New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

The defendant was charged with violation of traffic laws because he was driving while under the influence of alcohol. The court conducted a hearing to determine if the defendant’s three separate statements have any legal implication.

In this DWI case, there are three different statements being deliberated. In the first statement of the defendant, she had said that she had a fight with a male friend since she was too intoxicated to driver her vehicle. The statement also indicated that she had 2 drinks. The second statement was allegedly given by the defendant after she was arrested by the police. In that second statement, she claimed that she only took one drink at her friend’s house and was heading to another destination. The third statement said that the defendant had three drinks and was about to go to her friend’s house.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that the three statements are obviously in conflict with one another. The only witness to this case was the police officer who arrested the defendant. According to the officer’s statement, he and his partner were patrolling their usual route. The officers received a radio call and proceeded to respond to a dispute between drivers on the road. They went to the location of the dispute. When the police officers had arrived at the scene, the lead officer noticed the three people who seemed to be arguing. The woman, who was also the driver of the vehicle, was identified as the defendant.

The police officer was informed by one of the men who was with the woman defendant had been driving along when he noticed the woman and her friend having an argument. The man stopped his car to break it up.

After hearing the man, the police officer proceeded to ask the defendant what happened. The defendant told the police officer that they were arguing because she was too intoxicated to drive the car. When the officer had asked the defendant where she came from, the defendant had replied that she had been drinking. While the defendant was talking, the police officer noticed that she was slurring her speech and had bloodshot eyes. These were considered signs of intoxication. The officer also noted an alcoholic smell coming from the defendant.
After detecting the smell of alcohol, the officer had the defendant take the sobriety tests to determine if she was really intoxicated. The breath test results showed that she was intoxicated. The officer did not make her walk in a straight line since the defendant was wearing very high heels.

The officer arrested the defendant and brought her to the precinct for further questioning. An NY Criminal Lawyer said that while the police officer had the defendant at the back of the car, he proceeded to read the Miranda warnings in her presence. During the entire ride to the precinct, the police officer noted that the defendant had made a different version of her statement. At the precinct, the police officer also heard the defendant make another statement that was different from the previous ones.

Based on the provisions of the law, the police officer had probable cause in arresting the defendant. The officer had suspected the defendant to be driving while intoxicated. The court has found that the officer acted in the proper manner when he approached the defendant’s car and inquired on the incident. Before the defendant’s arrest, the court also finds that the questions asked by the police officer were only investigatory in nature. It can be recalled that the officer first asked about the reason of the dispute. Regarding the statements made by the defendant prior to her arrest, the court has found that those statements were made by the defendant out of her own free will. Therefore, such statements are admissible in court. However, there was no direct evidence that the defendant had been driving while she was intoxicated since the officers found her car parked along the side of the road. The motion of the defendant to suppress the statements is granted.

DWI lawsuits are not as simple as you think. If you are charged with DWI, sex crimes or a theft crime a qualified lawyer is all you need as you prepare your defense. Contact Stephen Bilkis & Associates for advice and a free consultation.

The defendant faces charges of DWI or driving while intoxicated. The defendant is also charged with violating traffic laws. According to the arresting officer, the defendant failed to maintain driving within the correct lane. A hearing was held in court to determine if the evidence against the defendant had been illegally obtained. The court was tasked to decide on the validity of the evidence in court. The alleged evidence includes the statements made by the defendant and his refusal to take a chemical test.

The witness on this case was the police officer who had arrested the defendant. The police officer had 20 years’ worth of experience working in law enforcement. Through the years, the officer had made several arrests involving drinking while intoxicated charges.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that according to the statement of the police officer, he was patrolling the highway during the night when he came across the defendant’s car. The officer observed that the driver of the car was driving at a high speed. The police officer followed the car in order to get closer. As the driver of the car made the turn, the police officer noted that he ran past two stop signs and went over the yellow lines.

It was during this time that the police officer turned on his emergency lights and pursued the vehicle to a complete stop. When the car pulled over by the side of the road, the officer approached the car and talked to the driver. The officer asked for his license and registration. The driver who was also the defendant in this case, had difficulty retrieving the needed documents. The police officer also noted the smell of alcohol inside the car.

The police officer proceeded to ask the defendant if he had been drinking. The defendant replied that he had a few drinks. An NYC Criminal Lawyer said that while the defendant was talking, the police officer noted that the driver showed signs of intoxication such as slurred speech and glassy eyes. After noting the observation, the police officer told the defendant to get out of the car and walk to the back of his car. This was actually a test on the part of the defendant if he could walk in a straight line. The officer further noted that the defendant was unsteady while walking. The officer had the defendant undergo sobriety tests.

The defendant failed all of the tests. The police officer decided that the defendant was guilty of DWI and brought him to the precinct. The officer again detected traces of alcohol on the defendant. At the precinct, the officer asked the defendant if he wanted to undergo a chemical test. It was during this time that the defendant spoke and asked to talk to a lawyer. He will not answer any more questions if unless he speaks to his lawyer.

According to the provisions of the law, a traffic stop is considered constitutional when there is legal basis for its occurrence. In the case of the police officer, he witnessed the defendant violate many traffic laws including speeding, running past stop signs and going over the yellow lines. The traffic violations provided the officer the legal basis to pursue and stop the vehicle.

The probable cause to proving the charge of DWI is left on the police officer. In this case, he had probable cause since the defendant demonstrated the classic signs of intoxication which led him to violate said traffic laws. The court has noted the observations of the police officer regarding the smell of alcohol and the results of the sobriety tests administered on the defendant. It has also been noted that the defendant admitted that he was drinking.

The court has decided that the earlier evidence regarding the defendant’s refusal to take the chemical test is not admissible since it was unclear whether the defendant had insisted on his refusal to take the test.

If you are charged with DWI, a sex crimes charge or a theft charge, you don’t have to bear the legal burden any longer. A skilled lawyer will be there for you in preparation for your case.Contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates for advice and a free consultation.

The respondent in this case had a license to carry firearms. The same license was suspended by order of the court. All guns owned by the respondent were to be turned over to the sheriff’s department pending the hearing of the case. The permit to carry firearms was reinstated after the proceeding of a DWI charge.

The court was tasked to determine the circumstances leading to the arrest of the respondent. According to the witness who was also the arresting officer, he arrived at the house of the respondent as back up. The officer had responded to a call made on the emergency hotline involving a dispute between a husband and wife. When the officer spoke to the husband and also the respondent in this case, the respondent said that it was his wife’s fault. The respondent claimed that his wife assaulted him. He did not do anything to his wife. The officer noted the behaviour of the respondent as uncooperative. The respondent kept on telling the officer to get out of the house.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that the officer also noted that respondent showed signs of intoxication. The officer arrested the respondent for his disorderly behaviour. During the investigation of the police regarding the dispute, the respondent kept on harassing his wife and the officers present. Upon arrest, the respondent was brought to the court to be arraigned. The respondent continued to be in an unruly mood while inside the premises of the court. The charge at this point was changed to obstruction. At the request of the respondent’s wife, the court granted an order of protection. The officer imposed the order by seizing the guns of the respondent.

After the serving of the order of protection, the obstruction charge was withdrawn. The respondent was presented with the condition that the order of protection will be dropped if he will surrender his license to carry firearms. The respondent is arguing in this case that his permit was already surrendered as ordered by the court.

When the court deputy arrived at the house of the respondent, he noted that the respondent was intoxicated since he had slurred speech and glass eyes. He also spoke obscene words in front of the deputy. The deputy explained that he responded to a domestic dispute call and was there to enforce the order of protection. The respondent was then arrested for violating the order of protection. Another officer arrived at the scene and noted the bruises and scratches on the respondent’s wife.

Based on the facts presented in the case, a Long Island Criminal Lawyer said that the provisions of the law state that a gun permit may be revoked if the owner is unfit to own a gun. The court has declared the respondent to be unfit. The proof required to revoke the license must be substantial evidence. The court has the responsibility to protect the public from the threat of unfit gun holders. If the gun owner is declared unfit therefore the guns may be considered dangerous under his possession.

The respondent has been found by the court to have credibility issues due to his intoxication and domestic disputes. The respondent had violated the order of protection and proceeded to hurt his wife anyway. The revoked license was determined by the court to have substantial evidence. The court also ordered that any guns taken due to a decision of a former case must be surrendered and transferred to another person who was fit to carry a gun permit.

The respondent was ordered by the court to arrange the transfer or sale of the guns to another individual with a permit. An appeal may be made on this decision.

If you are facing a DWI charge, sex crimes charge or domestic violence offense, you don’t have to worry. Hire the services Stephen Bilkis and Associates to help you prepare on your case.

The defendant in this case was charged with DWI and violation of traffic laws. Upon receiving all statements of the parties involved, the court has scheduled a hearing to determine if the statements made by the defendant should be admissible as evidence.

According to the case files, the defendant gave an initial statement to the police regarding the circumstances of his traffic violations. The defendant first drank four beers before moving on to another place to take two more beers. The defendant then proceeded to drive home. He got out of his car sometime later and walked home instead. The defendant further told the police that he was driving his car home when he the police car approaching. It was during that time that he got out of the car and ran away to walk home.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said he police officer was named the only witness in this case. According to his statement, he and his partner were on their usual patrol but they were not in uniform. The police officer was driving an unmarked car. While patrolling, they received a radio call that a suspicious-looking car was parked along the side of the road. The police officer then proceeded to the direction of the reported vehicle.

The location of the parked car was in front of the driveway of a private residence. According to the owner of the house, she noticed a car parked on her driveway and did not know its owner. She told the police officers that she did not see anyone get out of the car or when it parked on her driveway. She knew nothing about why the car was there.

