked during his prison term as a plumber’s helper in the maintenance department. He also worked as a program aide for the disabled and as a metal fabricator in the industries work area. He completed his high school equivalency degree and obtained an associate of arts of religious education college degree. A Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer said he also attended several behavioral and psychological programs to reduce his risk of recidivism upon release. These programs included Violence/Aggressive Behavior Programs, Basic Parenting, Hispanic Needs Program to Eradicate Violent Behavior.
A 19-year old woman received a phone call from a male friend who told her that he was very upset and wanted to talk to her in person. The 19-year old borrowed her mother’s car and went to the parking lot where she agreed to meet her friend.
As she was waiting in her car which was parked, a man approached her car. Thinking that the man was her friend Paul, she unlocked the doors of her car. The man came into the car and held her at gunpoint. The woman recognized the man as a man who lived in their neighborhood whom she saw everyday and whom she knew by name.
A New York DWI Lawyer said he then told her to drive to a beach. When they got there, he sodomized her two times and attempted to rape her. This sexual assault lasted for three quarters of an hour. The man then told her to drive back to the parking lot.
Many people view juvenile delinquency as a problem that the child will outgrow. Unfortunately, violence among teenagers has become extreme with the addition of gangs and gang violence in the United States. These juveniles are often on the road to becoming career criminals no matter what actions that the courts take to attempt to rehabilitate them. One case that demonstrates this fact was decided on March 14, 2012. This case involved a young man who was adjudicated as a juvenile and placed under the supervision of the New York City Department of Probation. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said that the young man was sent to an alternative placement program for juvenile delinquents. While in the placement program, the young man was arrested numerous times for extremely violent offenses. Because, he was unable to stop committing violent offenses, the Family Court probation that he was serving was revoked and he was held on Riker’s Island to await the results of his criminal trials in several different counties that were filed while he was on probation.
He was arrested in Queens County and indicted for Murder in the second degree, murder as a hate crime, felony murder, manslaughter as a hate crime, manslaughter in the second degree, robbery in the first and second degree and robbery as a hate crime. A New York Drug Possesson Lawyer was charged in gang assault in the first degree and hate crime assaults in the first degree. He was charged for several other hate crimes and weapons offenses.
He was arrested and indicted in Bronx County for robbery in the first , second, and third degrees. He was indicted for numerous gang crimes of assault, as well as grand larceny and menacing. He was also charged with weapons and stolen property offenses. In Kings county, he was indicted for attempted robbery and assaults as well as petit larceny.
On September 10, 1992, the area of east 213th Street and Bronxwood Avenue in the Bronx, New York was a hotbed of drug activity. Rival drug gangs competed with each other for the drug turf using guns and violence to hold their sales areas. On this night, two brothers who were in control of that particular area, were seated in the back of a BMW parked at the corner when they were executed (murder) by a man with a gun. Both brothers were killed in the attack.
The trial that ensued convicted the defendant of being responsible for their murders. That conviction was appealed by the defendant based on the contention that he was not the man who shot (gun crime) the brothers, a juror in the trial was related to him, and that the prosecutors engaged in misconduct. At the time of his initial trial, there were five witnesses that testified that they saw the defendant kill the brothers.
These witnesses who were also drug dealers, were arrested at different times before this appeal was filed. One of the main witnesses claims that he was continually harassed by the defendant who was attempting to get him to change his testimony. He presented letters that had been sent to him from the defendant and friends of the defendant that told him that he would be killed if he did not recant his testimony. Two of the five witnesses had already met violent ends that were not attributed directly to the defendant who was in prison. After receiving one such letter, the witness applied to be transferred to a different institution for fear of his life. However, when he was transferred, it was to the same institution where the defendant was housed. This created several tense situations as the defendant had opportunity to encounter the witness on several occasions. The defendant repeatedly claimed that it was the witness who had actually executed the brothers and that he was framed for the murders.
Sometimes, the cases that reach the Supreme Court on appeal represent a question of law that is similar among several cases. When this happens, the cases are grouped into one with several cases included. One such composite case involved a defendant who was indicted for attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. A New York Criminal Lawyer said he was arrested for shooting a man with whom he had gotten into a disagreement. They had known each other for many years before the disagreement turned violent. The only witness to the altercation was the victim himself. The victim had originally told the police that he did not know who had shot him. It was not until later that he identified his acquaintance as the perpetrator of the assault. The defense attorney for the defendant attempted to have expert testimony presented in court on the inadequacies of eyewitness identifications. The trial court denied his request.
The judge instructed the jury that the defendant could only be convicted of the charge of first degree assault if he caused serious physical injury to the man by means of a deadly weapon with the intent to cause serious physical injury. They were charged that to convict him of second degree weapon possession, they had to prove that the defendant possessed the loaded gun, that he possessed it knowingly, that the gun was operable, and that he had the intent to use it with unlawful intent against the man who was shot. The jury acquitted the defendant of attempted murder and second degree possession of a weapon. He was convicted of first degree assault. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defense attorney objected to the verdict in court because he maintains that the fact that the defendant was acquitted on the weapon possession count that he could not be convicted for the assault with that weapon.
The trial court rejected the argument of the defense because they claimed that it was not contradictory for the defendant to have possessed the weapon without an intent to use it illegally. He had possession of the weapon without intent to assault anyone earlier in the day before he decided to use it to shoot the victim. The Appellate court agreed on the appeal and upheld the conviction.
Parents have told their teenagers for years to watch the company that they keep. That is especially true if the teens are associating with persons who are likely to commit a crime (felony or misdemeanor). The courts are full of people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time based on the company that they were keeping. Some of these people are completely innocent of any wrongdoing. In many cases, just being present with another person when they commit a crime is enough to qualify as party to a crime. Just by being there, the person may be charged with party to a crime of the crime that the other person commits. That rule is especially true if the person does not report the crime that they were present at. Reporting the crime, is an excellent way to show that the person had no intent to be involved in any wrong doing that occurred in his or her presence. Not reporting the crime can also be used to show intent to be involved in the crime.
In one case that was in the court of appeals of the State of New York, on June 26, 1979 dealt precisely with that problem. It was almost ten o’clock at night on March 11, 1978 when four police officers, three male detectives and one female uniformed officer in plain clothes were observing the actions inside a novelty shop on 42nd Street between 7th and 8th Avenues. The police officers watched as two brothers tried on shoulder holsters for firearms. The two brothers were in the company of a female who was the girlfriend of one of the brothers. The brothers purchased two shoulder holsters. The officers observed the transaction and observed the holsters being placed into a bag and given to the men. The officers observed the men and woman leaving the store and walking east on 42nd Street toward Seventh Avenue. The police officers began to follow the group.
The three people continued walking, but they turned around and looked at the police officers behind them several times. They changed directions and took circuitous routes making note that they were obviously being followed. One of the men began to walk in front of the others and gained on them by about twenty feet. The other two remained behind. The police officers also split up to maintain the proper surveillance. The two male detectives followed the man who had split off from the others. The female officer remained with the other male and the female. She followed them from a distance of about twenty feet.
