New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

Published on: May 30, 2012

Son Sexually Attacks Mother, Mother Accused of Sexual Abuse

by Stephen Bilkis

A woman who was originally from the Dominican Republic had a son whom she left in the Dominican Republic when she migrated to the United States. She obtained permanent residence status when she married an American citizen with whom she had two other children.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said she was then able to send for her son from the Dominican Republic. He first stayed with his father’s relatives in Florida but later on he moved in with his mother at the house she shared with her American husband and their two children.

Sometime on December 31, 2007, the mother, the son and the stepfather attended a party where they all had quite a bit to drink. The son, who was then 14 years old drank rum at that party they attended. When they came home, the stepfather stayed in the living room to watch television.

Published on: May 30, 2012

Defendant Claims Plaintiff Recanted Her Statement

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

Defendant, who was then 24 years old, had known the complaining witness, then 20 years old, for several years. Allegedly, on 24 April 1976, at the complaining witness’s home, following a visit with the complainant’s family and defendant’s mother, defendant told the complainant that he wanted to have sex, and upon her refusal, he forced her to engage in intercourse. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the complainant was later taken to a Hospital for examination, which was negative for the presence of semen.

On 28 April 1976, the complaining witness identified defendant to the police, in front of the complaining witness’s home, and defendant was arrested. In statements following the arrest, defendant admitted having had intercourse with the complainant but denied having used force. He claimed that the complainant had been angry over the fact that defendant had been seeing another woman.

Published on: May 29, 2012

sex crimes

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

A police officer allegedly observed the defendant remain in or wander about a public place for twenty minutes, during which defendant repeatedly beckoned to passers-by and stopped two passers-by, engaging in conversation with said passers-by; stop only male passers-by and defendant did not beckon to or converse with female passers-by who passed by during the same period; standing in the middle of the road while beckoning to motorists. A New York DWI Lawyer said the defendant is a 16-year old with no criminal history.

Thereafter, defendant is charged with the offense of loitering for the purpose of prostitution. The charge is a non-criminal violation punishable by no more than fifteen days in jail. When she appeared before the court in the arraignment part she was also the subject of a warrant that had issued out of Family Court.

Published on: May 29, 2012

Court Discusses the SORA act

by Stephen Bilkis

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.

Published on: May 29, 2012

Court Confirms Probable Cause for Defendant’s Arrest

by Stephen Bilkis

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: May 29, 2012

Court Discusses the Crime of Predatory Sexual Assault

by Stephen Bilkis

The indictment alleges that on May 2, 2011, the man forcibly compelled the complaining witness to perform oral sex upon him. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that according to the indictment, the man then forcibly subjected the woman to anal intercourse. The indictment further alleges that, on May 14, 2011, the man forcibly touched the breasts of complaining witness with his hands and mouth. According to the indictment, the man also forcibly compelled the complainant woman to perform oral sex upon him and then forcibly subjected her to vaginal intercourse.

The man’s motion to inspect the Grand Jury minutes was granted. Upon review of the Grand Jury minutes, questions pertaining to the counts of Predatory Sexual Assault were raised by the court. Following oral argument, the Jury dismissed four of the indictment, each charging Predatory Sexual Assault, as they related to the underlying offenses committed on May 2, 2011. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the man moves for dismissal of the remaining indictment, each charging Predatory Sexual Assault, as they relate to the underlying offenses committed on May 14, 2011, on the following grounds that the remaining counts of Predatory Sexual Assault, as they appear in the indictment, fail to state a crime or offense; the remaining counts of Predatory Sexual Assault cannot be legally amended; the Predatory Sexual Assault statute was enacted to penalize recidivist behavior; and the Jury’s intended use of the Predatory Sexual Assault statute violates man’s due process rights.

The Jury contends that their intended use of the Predatory Sexual Assault statute is appropriate and that the remaining indictments were properly charged to the Grand Jury and correctly worded in the indictment. The man’s motion to dismiss was denied from the bench.

Published on: May 29, 2012

Defendant Claims Court Lacked Jurisdiction for Order for Protection

by Stephen Bilkis

On this proceeding, a man filed an appeal from a judgment convicting him of burglary in the second degree, criminal contempt in the first degree and second degree, upon his plea of guilty.