Using his investigation skills, the police officer felt the hood of the car and discovered that it was still warm. This means that the car was left recently and the driver must still be near. The police officer also noted that the car was locked with the keys still inside. The officer checked the plate number of the vehicle and made a call to check on its owner. The officer found out that the car belonged to a woman.

The police officer noted in his statement that there was no crime being committed under the circumstances. A Manhattan Criminal Lawyer said that the officers left the scene and drove around the neighbourhood to look for any signs of the driver. The officer further indicated in his statement that he was looking for someone who was on foot and stop to ask a few questions.

While driving along further, the officer noticed a man inside a memorial park who was jogging around in circles. The officer observed that the park was about a few minutes away from the location of the car. The officer stopped the car to call the man over. The man here was later known as the defendant. When the defendant came over, the officer asked for identification. At that moment, the officer noted that the man smelled of alcohol and had trouble maintaining his balance. The officer could see that he also had glassy eyes and talked in a slurred way. The officer found the defendant to be in a cordial manner. The defendant was asked to perform sobriety tests. Since all tests show that the defendant was positive with alcohol, the officer brought him in and charged with DWI.

According to the provisions of the law, the police may have the authority to stop anyone who was suspected for committing a crime. The stop is justified if the police can prove their suspicions right. In this case, there was no traffic stop since the defendant was found on the street.

Based on the information presented, the court has determined that the court did not find probable cause in the arrest made by the police. There was no reason for the police to stop the defendant since he was not committing a crime. The motion to suppress is granted in favor of the defendant.

The next time you are charged with DWI, sex crimes or a theft crime, you don’t need to worry about the lawsuit. An skilled lawyer will assist you in planning your next legal action. Call Stephen Bilkis and Associates today.

The defendant has filed an appeal for his conviction. The court found the defendant guilty of DWI. He was also found guilty of violating traffic rules and regulations. The defendant reportedly failed to stick to the right side of the road while driving and went over a hazard marking.

The court finds the defendant guilty of the DWI after he went off the rural road while driving and as a result, his car hit the telephone pole. The defendant allegedly left the scene without reporting the incident to authorities. After his trial by jury, the court sentenced him to 1 to 3 years of imprisonment. The defendant has filed a motion for appeal.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that the defendant asserted in his appeal that the proof of his intoxication while driving should be declared as legally insufficient. According to his statement, the defendant claimed that he did not become intoxicated until after his accident involving the telephone pole.

A witness gave a statement and said that he came upon the staggering defendant standing on the middle of the road. The witness saw that he was talking to his mobile phone. The witness came upon him and remarked that the defendant had been drinking. The defendant replied that he only started drinking after he crashed the telephone pole. The witness further testified that the defendant had slurring speech and looked dazed and confused.

The state trooper who arrived at the scene searched the defendant’s car and found a half empty vodka bottle. However, the defendant had fled from the scene. Later on, another state trooper came by the house of the defendant. A New York City Criminal Lawyer said the trooper had observed that the defendant had glassy eyes, slurred speech and had difficulty in body coordination. The trooper also detected the smell of alcohol on the defendant.

When the defendant was tested several times for sobriety, he failed repeatedly. During the time of the accident, the jury has noted that the weather was clear and dry. It was also noted that there was only one slight bend on the road near the crash site.

During the investigation of the trooper, the defendant told him that the he had one or two beers at the party that he attended before he drove off for home. The defendant then claimed that he did was not intoxicated until after arriving home. According to his statement, the defendant drank a few more beers and emptied half a bottle of whiskey before the state trooper arrived on his doorstep. The defendant further told the trooper that he was staggering in the middle of the road because of the dizziness he felt from the impact of the airbag in his car.

Based from the evidence presented, the court finds the case in favor of the people. The jury also concluded that the defendant drove off the side of the road and hit the telephone pole because he was intoxicated.

Regarding the matter of the defendant’s appeal that the court did not comply with a statute involving the substitution of a juror while on trial. According to the statute, when there are changes made among the jurors, the court must put into writing the changes made and have the defendant sign the document. This should be done in the presence of open court. However, the defendant contends that he was not given anything to sign during the proceedings. In this case, the court granted the request of the defendant to substitute a current juror for another one. Despite consent provided by the defendant and his counsel, the appeals court has found that the county court had not followed the procedure of having the defendant sign a written consent in open court. This violates the constitutional right of the defendant by jury composed of 12 members.

The appeals court therefore finds the issue to be a constitutional matter and requires judgment to be reversed. The case will be tried again in county court.

If you are involved in a DWI case, sex crimes charge, or theft charge, you need to have the competent services of a skilled lawyer. No matter what type of charge against you, our legal team is always ready to represent you if you go to trial. Stephen Bilkis & Associates will gladly arrange a meeting for you.

Two state police troopers were parked at a corner when a red pick-up truck sped past the intersection. The radar in the police trooper’s patrol car registered that the vehicle was going at a speed of 65 miles per hour in a 45 miles per hour zone. The police troopers then followed the red pick-up truck and while they were right behind the red pick-up truck, the police radar was still tracking the speed of the red pick-up truck.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that then the red pick-up truck parked into the parking lot outside a bar, the police officers got out of their patrol car and asked the driver for his license and registration. They noted that the driver was only 20 years old. The officers noticed the strong smell of alcohol on the driver and his red, watery and glassy eyes. One of the officers asked the driver if he had been drinking that night and the driver said he had been drinking beer. He also stated that he knew that he should not have been drinking that night.

At this point the officers asked the driver to take sobriety tests at the parking lot. The driver was staggering and swaying when asked to stand still. He failed to follow with his eyes a pen that the officer moved in front of him. The driver succeeded in walking heel to toe in a straight line for about nine steps. But the driver could not keep his leg up to stand on just one leg without staggering or swaying. He could not recite the letters of the alphabet correctly and stopped midway. He was not given a breath analyzer test. After this, the state troopers then placed the driver under arrest for DWI.

A Nassau County Criminal Lawyer said that during the trial, the State Trooper who made the arrest testified that he had finished 80 hours of coursework at the police academy on recognizing sobriety or intoxication in drivers. He had made about 75 arrests of drunk drivers during his tour of service and has been present during the arrest of about 100 more drunk drivers.

The driver, during the trial, asked the court to suppress all the testimonial evidence against him as they were obtained illegally. He contends that he was arrested without cause.

The Court rejected the argument of the driver. The Court noted that the State Troopers had enough probable cause to stop the driver of the red pick-up: they had witnessed him speeding; his breath reeked of alcohol; his eyes were bloodshot, glassy and watery. And they noticed that the driver was unsteady on his feet. The driver was only 20 years old at the time of his arrest and should not even be admitted to a bar. He was violating the law at the time of his arrest.

The Court explained that probable cause exists when the police officer had a reasonable belief that a crime was being committed. Speeding is a crime which was sufficient probable cause for the state troopers to stop the driver. When they looked at his license and registration, the police officers were able to determine that he as committing crime: he was drinking even though he was only a minor (under 21 years old). The driver was also chatty: he admitted that he had been drinking beer and that he knew that he shouldn’t be drinking.

All the evidence from the testimony of the state troopers, including their recollection as to the failure of the driver during the field sobriety tests is all admissible as these were obtained legally. The state troopers had probable cause to stop the red pick-up truck. When they asked for the license and registration, the driver smelled of alcohol and had red, watery and bloodshot eyes. They also saw that he was only 20 years old. They had probable cause to subject him to the field sobriety tests. When he failed the sobriety tests, the state troopers had probable cause to arrest him for driving while intoxicated. The evidence obtained during the stop, the evidence of the sobriety tests and the admissions of the driver are all admissible into evidence.

If you have been charged with a DWI, sex crimes, or a theft charge, call Stephen Bilkis and Associates and ask to confer with a lawyer who can explain to you what the charges mean. Our office can help you during your custodial investigation; he can assist you at trial and present evidence as well as ague your case in your behalf.

Sex crimes vary a great deal in details and the people involved in it according to a long time New York sex crime lawyer. When such crimes happen, it does not just involve men and women for it could also involve some homosexuals who are usually convicted as pedophiles. A certain case that can further explore similar details is that of Thomas Gutierrez. There was a single incident that a person he once invited to see a movie complained of sexual abuse. The other New York rape lawyers who were involved in dealing with the case referred to him as a human predator.

It was found out by another expert New York Crimnal Lawyer that Gutierrez keeps movie tickets as some kind of souvenir and memorabilia of those he abuses inside the theaters. In fact, his exact term was ‘trophy’ for a certain night which somehow means a different night out with another minor, specifically children. The way the prosecutors gave their questions was justified especially with how Gutierrez invited persistently the victims and it was fully emphasized that he is an adult already with the victims being young individuals.

As with another New York Criminal Lawyer who did a close study on the case questioned whether there was improper touching done by the accused to the victims. The complainant said that the defendant tried to put his hands on his pants but this was of course denied by Gutierrez. There may have not been enough proof but the level of guilt that the defendant showed was too overwhelming. Every credible lawyer therefore agrees with the overall judgment of the court that he did sexual abuse and has endangered the life of a child.

There is even no need any more for a new trial for the details would just be reviewed over and over again, the same as before. It is important thought that a more thorough investigation was made not just to prove Thomas truly guilty but also know how much he has reached with his consistent crime. Could there be already a wide collection of movie tickets that he has collected? How come his past victims never had the guts to complain? Did he pay or threaten them? With the help of the ticket collection, could there be a certain pattern traced so that the rest of the minors in the community can be further protected from such an offender?

