New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

Published on: May 25, 2012

Defendant Charged with Sex Crime Against Child

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in Kings County. The plaintiff of the case is the People of the State of New York. The plaintiff is represented by Shawn Mallon from the office of the district attorney of Brooklyn, Charles J. Hynes. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the defendant in the case is Derrick Brown. The defendant is represented by Thomas McGivney from the Legal Aid Society in Brooklyn. The judge overseeing the case is William E. Garnett.

Case History

On the 31st of March in the year 2004, the defendant pled guilty to having a sexual performance of a child, which is a class E felony. The defendant, Derrick Brown, was promised a sentence of probation as long as he met the condition of registering as a sex offender with the Sex Offenders Registration Act.

Published on: May 25, 2012

Court Hears Petition to Change Name of Same Sex Couple

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is in regard to an application for Gena M. Daniels to amend her name to become Gena M. Zaks. The case is being heard in the Civil Court of the city of New York in New York County. The petitioner is represented by Yetta G. Kurland. The judge overseeing the case is Paul G. Feinman.

Case Background

The petitioner of the case, Gena M. Daniels is seeking to change her name to Gena M. Zak. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that Zak is the last name of her life partner of the same sex. Her partner has agreed to the application for the name change.

Published on: May 25, 2012

Emotionally Disturbed Defendant Convicted of Homicide

by Stephen Bilkis

This is an appeal case being held in the Court of Appeals in the State of New York. The respondent of the case is the People of the State of New York. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the appellant of the case is Lydell Harris. The appellant is represented by De Nice Powell of New York City with Lynn W. L. Fahey for counsel. The respondent is represented by the District Attorney of Kings County, Charles J. Hynes with Leonard Joblove and Anthea H. Bruffee for counsel.

Case History

The defendant has been convicted of second degree murder. A New York Criminal Lawyer said in the trial the evidence supplied by the People established that the defendant, Lydell Harris, killed his friend of many years, Larry Amorose using a machete. The defendant was aided by his girlfriend and they decapitated and dismembered the victim’s body and placed the parts in garbage bags and then threw the bags into the ocean just off Coney Island.

Published on: May 25, 2012

Sex Crime Causes Court to Weigh Penal Law 125.27

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is being heard in the Kings County Supreme Court. The Justice overseeing the case is Joel M. Goldberg. The defendant in the case is Otis Carr who is represented by Robert M. Baum from the Legal Aid Soc. The plaintiff in the case is the People of the State of New York. The People are represented by the Kings County District Attorney Charles J. Hynes and the Kings County Assistant District Attorney John Barker.

Case Issue

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the matter at hand involves whether the statutory language that is found in Penal Law 125.27 and states “more than 18 years old” means “at least 19 years old” as contended by the defendant.

Published on: May 25, 2012

Court Dicusses an Initial Robbery Conviction

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is being heard in the Second Department, Appellate Division, of the Supreme Court. The appellant of the case is Donald Booker. He is being represented by Patrick R. Garcia from Brooklyn. The respondent of the case is the People of the State of New York, et al. The respondents are represented by the office of the Brooklyn District Attorney, Charles J. Hynes with Camille O’hara Gillespie, Peter R. Chatzinoff, and Barbara D. Underwood for counsel. The case is being heard before Kooper J.P., Rosenblatt, Harwood, and Miller, JJ.

Appeal

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant is appealing a previous judgment made by the Supreme Court of Kings County. The previous judgment found the defendant guilty of burglary in the second degree through a verdict by a jury and an imposing sentence.

Published on: May 24, 2012

Court Discusses Dealing with Mentally Ill Defendants

by Stephen Bilkis

Legality as it involves persons who are mentally ill can become convoluted. Many cases have reached crossroads where the offender is mentally ill. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the rights of the victim become confused with the ability of the offender to understand what occurred. In some cases, it is an even more horrendous injustice. At what point is a person mentally incompetent to understand that the actions that they took are wrong. If they are sent for treatment at a treatment facility, does that mean that they should not serve any prison time related to the offense that they committed. If they are not penalized for their actions, what message is the system sending to the victim of the crime?

These questions have plagued the criminal justice system since the beginning of time. The question becomes one of intent. Is the intent of the criminal justice system to punish; or is the intent of the system to rehabilitate? Are prisons, just places to keep the public safe for a time from the behavior of inmates; or are they places to rehabilitate them? Some states have adopted laws that allow for a guilty but mentally ill finding in a trial. In cases of guilty, but mentally ill, the offender is sent to a secure mental illness hospital until they are determined to have been cured of their illness; only then do they report to the prison to begin serving their time for the offense that they committed. In that manner, they are fully aware that an insanity defense is not a get out of jail free card. They are required to serve the time for the crime that they committed.