The offense happened on the last quarter of 2004 when the man assaulted his former girlfriend on several occasions. A New York Criminal Lawyer said he broke into his girlfriend’s apartment, repeatedly harassed the woman and stalked her in violation of temporary orders of protection. Consequently, the man was charged in two separate accusations with multiple crimes, including burglary in the second degree, attempted assault in the third degree, criminal contempt in the first degree and second degree, aggravated harassment in the second degree, stalking in the fourth degree, and menacing in the second degree. Afterwards, the separate accusations were consolidated. The man also agreed to plead guilty to burglary and criminal contempt. Based on records, in exchange of the man’s claim, the Supreme Court promised him that if he completed the treatment alternatives to street crimes drug program they will leave his plea to burglary in the second degree and sentence him to concurrent terms of five years’ probation for criminal contempt in the first degree and second degree. However, the Supreme Court warned the man that if he failed to complete drug treatment, his plea to burglary in the second degree would stand, and he would be sentenced to a determinate term of seven years of imprisonment and a period of five years of post release supervision for that offense.

The man then acknowledged that he understood the arrangement. The man give up his right to a jury trial, his right to cross- examine witnesses, and his right to testify on his own behalf if he wished to do so. Immediately after the man acknowledged that he was giving up his rights, the Supreme Court briefly addressed the issue of a waiver of the right to appeal. A Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer said that it explained that if the man were tried and convicted, he would have the right to appeal the conviction but he already give up his right. The Supreme Court further asked the man whether he was willing to give up all his rights and any other rights he had and plead guilty and the man answered yes. The man then admitted that he entered unlawfully and remained unlawfully in the victim’s dwelling, that he was aware that she had obtained an order of protection against him, and that he had violated that order of protection.

Published on: May 27, 2012

Court Discusses Use of Defendant’s Prior Acts Presented at Trial

by Stephen Bilkis

Drug crimes are a problem in every city in the United States, but courts do not usually expect to find them on their own back doorsteps. A New York DWI Lawyer said in the case of the Supreme Court of Bronx County in 1972, they did not expect to find the drug problem on the very steps of the courthouse. However, that is exactly what transpired in September of 1972. An undercover narcotics team was working a case involving a drug ring that was operating out of Franz Segal Park just around the corner from the Bronx County Supreme Court building. The narcotics undercover team made three different purchases of narcotics from the dealer on September 8, 11, and 12.

The undercover officer would meet with the dealer in Franz Park, make the purchase, and then return to the team with the cocaine. The narcotic would be tested to ensure that it was cocaine. The undercover officer was wearing a wire so that the transaction was tape recorded. However, there was no video at the time that was effective in the field. Following the third purchase, the defendant was arrested for trafficking in narcotics. In his trial, he testified that he was not a drug dealer and that he had never sold anyone any drugs. The undercover team had to testify that they had not witnessed the transactions and had only seen the undercover officer leave with the money and come back with the cocaine.

Interestingly, at trial the prosecutor questioned the officer extensively about the purchases that he made from the defendant in Franz Park. He went in to great detail to show that the time and place of the transaction for which the defendant was charged was identical to the time and place in which he had previously been arrested for dealing drugs. A New York DWI Lawyer said the problem with this line of questioning was that according to the law, prior offenses can only be brought up in trial to show the credibility of the witness. A prosecutor may not use questioning on previous acts to show a propensity to commit the crime that the defendant is on trial. That policy is set forth in People v. Schwartzman, Supra, 24 N.Y.2d p. 247, 299 N.Y.S. 2d p. 822, 247 N.E.2d p. 645. The crimes for which the prosecutor was referring were the two prior drug deals that were under indictment, yet not adjudicated by the time of the trial in question.

Published on: May 27, 2012

Court Seeks to Raise Defendant’s Sex Crime Offender Level

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in Kings County. The case involves the people of the state of New York versus Alexis Liston.

Case

This is an instant action brought forth against the defendant to raise his level of sex crime offender from level one to level two.

Published on: May 27, 2012

Defendant Seeks to Lower his Risk Assessment Level

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is being heard in the Second Department Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The appellant of the case is Robert Fareira. The appellant is represented by Steven Banks, New York, New York, with Joanne Legano Ross for counsel. The respondent of the case is the People of the State of New York. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the respondent is represented by the Brooklyn, New York District Attorney, Charles J. Hynes with Leonard Joblove and Morgan J. Dennehy for counsel and Leah Rabinowitz on the brief for the case.

Appeal

The appellant, Robert Fareira, is appealing an order that was made by the Kings County Supreme Court on the 29th of April in the year 2009. The order designated the defendant as a level three sex offender according to the Correction Law, article 6-C.