It can be truly hard to decide on a case especially when there are not any solid evidences which should arise. There should also be a good number of witnesses and complainants who would testify against one person. This is one reason why Thomas was still fighting for his freedom with the considerable lack of evidence which was required by the court. But it was good the overall decision still led to the protection of the complainant and the rest of the minors in the society.

There is always a competent New York Llawyer who can certainly help you in understanding the details of these cases and eventually allow you to win it through a very fair trial, whether you have been charged with a sex crime, drug possession crime or theft charge. There are enough New York rape lawyers who can offer you assistance straight from the office of Stephen Bilkis & Associates. With every case won, you just do not fight for your rights and your total freedom but also for the utmost protection of the rest of the minors in society especially from such abusive adults like the common pedophiles and other sex offenders.

Sex crimes become all the more complicated when they are set into varying degrees according to the court. With the help of legal counsel, you can be sure to understand the consequences behind each degree and how hard the punishments that come with it. To further understand it, the case of Bruce Thompson is raised. Bruce was guilty of sexual abuse in the first degree and also of sodomy in the third degree.

The first one was his offense of forcing someone to have sexual contact with him while the other crime is engaging a minor to have sex with him. This was also researched well by a New York Criminal Lawyer who handles a lot of sex crime cases which involve minors. The defendant was fighting for the fact that there was no sufficient evidence provided against him. A certain John Gorton who was 15 years old told his story that Bruce approached him in the back of a store and talked him into a lot of things.

Eventually it was found that Bruce fooled him and said that he had stolen coins from him and that he would called a certain store owner to report him. They eventually shared a drink by the river and when the minor was completely drunk, Bruce removed the teen’s clothes and sexual intercourse happened. John only consented to it out of fear that Bruce might harm him especially with the paranoia that many kids were killed in that spot. After the incident, they walked away from the place and John ran away and went home. He asked his father and granddad to call the police.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that the witness in the gas station John passed by attested that he was really running hard and asking for money to get to call the police. He appeared all shook up and stiffed according to the witness named James Buckland. Harold Dennis was also another witness who overheard the John saying to Bruce that he really did not steal the coins he was accusing him of. This case was easily resolved due to the solid elements presented during the trial.

All the noteworthy incidents that transpired point to one single person and that was Bruce. The crimes that John may be complaining of may have had no exact witness but the related incidents that happened before and after were pretty much supported by two solid witnesses. Hence, he was charged guilty of the two sex crimes that he has committed to John despite his constant denial. The case may have lacked in such evidences that Bruce was fighting for just to prove the crime but still the intensity level of the corroboration was too strong to prove Bruce guilty of the two crimes.

If you truly care for the minors in our community, then we must help each other by getting the right lawyers who would fight for our rights and would stick close to our sides. There are many reliable lawyers who you can fully trust from the office of Stephen Bilkis & Associates located in NY. Whether you have been charged with drug possession, sex crimes or a theft crime, we can help.

Nothing can be more painful when the ones who have done the sexual crime is one of our loved ones. It all makes it worse when the victims belong in our family too. This is what a New York sex crimes lawyer wants to share to us with this case of Orlando Roman. He was accused of bribing his ex-wife to not testify in court with regards to his case of abusing his own four year old kid. Janet Roman is the mother of the kid who filed a complaint to the police about his bribe offer to not testify about the sex abuse of their own child.

Roman was offered about $15,000 for the agreement to not testify in the grand jury hearing. She questioned first about the sex abuse and rape case but he did not say anything about it. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that Roman said if the money be taken he would transfer to another state and move away from them. He almost promised that he would never be seen again as part of the incentive. He also said that the victim was just coached and that he did not do anything that have intentionally hurt the victim.

As per the findings of an expert Manhattan Criminal Lawyer, the conversation recorded would be heard out in a separate trial but it will not be admitted as part of the counts of child sex abuse whether it is consolidated or not. But such can take a big part too in the process of proving the accused guilty of the sexual abuse crime he is confronting. Money truly is played dirty just to be able to buy your freedom out or the justice that others deserve.

To go away from the victim and the family affected is not the solution to the crime that Orlando Roman has been accused of doing. It is such an unacceptable act to even abuse your own kid or any loved one and family member according to a New York sex with minor defense lawyer. This is one reason why sex crimes are considered to be one of the most sensitive types of cases to deal with in court and other legal proceedings.

This is not just because of the reason that terms are very sensitive and adult oriented, but because of the overall fact that it can sometimes involve our own loved ones in the case, especially when the kids are the victims of sexual abuse, rape, and endangering the welfare of a child. Hence, it is very important that we step ahead just in case we encounter such scenarios. And with such cases, we can depend much on the help and assistance of Stephen Bilkis & Associates.

All you have to do is contact them even if you are still in the phase of merely inquiring. It will not hurt if you would openly ask questions about any legal ordeal that you need to overcome especially when it is sex crime related. If you want to fight for your right and your freedom to live in peace, then it is a must to get a lawyer whom you can easily talk to and trust.

The SORA or the Sex Offender Registration Act is a widely discussed topic in the line of sex crimes. In this particular case, there are five names involved which are trying to relieve themselves from registering in the system. The first one on the list is Eliezer Cintron who is guilty of using cocaine and endangering the life of a minor with sexual abuse. He made her girlfriend and two kids slave prisoners in her own apartment. There was no sexual crime alleged according to a New York child pornography lawyer but still this was a negligent act of doing.

Next according is Nelson Cordero. His case was burglary since he broke into the home of his common law wife. He tied up his son and his 15 year old friend in a bathroom during the assault. There were no sex crimes mentioned but he was still considered a sex offender by the SORA. Dwayne Glover is the next with cases of attempted murder and robbery. He entered into a certain apartment with a gun and imprisoned all its occupants. He directed everyone including a 12-year-old girl to lie down in the bed.

Marko Ivesic was also discovered guilty of kidnapping after breaking into the home of his own brother in law where his wife resides. He did not have any sexual contact with anyone but threatened to kill everyone in the family. Francis Jackson is the last for the promotion of prostitution and kidnapping too. Together with his girlfriend, they forced two women to get into prostitution for days. He bribed them by kidnapping one of the sons of the two women so that she will not stop working for them as a prostitute.

The SORA according to any New York Criminal Lawyer is an appropriate system of law enforcement to those who have crime offenses such as these. This helps in the resolving process of exploitation and sexual abuse as well. It alerts the public that they are protected since such crime offenders are under their custody. The highest level in SORA is the one that is meant for the high risk offenders. The information for all offenders in SORA are made available for the public to know through the internet or their toll free numbers.

All the cases states that of the five fall under the adoption of the SORA and the JWA as well. The petitioners did not succeed in proving that the system would deprive them of practicing their rights and that in their way of thinking, it was unconstitutional. All their requests are denied and the court advises still that they register and start the appointed treatment programs for themselves. Besides it is for their own good to have a chance to start anew.

Such intricacies of cases is something that you can only learn if you talk to a competitive Long Island Criminal Lawyer. If you have trouble finding which one is the most credible, end your struggles by visiting instead Stephen Bilkis & Associates offices throughout NY. They have a legal team who can definitely help you fight for your rights and freedom to live in peace. Remember that when you are going through any case, winning is not everything. What is most important is that you learn a lot from it so that you know way better the next time around which you would hope would never happen again.

A parishioner who hosted a party and the Parish Church where the party was held was summoned by a party guest who was hurt after he was attacked by an underage guests intoxicated with alcohol and marijuana, a controlled substance. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said hough the Church, as owner of the premises where the injured plaintiff was attacked, owed him a duty to keep its premises free of known dangerous conditions, which may include intoxicated guests, the Church did not host the party at which such drinking took place, but merely permitted a 20-year-old parishioner, to use its hall in exchange for a donation. Under the circumstances, the Church was not under a duty to supervise the said party or otherwise retain control of its premises. Nor can the Diocese, the hostess’ parents, who were present at the party, or another guest who allegedly was one of the few, if not the only adult at the party after the hostess’ parents left, be held liable on a common-law theory of failure to supervise intoxicated underage persons, since they were not the owners of the premises, and do not fall under any of the recognized exceptions to the common-law rule that a defendant generally has no duty to control the conduct of third persons so as to prevent them from harming others. The claims against the adult guests for negligent provision of alcohol should have been dismissed since no such cause of action exists at common law.

A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said that with regard to the plaintiffs' statutory claims, the adults present at the party’s motions to dismiss the claims based on General Obligations Law should have been granted since it is undisputed that the guests were not charged for the beer served at the party. The said law states that any person who shall be injured in person, property, means of support or otherwise, by reason of the intoxication or impairment of ability of any person under the age of twenty-one years, whether resulting in his death or not, shall have a right of action to recover actual damages against any person who knowingly causes such intoxication or impairment of ability by unlawfully furnishing to or unlawfully assisting in procuring alcoholic beverages for such person with knowledge or reasonable cause to believe that such person was under the age of twenty-one years .

The claim based on General Obligations Law was properly dismissed since it did not sell alcohol to the persons who assaulted the plaintiff. As against the Church, the claim would not be viable even if it knew that there would be beer at the party, and was properly dismissed upon a record establishing that the Church did not play an indispensable role in making the beer available to the underage persons on its premises. Similarly, the claim was properly dismissed as against the Diocese, whose alleged liability appears to be wholly derivative of the Church's, and as against the hostess’ parents upon a record establishing they were passive participants who merely knew of the underage drinking and did nothing else to encourage it. However, the claim was properly sustained as against the party hostess since she both procured and furnished the beer and as against the adult guest in view of the conflicting deposition testimony as to whether he assisted in procuring the beer. A Nassau Drug Possession Lawyer said that the claim against him based on General Obligations Law should have been dismissed because alcohol is not a controlled substance, and there is no evidence that he sold or assisted in procuring the marijuana consumed by the defendant who confessed to the criminal assault.