In 1984, many of these issues were brought to the attention of the general public when a man was convicted of rape among several other heinous crimes in New York. He was convicted on January 8, 1981, in front of a jury for his crimes. However, he was determined to be mentally incompetent to understand or take responsibility for his crimes. He was determined to be suffering from a dangerous mental disorder. He was sentenced to an indeterminate sentence in a secure mental illness facility. The Commissioner of Mental Hygiene was responsible for reviewing the case on a regular basis. In September of 1981, and again on October 27, 1982, the Orange County Court signed first and second retention orders ensuring that the defendant was continued in the care of the secure mental hospital that he had been sent to originally.

Published on: May 24, 2012

Magazine Publisher Sues City Police Under Freedom of Information Law

by Stephen Bilkis

The complainants, a magazine publisher, two men and a woman seek a judgment declaring certain records of the accused, city police department subject to disclosure, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) and Public Officers Law (POL) to allow the complainants to inspect and obtain copies of records, declaring that certain practices of the city police department, in responding to FOIL requests, are unlawful, ordering the city police department to comply with FOIL, and awarding the complainants their attorney’s fees. The two men and the woman are the magazine’s reporters who made FOIL requests to the city police department on behalf of the magazine publisher.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that since the petition was filed, a number of the requests have been resolved, or partly resolved, through negotiations between the magazine publisher and the city police department. The requests that have not been resolved are for the records of a searchable electronic copy of the home address of each New York City resident who has been granted a license for a handgun; a searchable electronic copy of the residential address at which a hate criminal act occurred, from January 1, 2005 to the present; and a searchable electronic copy of the crime incident database, dating from January 1, 2004 to the present. The crime incident database contains information about each incident reported to the city police department, such as the date, location and nature of the incident, such as possession of a weapon, for example.

Penal Law provides that the name and address of any person to whom an application for any firearm license has been granted shall be a public record. According to penal law, the petitioner, a reporter for the Wall Street Journal, was entitled to inspect approved pistol license applications on file with the city police department. POL (Public Officers Law) provides, in relevant part, that when an agency has the ability to retrieve or extract a record or data maintained in a computer storage system with reasonable effort, it shall be required to do so.

Published on: May 23, 2012

Defendant Contends No Probable Cause for Search of Glove Box

by Stephen Bilkis

A man is charged with criminal possession of a weapon; criminal possession of stolen property and one count of bribery. He moves to suppress physical evidence seized at the time of his arrest and any custodial statements attributed to him.

On the morning of January 23, 1982, a police officer received a phone call at the precinct from an unidentified male who reported that automatic weapons could be found in the trunk of a maroon Oldsmobile parked near a bar.

Two officers responded and staked out the vehicle. At approximately 2:35 a.m. they observed the accused enter the car and followed him to the parking lot of a bar in a nearby town. When the accused exited the vehicle, the officers approached him, identified themselves and requested his driver’s license and registration.

Published on: May 23, 2012

Defendant Contends False Arrest, False Imprisionment

by Stephen Bilkis

Two officers of the police department were assigned to the prisoner van component and while driving in one of the avenue they saw the man with another individual. As the two walked north, the officers saw the man adjusting the right side of his waistband. The officers thus decided to follow the men as they walked around the block. A New York Criminal Lawyer said deeming the man to conduct a crime as indicative of his possession of a firearm and given what they characterized as a circuitous route, the two took in a high-crime area and decided to stop the men.

The officers approached the two men and ordered them to stop. The other officer approached the man’s companion to question him, turning his back to his companion. While the other officer approached the man to search him and removed from his right pants pocket a firearm. The two officers then arrested the man for criminal possession of a weapon.

The man was detained at the precinct and subsequently transferred to a correctional facility. Consequently, the man was indicted for criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. A Mapp hearing was held and the arresting officer testified. After the trial, the charge against the man was dismissed.

Published on: May 21, 2012

Defendant Claims an Abuse of Discretion

by Stephen Bilkis

One early morning two men wearing ski masks robbed a store. One of them carried a handgun and wore latex gloves and the other was armed with a black shotgun. The robbery happened at around 4:30 A.M., which was half an hour before the store was scheduled to open. A New York DWI Lawyer said the two men came from behind a dumpster at the rear of the store and confronted the two male employees, one unloading a delivery truck and the other taking out the trash. The two employees were directed into the rear of the store and told to lie down in the storeroom. The man with a handgun demanded the cash from the employees and kept watch over them. The other man with the handgun moved to the front of the store where he encountered a female employee, whom he repeatedly punched in the face and then dragged by her hair to the store safe. The man then demanded the female employee to open the store safe. The two men fled with approximately $1,800.

During the investigation, police revealed evidence which led them to conclude the identity of the two men who robbed the store. The first man was charged with multi-count criminal charges. After a jury trial, the man was found guilty of robbery in the first degree, attempted robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, attempted robbery in the second degree and conspiracy in the fourth degree. He was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 14 years with five years of post release supervision. The man then filed for an appeal.

The man initially argues that the decision was against the weight of the evidence because of a different decision would not have been unreasonable. A New York DWI Lawyer said that based on records, the evidence included the fact that the man had previously worked at the store and bragged to some of his friends that robbing the store would be easy. The female employee, who had worked with the man at the store, testified that when the man in the rear of the store called to the front, the voice sounded like the man.