Because the plaintiffs proffered no admissible evidence to controvert the sworn testimony that he alone attacked the injured plaintiff, the court properly granted the motion to dismiss. The plaintiff, given his inability, due to the injuries sustained, to recall the incident, is entitled to a lessened burden of proof.

Joyful events may turn into lawsuit because of irresponsible people. If you are caught in this kind of stressful circumstances just make a call to a Queens Drug Possession Lawyer at Stephen Bilkis and Associates. Our great team of lawyers will see to it that whoever is responsible will be apprehended by the law.

Many sex crimes are committed by those who are not just merely in their normal state of minds. Majority of those who are offenders of such are usually found out to be of unstable. In this particular case discussed, the accused is hidden by the initials of P.H. He was seen first at a rooftop looking over a woman while masturbating and using cocaine. The victim was sleeping at that time when the suspect went inside her apartment and harassed her before he went out with the victim’s purse.

P.H. had a wide background of doing the act of public masturbation before. With this, the court is convinced that he is an exhibitionist and very much dependent on the use of cocaine. Even if he was placed on SIST, it still showed that he had a wide history too of burglary and trespassing. A witness that was called to stand for this case was Officer Ramirez. According to the Officer, P.H. was guilty of still doing these acts even after his release from 2009 and his placement on SIST. The masturbation in public places that he caught P.H. for were done in bathroom stalls that were enclosed.

With the help of a New York Criminal Lawyer, it was also discovered that he was fired from his messenger job. He was not able to explain the reason behind his termination but it was all revealed during one group counseling session. This happened due to a dispute over Metrocards issuance. Another witness was Ms. Smith who caught him taking pictures of her under her skirt with the use of his cellphone. But somehow, in the public place, P.H. made it appear that the victim was the one stealing his phone.

Dr. Field was the one who diagnosed P.H.’s case and that he finds the patient truly positive of what the court has finalized on. Another doctor by the name of Dr. Katsavdakis said that he was not able to complete the programs of therapy meant for him when he was still in custody. This led the doctor to conclude that P.H. is prone to doing things without having to reflect on the consequences that he has to face afterwards.

In reality, a Suffolk County Criminal Lawyer thinks that P.H. has lost a lot of control and freedom in his life due to his own doings. He even committed a sex crime again just hours after his supervised parole. All these led the court to be sure of their findings that he is mentally abnormal due to the strong urge to commit sex crimes over and over. This would lead him to become confined for further treatment under a very strict supervised environment.

If you do not want such sex crimes to prevail in our society, then it is only with the help of a reliable lawyer that we can educate ourselves more on such cases. Whether you have been charged with child pornography, a theft crime or drug possession, ith the help the legal team from the office of Stephen Bilkis & Associates, you can be sure that such sex offenders would not anymore hurt or harm others in the future the same way they did in the past. It is only with the assistance of experts that we can get to understand the intricacies and sensitivities of such sex crime cases happening within our communities.

Sex crime related cases come in unique stories of its own according to a well versed New York sex crime lawyer who has been practicing his profession for many years now. Here we talk about the case of Mustafa Rashid who was once charged for robbery, burglary, rape and sodomy. He was sentenced to eight to 16 years but was given a supervised parole after having served 11 years inside prison. After this release, unfortunately, he got into another robbery trouble again which just made everything worse for his case.

As per the facts gathered by a New York Sex Crimes Lawyer, he was sent back to prison for the violations he made. He was then again released and yet created a crime again. This happened over and over as it is one big cycle to play. He was even sent to Rikers Island where he would spend his time in a correctional facility. In this case, another lawyer involved in the research who is a New York child pornography lawyer as well believes that Rashid falls under the category of the Mental Hygiene Law. This could not work for those who are already serving their sentence but with an exception to those whose sentences have expired like Rashid.

The court then as heard by a Nassau County Sex Crimes Lawyer took the decision to send him to a treatment facility or hospital as per the Mental Hygiene Law article 9. This involves the law that any person who is mentally ill should go through proper treatment so as to not harm the society. This is just the right thing to do especially for people like Rashid who just cannot seemingly control himself from doing such crimes that hurt others and put others’ lives at risk.

Above all the many cases that happen in our immediate environment these days, it is the sex crimes that are somehow most threatening. This is especially true when the victims are usually the helpless women and minors. Such criminal offenses should just deserve to come with its own ramifications like being isolated from the entire society or registering for treatment. According to a New York sex with minor defense lawyer, there is no better time but now to act on such cases and do not stay quiet for the benefit of the coming generations of our own children.

Everyone should be truly informed and be well assisted especially with the reliable Queens Sex Crimes Lawyers from the office of Stephen Bilkis & Associates. You would be completely guided through if you would not hesitate to ask for their assistance and learn more on how they can help you win your case or that of your loved ones. They can surely represent you whatever is the type of sex crime case you are to win over.

All of our lawyers are well versed with such cases considering a long period of background working on the same cases with almost the same elements. If you are searching for committed and sound legal proceedings, then you would not be frustrated with them. Always take a lawyer who will not be passive and instead represent a fighter’s approach to the case you are fighting for. To be a sex offender can cause so much embarrassment to your whole being. But this is not enough for those who have harmed the women and children out there who are totally harmless. Know more about the details of each element of such cases and from there you can be sure to be fully equipped in fighting your own case.

There are many sex crimes these days that are discovered by or have been caused by mental health or abnormality. Aside from SORA there is also the SOMTA or what is called as the Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act which deals with sex crimes that involve the Mental Hygiene Law. In this particular case, the one accused is convicted of promoting prostitution, kidnapping and also bail jumping. He was given the charge of 9 to 18 years for kidnapping, 4 to 8 years for the kidnapping, and 3 to 6 years for the bail jumping.

The defendant forced his victim and raped her over and over again. He even forced her to be a prostitute and even physically beat her including the involvement of drugs. He was a detained sex offender who was found out to have been suffering from some kind of mental abnormality. According to a New York law as discussed by a New York Criminal Lawyer describes SOMTA as crimes that are sexually motivated.

Hence, it is the court’s decision to find out if the previous crimes committed by an accused person are motivated by a mental abnormality that is driven with the need for sex. All these should go through the proper criminal proceeding to make it very fair and carry out justice pretty well. Such acts like SOMTA are meant to protect the society from the danger of these free roaming sex offenders. It is only through the programs for treatment and proper management to help the accused to recover and have a bright future and at the same time to protect the citizens of the society.

According to a New York criminal lawyer, the goals of the court to let such sex offenders like Nelson to go through such programs include proper management of their unstable behavior. But one must expect that such treatment will surely come as strict and well supervised. It may even go as worst as leading to a lifetime confinement. In Nelson’s case, it has been well proven that his crimes were sexually motivated. What Nelson fights for is that he does not deserve the stigma that registering to such SOMTA would cause his own credibility.

Such mental health treatment should not be considered as a punishment but instead as a treatment process so as to help the sex offender suffering from a mental abnormality to still get to recover as fast as they can. What Nelson did to his victim was too heinous that he took advantage of the rights of another and even abused it extremely. The mechanism used was truly excessive and up to the extreme. It is just logical that the court would capture offenders like Nelson so that the number of such crimes committed would surely be lessened.

To know more about the aspects of SORA or SOMTA, or if you have been charged with a sex crime, drug possession or a theft crime, it is best to seek the assistance and guidance of a reliable New York sex crime lawyer. One of the best ones that you can find especially in New York would begin within the office of Stephen Bilkis & Associates located in New York. They handle all sorts of sex crimes and its intricate details to make sure that you get the justice and freedom you deserve by getting a credible lawyer who will stay right by your side the entire time. Such expert assistance would help you understand best such legal proceedings that can help protect others as well.

A father organized a graduation party for his 18 year old son who graduated from high school. He decided to hold the party on June 16, 1983 at a club and he agreed to have an open bar where beer will be served to the guests from a keg with a tap. The father agreed to be charged for each keg of beer consumed. Food will also be served at the party and the father will be charged per plate served. The father decided that the party should start from 12 noon until 6:00 p.m. as an open house for his son’s adult relatives; but the party beginning at 6:30 will be for his son’s friends at school.

A New York DWI Lawyer commented that the party was such fun, beer flowed abundantly. At around 6:30 p.m. a classmate of the party host’s son who was around 19 years old arrived and had two beers. He stayed at the party until midnight drinking freely but not eating anything at all. The beer was available on a self-serve basis. When the club closed at midnight, the classmate gave some of his friends and school mates a ride at the back of his pick-up truck. Half an hour after leaving the party, the pick-up truck skidded off the road and turned over. A friend of his who was sitting in the back of the pick-up truck with his girlfriend died as a result of the accident.

The classmate pleaded guilty to vehicular homicide and to driving while intoxicated. A New York DWI Lawyer said thttp://criminaldefense.1800nynylaw.com/lawyer-attorney-1398152.htmlhe parent of the high school graduate who hosted the party also pleaded guilty to the charge of unlawfully dealing with a child (by giving alcohol to a minor.)

The parents of the dead minor sued the classmate who drove while intoxicated but they also sued the parent who hosted the party and the club where the party was held. The parents of the dead boy claim that the drunk student and the student who died were both minors, both were under 19 years of age at the time of the accident and the parent who hosted the party and the club owner were both liable under the Dram Shop Act.

The parent who hosted the party and the club owner both filed motions for summary judgment asking for the dismissal of the complaint against them.

The Supreme Court opined that the actionable wrong is the drinking of the alcohol and not the furnishing of the alcohol since it was the drinking of the alcohol that was the immediate cause of the injury.

But in this case, a Nassau County DWI Lawyer said there is a law that prohibits selling or giving liquor or any alcoholic beverage to a child who is less than nineteen years old. Evidence was produced that both the parent who hosted the party and the club owner knowingly served and gave away alcohol to high school students whom they knew to be under 19 years of age.
The penal statute renders liable any person who sells or gives any alcoholic beverages to minors under 19. And there has been numerous cases decided that the person who sells or gives alcohol to a minor may be liable for the injuries sustained by the minor who received and imbibed the alcohol sold or given to him. The law was designed to protect minors from the injurious effects of imbibing the alcohol. But then, the injurious effects are not limited to the minor who imbibed the alcohol but also to others who may be injured when the intoxicated minor drives.

In a long line of cases, the Supreme Court has consistently held that party hosts are not liable for injuries resulting from the acts of able-bodied persons who drink at a party. But then, the Supreme Court reasoned that minors are not able-bodied. They are children whose bodies are immature and whose judgment may be more readily impaired by alcohol.

The parent who hosted the party and the owner of the club who kept on bringing out full kegs of beer for the high school students whom they knew to be under the age of 19 acted in total disregard for the law. Since they were acting contrary to law, they could be found to be acting negligently. This is an issue of fact that must be tried.

It is for this reason that the motion for summary judgment was correctly denied by the lower court. The Court upheld the denial of the motion for summary judgment.

You may be thinking of hosting a party or open house for your kids and their friends. You may be held criminally liable for giving alcohol to minors and you may also be found civilly liable for damages for it if any of the high school kids gets injured or causes injury to others if any of them drive while intoxicated. Do your best to shield yourself: get a lawyer who knows the defenses to present in your behalf. At Stephen Bilkis and Associates, our legal team is ready to assist you.

A police officer had just gone off-duty and had changed from his police uniform to civilian clothes. He got into his car and was driving home. When he reached an intersection with a stop light, he stopped and waited for the light to turn green before he turned left. As he was turning left, a big SUV came at high speed and ran the red light. A New York DWI Lawyer said that the officer had to stop and turn sharply to avoid being blind-sided by the SUV that ran through the red light.
The officer then followed the SUV as it ran two more stoplights. At one of the stoplights, there were people crossing the street who had to jump out of the way so as not to be hit by the SUV. The SUV stopped a few blocks later in front of an auto body shop. The officer got out of his car and talked to the driver of the SUV. He showed the driver his shield and asked for the driver’s license and registration but the driver refused. The off-duty officer smelled a strong odor of alcohol on the driver. The officer then told the driver to remain in his car.

The driver did not heed the officer’s instructions. He got out of his car as did all of his passengers. They began chanting that the officer could not arrest them because he was off-duty. So the off-duty officer called the 45th Precinct to send officers to arrest the driver.
When the driver was brought to the 45th Precinct, the arresting officer assigned to do the paperwork for his arrest (not the same officer who was nearly run over by the driver’s SUV) noted a strong alcohol smell on him. The driver who was arrested was verbally abusing the officers in the precinct. A New York DWI Lawyer said he had to be handcuffed to a railing to keep him from hurting himself. But he was still flailing about and kicking his legs, screaming and cursing at the police officers in the precinct. The arresting officer tried to calm down the driver but he was unsuccessful so he handcuffed the driver’s other hand to the railing as well.

The driver was then taken to the room where he would take an Intoxylizer examination. There was a camera in the room and the driver was recorded from the time he was arrested after midnight until 6:00 a.m. the next day.

The driver clearly stated that he wanted for his lawyer to be present. The officer then asked him if he had the name of his lawyer and the driver gave the police officer the name of his lawyer. The officer told the man that he would call his lawyer if the driver had the lawyer’s number. The driver then said that he did not have his lawyer’s number memorized. As the driver tried to explain, the officer interrupted him. The police officer said to the driver that his right to an attorney is not an absolute right. Then the officer asked the driver if he wanted to take the Intoxylizer test. When the driver said that he did not want to take the test, the police officer warned him that his refusal to take the test will be noted into evidence and be used against him. The driver still refused to take the test.

Two hours later, the officer removed the driver’s handcuffs and walked him around the room and then informed him that he was under arrest for driving while intoxicated. Then the officer asked him again if he wanted to take the Intoxylizer test and the driver still refused. The officer warned the driver that his license will be suspended immediately and the evidence of his refusal to take the test will be used as evidence against him. After this, the driver asked for his lawyer again.
While the tape was recording, the officer asked the driver to take coordination tests and the driver took them. The officer then read the driver his Miranda rights and the driver answered that he understood his rights. The officer then asked the driver if he wanted to answer some questions and the man said that he did not want to answer any questions.

A Nassau County DWI Lawyer said that after this the driver was put in a holding cell just a short distance away from the desk where the officer was writing out his report of the arrest. The driver kept yelling and cursing at the officer who periodically told him to calm down and keep quiet so he can finish his paperwork and get the driver out of there. This happened about six times throughout the whole night. The officer kept telling him to calm down. Finally the driver audibly said that he had only four shots of Hennessy that night.

At trial, the driver asked that the evidence his refusal to take the Intoxylizer test be suppressed. He also asked that his admission that he had four shots of Hennessy be suppressed as well. He reasoned that when he asked for a lawyer and he was not given one, his rights under custodial investigation were violated and all evidence obtained during that custodial investigation without his lawyer should be suppressed as they were obtained in violation of his rights.

The Court began by stating that the off-duty officer who tailed the driver after he was nearly blindsided at a stoplight had probable cause to follow the SUV and to stop its driver and place him under arrest. The officer personally witnessed the driver violate traffic rules and endanger the lives of pedestrians and motorists. When the off-duty officer talked to the driver, he noticed the strong smell of alcohol on the driver’s breath. Since there was probable cause for the driver to be arrested, the evidence obtained is not the fruit of an illegal arrest.

The evidence of the driver’s refusal to submit to a breath analyzer however cannot be admitted into evidence against the driver. It was clear from the recording that the driver kept asking for the police to contact his lawyer but the police would not. While it is true that the driver did not have an absolute right to have his lawyer present with him in the precinct to advise him whether he should take the test or not, when the driver asked for them to contact his lawyer, they should have at least tried to find his lawyer. The police even talked the defendant out of wanting to consult with a lawyer of his choice. Even if the test had to be performed within two hours of his arrest, the police could have contacted the driver’s lawyer and they could have consulted by telephone. That way, the driver’s choice to take the test or not would have been an informed choice. For this reason, the Court ruled that the driver’s refusal to take the breath analyzer test cannot be used against him.

Lastly, the Court discussed whether the driver’s outburst, telling the officer that he had only had four shots of Hennessy, should also be suppressed. From the video-taped proceedings in the precinct, it is clear that the driver was not under custodial investigation when he made the outburst. The officer was not asking the driver any questions. The police officer had repeatedly tried to calm down the verbally abusive driver by telling him to stop talking so that he can finish the paperwork and get him out of the holding cell faster. The police officer tried to do this about six times during the night. The driver went on and on yelling and screaming protesting his arrest stating that he did not have much to drink and should not have been arrested. So finally the police officer got fed up with the verbal harangue he had been receiving from the driver and told him that he did not care how much he had drunk that night, but he had to calm down so he can finish the paper work. It was at this time that the driver so audible said that he had only had four shots of Hennessy.

His declaration was clearly spontaneous and unprovoked. The officer never asked him a question as to how much he had had to drink that night. The officer was, in fact, telling the driver repeatedly to calm down and to stop talking and to stop yelling. This outburst of the driver, although it was an admission, was never forced or wheedled out of him: he himself made that declaration. Thus, the Court ruled that evidence of the driver’s outburst admitting that he had had four shots of Hennessy is admissible into evidence against him.

Do you know what you should do if you were stopped by a police officer and subjected to a sobriety test? You should call a New York DWI lawyer. At Stephen Bilkis and Associates, they have trained attorneys who are ready to assist you and be with you in the precinct if you have been arrested for driving while intoxicated. Call Stephen Bilkis and Associates and ask to speak to a trained lawyer today.

A man stayed for two to three hours and had three Scotch & Sodas at a popular bar in Poughkeepsie, New York. After he left the bar shortly after 3:00 a.m., he was drove his white Chevy pick-up truck going northbound on Route 9 near the Vanderbilt Mansion. A state trooper was on that same road going the same direction and he was right behind the pick-up truck.
The state trooper noticed that the pick-up truck had swerved left and right on the lane two or three times. The wheels crossed the double yellow lines in the middle of the road and the fog line on the right side of the road. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the state trooper decided to pull the pick-up truck over.

When the state trooper went over to the driver’s side to ask for the driver’ license and registration, he noticed the driver’s red glassy eyes and the heavy smell of liquor on him. The state trooper then asked the driver to alight from his pick-up truck.

The state trooper asked the man to look at his finger and to follow his finger with his eyes without moving his head. The man could not follow the state trooper’s finger. The state trooper asked the man to walk heel-to-toe and then turn. The man could not keep his balance;, he swayed and could not walk a straight line. He asked the man to stand on one leg but the man could not even raise his leg without swaying and losing his balance. The state trooper then asked him to count to 30 but the man could only count up to 19. The state trooper asked the man to touch the tip of his nose with his index finger but he kept missing it. The state trooper then administered the breath analyzer test and found that the blood alcohol level of the man was three times the legal limit. So he gave the man the Miranda warnings and placed him arrest for driving while intoxicated.

A New Yorkt Drug Possession Lawyer said that at trial, the man wanted the evidence for the People suppressed. The evidence he wanted suppressed consisted of the State Trooper’s testimony, and all the other blood and urine tests taken subsequent to his arrest, including his admission that he had been drinking scotch and soda at a bar before starting to drive. He claims that he was not driving while intoxicated at all. The State Trooper had no probable cause to stop him on the road; and he had no probable cause to administer the sobriety tests to him. He claims that he was not Mirandized prior to being made to take the sobriety tests and so all the evidence acquired after that should not be used in the trial against him.

The man also testified that he had a companion with him in the pick-up truck which the State Trooper did not mention at all. He claims that the State Trooper’s memory of the events and his testimony at trial were all conjectures and fabrications.

The trial court convicted him. He now appeals his convictions.

Justice and fairness are the two main things that every New York sex crime lawyer aims to achieve in such cases that they handle. Majority of them are way too sensitive especially if it involves women and children. In fact, even in today’s modern times, it is easy to find also the young men being abused especially by the older pimps in the society. This particular case talks about handling juvenile cases whether it should be led to a Civil or Criminal proceeding. According to an expert New York rape lawyer, it is the petitioner who serves as the overall complainant or the victim.

The example taken was about a certain William S. who was accused of alleged sex crime acts in a total of three legal proceedings which were distinct from each of the others. This is because one crime can be deemed unrelated with each other and that it becomes totally unfair to consolidate them all just to push someone down. Other cases quite similar to that of William S. was taken into consideration for better examples to clarify the entire situation. In this case, it was about a certain Turner who was accused.

According to the New York Criminal Lawyer who once researched about the case, he was charged with killing his own mother last March 7, 1968. The other case was about being charged for the death of his grandmother at the same means of how his mother was killed – through shooting. The sides in the court requested to just consolidate the cases but before doing that, the court had to analyze well whether the two scenarios are really related to each other. And this of course, requires solid and hard evidence.

The said consolidation of cases is possible if it can be established that the two scenes were made with just one scheme or plan. It is not enough that the two scenarios by means or method just strike a great resemblance. Evidence is the number one key in such cases. This goes the same for some popular serial killers. There would always be some kind of trademark in the crimes done or something that lawyers or the court would term as the signature. And since this falls under the sex crime category, then there should be forced sexual relations to the victim involved.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the Other Acts of Sexual Misbehavior and Perversion as Evidence in Prosecutions for Sexual Offenses can be tackled for more clarification. Such demand for consolidation of crimes allegedly done by the suspect has served as a long time stick already that hurts much the defendant just because similar looking cases are introduced in court. What can be deemed apparent when it comes to sexual offenders is that compared to other offenders, they are the ones who happen to be the ones who do it out of habit or out of impulse.

Whether you have been charged with a sex crime, drug possession or a theft crime, seek the help of a lawyer especially the ones from the office of Stephen Bilkis & Associates. There are many proceedings that you may take a long time to understand but if you would gain the assistance of a skilled lawyer, you can be sure to understand fully all the details of the case, whether or not you are the one involved. One thing is for sure: you can be guided well towards not just winning the case but also learning a lot from it.

It is the children whom we need to protect the most from the harm done by sex crime offenders lurking in the society today. However, it can be truly sad when the offender comes from within the basic unit of the society which is the family. According to a New York sex crime lawyer, this is case with this particular father who was charged of rape of a minor. The unnamed suspect had sex with a minor, specifically younger than 15 years old.

He was also found to be patronizing prostitution. He was sent to spend time in prison for one year and was also released after he served the required time. By 2007, the Dutchess County Department of Social Services or the DSS filed a petition involving their being negligent parents. This was because of the scenario that the released father was still an untreated sex offender while the mother was not proven to be capable of protecting her own kids from the father.

A New York criminal lawyer who did thorough research on this learned that a caseworker from the said group investigated pretty well on the family. However, he had no proper documents at that time that would prove the father was not appropriate for his own children. The wife on the other hand testified that she was completely innocent of the crimes of her on husband. It never got into her mind that her husband would be a threat to their children for she never saw him show such a negative behavior in their family. In the end though, the Family Court made a conclusion that there was clearly a negligent act on both parents.

Another involved who is a Bronx Criminal Lawyer said that the parents appealed to this and fought for the fact that there was no evidence at all that he may be dangerous for his own kids. There was really no solid evidence presented except for this criminal background that he has already served in prison. The case weakened all the more when the case worker who filed the petition was not also sure whether the risk that the parents can do to their children is imminent.

The Family Court did not find any sufficient proof that the overall condition of the children would be affected with the punishment that their father has recently gone through due to a sexual crime. DSS did not push any appeal anymore the court just issued a kind of Order of Protection for the benefit and welfare of the kids. The father kept saying that he has gone through proper psychological assessment so as to lessen his risk to his own kids. His wife also moved to Canada with their four kids and that he is not even allowed to enter the region.

It is very important to consult a competitive lawyer for the resolution of rampant sex crimes happening all around us today. This is especially true if it is already our loved ones and families involved. You can try getting in touch with any lawyer in the office of Stephen Bilkis & Associates so that you can be assured of a worry-free and stress-free legal proceeding. It is only for your utmost protection that these lawyers fight till the end to let you realize how important it is to fight all the way for someone’s rights, your own rights.

The case of Elliot Shapiro is an important case that a New York sex crime lawyer can present for you to fully understand the details of intricate sex crimes. He was convicted of abusing a minor and at the same time promoting prostitution. He was fighting for the fair trial of his rights thinking that they were actually violated. He was accused of sexually violating high school boys for 17 months with all the victims being under 17 years of age. During the trial, it was proven that the boys got money for it and that there was no physical harm imposed on them.

Police officers from the New Rochelle Police Department came out with a search warrant after hearing enough from a wire tapped procedure ordered by the court. They learned that two friends of Shapiro would be bringing in two teenagers who are male prostitutes so as to perform sexual acts for a fee. Another adult by the name of Brian Dowling is set to join them too. When they reached the home, they found Dowling, the defendant and two teenagers all naked in the second floor.

As per the New York criminal lawyer who researched on this case as well, Shomer and Shenn were guilty of promoting prostitution and risking the life of the two minors, aged 15 and 13. Their cases were tried separate from Shapiro. The young males attested that anal sex was performed on them while Shapiro reacted to this telling the court that he was just simply a man of weak sexual desires tempted by the two pimp friends. He wanted to establish the role that his options were limited at that time.

There was also a point raised by a Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer that wiretapping requires warrants and cannot be installed just by the own prerogatives of the police officers. It should still be conforming to the Federal statutes of New York. It was allowed in this case since the crimes included are the ones being investigated about Shapiro. Overall, the purpose of proving the crime being done by the defendant can help in protecting the other minors living within the area of the community with whom Shapiro may choose as victims of sexual abuse too in the future.

The rights of Shapiro were not violated as how he perceives it to be for the result of the search and raid only proved what everyone was expecting. Reviewing it, the police officers found Shapiro with the teenage prostitute along with the other couple who were being talked about by the pimp friends over the phone. This then fulfilled successfully and justified the use of wiretapping Shapiro’s phone calls. This put an end to it all and brought justice to the community that Shapiro was somehow ruining already.

Sex crimes can be too hard to understand without the help of a reliable lawyer. Whether you have been charged with rape, kidnapping, or endangering the welfare of a child, call Stephen Bilkis & Associates. This is a great place to start your search with if you are looking for utmost assistance with such similarly related crimes that involve minors and sexual abuse. It is never too late when you have an ever supportive and knowledgeable lawyer to stand by you and fight for your rights all the way to the end. With such expert lawyers, every case is not just a triumphant moment but also a learning experience.

These days, it is very hard to trust others especially when it comes to leaving our kids with people who you can truly rely on. There are many cases these days where nannies and even babysitters are accused of committing sex crimes that involve the children of their own employers according to a New York sex crime lawyer. This goes the same for this case that is considered as an example here in this report for you to understand better the legal proceedings for such cases. The one involved here as the accused is James Watt.

Watt was convicted of rape, sodomy and for putting into danger the welfare of a little child. A New York Sex Crime Lawyer said the crimes involved in his case are considered very heinous since it was committed against innocent and helpless tiny girls who are under 11 years old. These kids according to their parents were entrusted to him since he operates a basement based daycare center in the community. The problem that made everything worse according to another New York child pornography lawyer is that the daycare center was not registered.

All of the kids involved as victims gave their testimonies in detail even if it was really heinously specific in detail. The Nassau County Sex Crimes Lawyer backed this all up with formal medical evidence from experts done through proper medical examinations of the children. Many of them already showed suffering from diseases which are sexually transmitted. It was actually very sensitive to discuss but this could be a true learning experience for many and how they would be able to protect their children. The total number of crimes that was perpetrated against him includes twelve kids. This of course means that this case should be well investigated and be well prepared.

To add more formality and technicality on the investigation of this particular sex crime, the court got the service of a master psychologist by the name of Eileen Treacy. She is an expert in handling the sex abuse syndrome with kids. She interviewed seven of the kid victims and the result of her analysis led to the conviction of Watt being guilty of the crime. According to a Queens Sex Crimes Lawyer the reports were all asked to be gathered and presented to the court.

In the end, what was most important for the court is to offer utmost protection to the innocent victims of Watt. All of them have gone through so much trauma and abuse that this could bring negative effects to how they will handle the future ahead of them. And it is important that such a crime should not just go unpunished. It is also such a weak reason to use that he should not be convicted just because no one can say the exact dates of the sex crime and abuse that were committed. And hence, the Court made the right decision to convict and punish such a person as James Watt for pretending to love and care for kids just so he can take advantage of sexually abusing them.

It is very important these days that you get to know or be in touch with the credible lawyer who can offer complete assistance to you especially if it is your own child who has fallen victim to such a heinous crime as this of Watt. The best place to start off your search for the right New York sex with minor defense lawyer is the office of Stephen Bilkis & Associates located in NY.

Sexual abuse can be everywhere, it might be occurring in our own home. According to a New York Sex Lawyer, on September 5, 1995, James L. Archer was convicted by the County Court of crimes of sexual abuse and endangering the welfare of a child. During trial, the 13-year-old victim testified that prior to the commission of the crimes, James L. Archer, a 31-year-old live in companion of the victim’s aunt, told her that he wanted to rape her and have a baby with her. She further testified that Archer threatened to kill her whole family if she revealed his feelings about her to anyone. The victim indicated that she believed these threats and, for that reason, did not immediately report the crimes.

Based on the New York Criminal Lawyer, Archer’s initial argument on his appeal was that the jury’s verdict finding him guilty of two counts of the crime of sexual abuse is not supported by legally sufficient evidence in that there is no proof of forcible compulsion. As relevant here, ‘Forcible Compulsion’ means to compel by either use of physical force; or a threat, express or implied, which places a person in fear of immediate death or physical injury to herself or another person. The higher court held that given the victim’s young age and Archer’s dominance over her by reason of his age and relationship with her aunt, the jury could have reasonably inferred that Archer accomplished the sexual contact through the use of threats that placed the victim in fear of immediate death or physical injury to herself or members of her family.

Another argument that Archer had pointed out was that he was discriminated by the admission of evidence regarding prior bad acts of sexual nature that he purportedly perpetrated upon the victim. Generally, a New York Sex Abuse Lawyer said, such evidence may not be offered to show Archer’s bad character or his inclination toward crime but may be admitted if the acts help establish some element of the crime under investigation. This exception was said to be applicable in this case since the challenged testimony was admitted to establish that Archer engaged in a course of conduct that was likely to be injurious to the physical or moral of the victim, an essential element of the crime of endangering the welfare of a child that was charged in two counts of indictment.

The trial panel produced a psychotherapist who presented testimony pertaining to child sex abuse syndrome. He said that the Supreme Court have held such testimony admissible provided it is limited to explaining behavior that might appear unusual to a lay juror and is not used to show that the alleged victim’s behavior was consistent with patterns of behavior exhibited by victims of proven sexual abuse. The Court held that, the prosecutor posed a hypothetical question to the expert that subsumed the evidence in this case and asked if the hypothetical victim’s behavior was unusual with respect to child sex abuse syndrome. Further, the lower court gave limiting instructions in its charge that the expert could not render an opinion on the issue of whether the victim was sexually abused.

A Suffolk County Criminal Lawyer said that upon Archer’s conviction of two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree, Archer was sentenced to consecutive indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 2 to 7 years, a New York Child Pornography Lawyer added. Taking into account Archer’s previous conviction of a sex-related crime involving this victim and the predatory nature of the crimes that carry a high risk of recidivism, the higher court did not consider the sentence harsh or excessive.

A man filed a legal action to discharge him against a complaint for failure to state a cause of action. It involves alcoholic beverage control law concerning underage drinking. The man states that there is no issue of fact by which he may be held liable and that no legitimate cause of action has been set forth in the complaint. The corporation, who stands as the opponent, opposed the legal action, stating that they claim a cognizable common law cause of action, and cross-move to modify their answer.

According to a New York Crimal Lawyer, said the bar (under the said corporation), who filed a complaint against the man is licensed to offer alcoholic beverages, to sell and for consumption on its premises by customers over the age of 21 years. The man at the time of the incident was a 19-year-old student. He was stopped by the police early in the morning while walking back to campus in an intoxicated state. He was brought to the police station on an unrelated matter and told the police officers that he was underage and had been drinking at the tavern earlier in the evening. He further told that he had gained access to that place by use of a false driver's license. He purchased and was served alcoholic beverages.

The police officers then accompanied him to the bar, where he identified the employee, who used to be the longtime president of the corporation as well as the owner of the bar, as the person who had served him the alcoholic beverages. The president was charged with the penal law crime of unlawfully dealing with a child for allegedly selling alcoholic beverages. In addition, alcoholic beverage administrative proceedings were commenced against the company for the revocation of its liquor license because of the alleged sales of alcoholic beverages to several other underage college students.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that the man was never criminally charged for his actions and was granted immunity from trial by the district attorney in exchange for his testimony against the president in the proceedings and he must testify accordingly. Eventually, the president was successful in defending himself in both the criminal and administrative proceedings and company retained its liquor license. All parties set an oral argument that there are no pending proceedings.

The corporation initiated its action by summons and complaint and stated that the man trespassed the business premises and unlawfully entered the premises by presenting fraudulent identification. For their second cause of action, they stated that the man fraudulently and intentionally deceived the president by his actions and that they justifiably relied on the man’s presentation of false identification. The corporation seeks for damages on each of their first and second causes of action claiming that as a direct result of the man’s trespass and fraud, they suffered investigation and possible suspension, cancellation and revocation of liquor license, suffered charges and trial, lost profits and incurred unnecessary legal expenses.
In the man’s legal action, he stated that discharge of complaint is appropriate in his favor because the corporation’s lawsuit constitutes a strategic lawsuit against public participation. Violations of the relevant provisions of the alcoholic beverage control law provides the corporation with no basis for a civil cause of action and that public policy prohibit the sort of civil suit as against an adverse witness in a trial and as against an underage person who the state legislature was trying to protect by enacting such regulatory laws.

In opposition to the man’s motion for discharge of complaint, the corporation alleges that the instant action is not a strategic lawsuit against public participation, but, rather, a legitimate legal proceeding which has a valid basis in fact and law. The purpose of which is to hold accountable the man who engaged in unlawful and fraudulent conduct for his own benefit and amusement. They further state that the intent is not to punish or discourage individuals who cooperate in the trial. The court said there were no drug possession laws involved with the case.

The corporation also submits an affidavit of the Executive Director of the company’s association and two affidavits of the president. The director testifies in his affidavit that there is a significant problem among the association's members with the enforcement of the legal drinking age because of false identifications presented by underage drinkers. The director also state that the recent amendments of the alcoholic beverage law has shown an intent to sanction underage individuals who acquire alcoholic beverages by the use of false identification and that public policy supports the continuation of this form of legal action to sanction such underage drinkers.
The first affidavit of the president states that the district law pertaining to the underage drinking age is selectively and inequitably enforced. The second of his affidavits states that at the time of the incident, the company restricted access to individuals over the age of 21 years and who presented documentary proof of their age; and, that any underage on the premises were there without the knowledge or permission of the owners. The corporation also alleges that through the incorporation of different facts, the revised complaint will be sufficient to overcome the man’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action.

The underage man testified in exchange for immunity against trial proceedings. Based on records, such proceedings cannot be said to have been an action involving public petition and participation as such is considered within the strategic lawsuit against public participation subsections. The proceedings were initiated solely at the discretion of the district attorney and had no direct effect on company’s license. For these reasons, the part of the man’s motion which seeks to dismiss the president’s complaint as a strategic lawsuit against public participation is denied.

The corporation states, however, despite such repeated statements of the clear intent of the government to place the duty of the burden of underage drinking laws on the vendor of alcohol, the strict liability is no longer applicable in light of alcoholic beverage control law, which allows the licensed vendor an affirmative defense in the proceeding that the underage customers had produced a false identification and that the alcohol was sold in reliance upon such identification, and which makes it a violation for a person under the age of 21 years to present a false identification for the purpose of attempting to purchase an alcoholic beverage. The corporation submits that these changes in the act of support for their argument that such civil right of action, as is presented, impliedly exists within the law or that the plaintiffs, otherwise, should be allowed to proceed by way of a common law on trespass or fraudulent misrepresentation action as is pled in the complaint. However, the provisions are misinterpreted as a change or shift in public policy, rather than as a calculated legislative adaptation to the realities of the challenges of monitoring underage drinking and request the court to step outside of its judicial interpretive function and create a previously unrecognized cause of action based upon public policy arguments. The corporation correctly recognizes in its supporting papers that the presentation of false identification by underage persons to obtain alcoholic beverages is a prevalent problem.

Accordingly, the underage man’s motion to discharge complaint against him is granted and the corporation’s motion to modify their complaint is denied.

If you or your family member had been arrested and been involved in any DWI, sex crimes matter or theft charge, contact Stephen Bilkis & Associates are here to give you a hand. Please feel free to call our office and we will provide the best assistance for your legal needs.

These are two separate cases which were decided by the Supreme Court jointly as the issues are similar.

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said that in the first case, a male employee of a manufacturing corporation stopped by a summer picnic on June 12, 1980 at Powder Mill Park in Rochester, New York. The summer picnic was organized by an employees’ social and athletic association whose members were all employees of the manufacturing corporation. The association had two annual social functions: the Christmas party and the summer picnic. The association collects $1 in monthly dues from its members and charges $5 for a ticket to the party. Food was freely available as was beer.

The male employee drank 6 or 8 cans of beer from the open bar. He left at around 10:30 p.m. and drove to a tavern and met up with friends. He continued drinking there until 2:00 a.m. At or around 2:30 a.m. he was driving home on the interstate 490 and when he got on the exit ramp, he figured in a head-on collision with a car driven by another. The male employee pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor charge of driving while intoxicated.

According to a New York Drug Possession Lawyer the injured driver whose car was hit head-on by the car driven by the drunk male employee filed a civil suit in damages against the male employee, the tavern, the president of the employees’ association and the manufacturing corporation that employed the drunk male employee. He sued them all under New York’s Dram Shop Act because they sold and served alcohol that caused the male employees intoxication.

After trial, the trial court dismissed the complaint against the manufacturing corporation that employed the drunk driver ad also against the employees’ association. But it held the drunk male employee liable in negligence and the tavern for violation of the Dram Shop Act.
The injured driver appealed this decision of the trial court.

A Nassau County Drug Possession Lawyer said that in the second case, a male employee worked as a machine operator at a tube company. He was working the second shift which started at 2:30 p.m. He took a break at 6:30 p.m. When he came back two hours later, the foreman at the tube company smelled alcohol on the breath of the machine operator and noticed that his eyes did not look right. The foreman then informed the machine operator that he was too drunk to perform his duties safely and fired him. He told him to leave the work premises.

The foreman saw the drunk machine operator leave the work premises. What he did not know was that the machine operator got into his car and drove home. About a mile away, the machine operator who was driving under the influence of alcohol swerved from his lane and drove his car onto the opposite lane. His car collided head-on with another car. The couple who were in that car both died.

A Queens Drug Possession Lawyer stated that the heirs of the couple who died as a result of being hit by the drunk machine operator’s car sued the machine operator, as well as the foreman and the owner of the tube company. The heir alleged that the foreman and the owner of the tube company were negligent in allowing the obviously drunk machine operator to drive while intoxicated.
The trial court denied the motion for summary judgment filed by the tube company owner. This order was appealed and on appeal, the appellate division reversed the trial court.
In these two cases, the common issue is whether or not the employers are liable for the accidents caused by their employees who left the workplace drunk and drove their cars while under the influence of alcohol and caused injury to others.

The Supreme Court stated that the law considered the act of drinking alcohol as the immediate cause of the injury but not the furnishing of the alcohol with which the drunk driver got drunk on. The Court differentiated the liability of landowners who have a duty to prevent harm to those who happen upon their property. Here the injuries resulted to the victims when they were already outside of the employer’s premises (the machine operator was fired while the other male employee had already gone home for the day)
.
The Court opined that while it is morally desirable to control and to supervise drinking so that those who drink cannot and will not cause injury to another, the courts cannot create a new legal duty where the law imposed none. There is a legal duty for employers to keep inebriated employees from driving or operating machinery while intoxicated while those employees are still at work and within the work premises; or, even when the intoxicated employees are out of the premises as long as they were still performing their duties. These two drunken employees were no longer at work; they were not longer discharging their functions as employees; and they were no longer within the work premises. They cannot be made liable for the injuries caused by them to third persons.

If you think that a criminal indictment for driving while intoxicated is the only thing you have to worry about, you probably did not know that those victims of injury caused by a drunk driver have a right to bring a suit in damages in civil courts. You need lawyer to help you present evidence and argue your case in civil courts as well. At Stephen Bilkis and Associates, attorneys are ready to assist and to defend you both in the criminal as well as the civil case arising from a driving while intoxicated charge. Call Stephen Bilkis and Associates and ask to meet with a New York DWI lawyer to can help you.

According to a New York DWI Lawyer, in January 16, 2004 a man crashed his car into a parked car. When a police officer arrived at the scene, the man in the driver’s seat was unconscious. The officer tried for a few minutes to wake him. And when he had already wakened him, the man’s eyes were bloodshot and his pupils were dilated. The officer also observed that there was vomit on the passenger seat. When he tried to get out of the car, he was very unsteady on his feet.

The officer asked the man if he wanted to take a urine test. The police officer had concluded by then that the driver was not under the influence of alcohol but under the influence of drugs as the officer did not smell alcohol on the driver’s breath.

According to a New York DWI Lawyer, at the precinct, the officer asked the man once more if he wanted to take a urine test but the man refused. The officer filled out paper work that described the man as driving under the influence of drugs. The District Attorney indicted the driver with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.

When the People had rested its presentation of evidence, the driver moved for a dismissal of the criminal indictment as he claims that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt: the prosecution failed to prove that he was driving under the influence of alcohol. The driver did not present any evidence in his behalf.

The only question to be decided by the Supreme Court was whether or not the District Attorney succeeded in proving the driver’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt; that is, whether the prosecution produced substantial evidence to find that the driver was indeed driving while under the influence of alcohol.

The Court first observed that the Vehicle and Traffic Law names the crime as “operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated.” It behooved the Court then to determine whether the term “intoxicated” referred only to alcohol or if it also comprehended drugs and other substances. The implication is that, if the term “intoxicated” referred only to alcohol and not to drugs, then the driver cannot be convicted as the charge brought by the District Attorney was for driving while under the influence of alcohol. And if this is so, then the driver must be acquitted.

The Court decided to trace the historical development of the law in order to determine what exactly the legislature intended the word “intoxicated” to mean. The Court referred to a case decided by the Supreme Court in 1901 long before any law had been passed making it a criminal act to drive while under the influence of any substance. In that 1901 case, the Court came to the conclusion that “intoxication” and “drunkenness” were synonyms.

A Nassau County DWI Lawyer explained that the Court explained that the first law was passed by the legislature of New York in 1910 and it punished any one who was found driving while intoxicated. In 1919, the Appellate Division of the Court then defined the word “intoxicated” to mean a state produced by drinking too much alcohol.

In 1929, the legislature amended the law and called it the Highway Law but the term used was still “intoxicated.” In 1941, the State Legislature overhauled the entire law and came up with the Vehicle and Traffic Law. This law allowed the courts to admit evidence of the amount of blood alcohol of the accused to prove that he was intoxicated.

In 1960 the law was again amended. This time, the level of alcohol in the blood that was over .10% was considered as intoxicated. Thus, from this provision, it can easily be inferred that only driving while under intoxicated with alcohol was the only punishable act.

It was only in 1966 when the legislature finally included a provision prohibiting anyone from operating a motor vehicle while a driver’s ability was impaired by the use of a drug. This crime was defined is a separate paragraph as the crime of driving while intoxicated with alcohol.
In 1970, another amendment was made in the Vehicle and Traffic Law. This time, four crimes were defined: operating a motor vehicle with blood alcohol level of 0.15%; driving while ability is impaired; driving while intoxicated; and driving while ability is impaired by drugs.

The law has been amended since then, mainly fixing the blood alcohol level for intoxication at 0.08%. But the definitions of the crime are the same and have not been changed. With the tracing of the development of the definition of the crimes, it is clear that driving while intoxicated can only mean driving under the influence of alcohol. If the accused were driving under the influence of drugs, he should have been charged under another paragraph and the crime would have been charged as operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of drugs.

The driver’s conviction is overturned and set aside. The criminal charges against him are dismissed.

Bloodshot eyes and dilation of pupils can mean intoxication, and it can also mean drug use, but then again, it could mean that the driver was suffering from head trauma. How can you use this doubt to your advantage when you are charged with driving while intoxicated? You need a attorney to help you achieve reasonable doubt. At Stephen Bilkis and Associates, their ably trained lawyers are ready to do research and to present evidence that may exculpate you. Call Stephen Bilkis and Associates and confer with a awyer now and protect yourself from a criminal conviction that will mark you for life when your symptoms could have been from intoxication with alcohol, impairment with drugs or from head trauma.

It may be common for anyone of us to hear or watch rape cases in the news but we never realize how hard it is to handle with the right legal procedurures. One case that was very complicated to assess and it involved three men as the ones who are making an appeal. The ones that were mentioned in the proceedings were Michael De Vito, Theodore Buckley and Gary Mandel. In rape cases like this one, the mental background and reliability of the one who is complaining is very important.

The alleged victim was contacted via phone by Mandel for a good number of times last April 4, 1975. It appears that their houses are just several blocks apart and that Mandel invited her to his house to discuss a fresh course at the Brooklyn College. She went to his house and after a short conversation at the kitchen, she was given a glass of water which she consumed but made her too dizzy to still hold consciousness. According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, the next thing she knew, she was already in the basement struggling against Mandel. Then came the other two, De Vito and Buckley, to the basement through a back door and with that the worst sexual things happened.

The victim running away half naked when she finally saw the opportunity. She hid in some bushes and wait till the alleged suspects left. She ran and knocked into another home which was owned by Lila and Murray Raber. The three denied all these and said that what happened was with the consent of the victim. They claim that she only reported and filed a complaint out of utmost humiliation she suffered from during the sexual activity when water balloons burst inside her bra.

According to a Queens Criminal Lawyer, at the end of the case, after all the evaluations and evidence presented, all three men involved as suspects of the sex crime were acquitted. They were not convicted of sodomy and rape according to the reports. There was no sexual abuse which happened especially after the medical examination of the alleged victim which showed there was no semen and even damage to the parts of her body which she reported were abused by the three guys. This made the corroboration request of all three crimes weak and the reason that she was just drugged during that time was proven heavily.

However, there are some points in the case which could have still been greatly explored like the background of the victim. The attorney of the victim was limited to only exploring the mental and emotional stability of the victim as per her records released by the South Oaks Hospital. At one point, there could have been really the consent from the female but still in a broader perspective, the three guys still sexually abused the victim even if it was just in the first degree due to the severe injuries the victim had in her body.

To report and go through the legal proceeding of sex crimes is not easy especially for its sensitivity. It is only an skilled lawyer who can help you out with these legal issues and guide you all the way back to the road of justice. Contact Stephen Bilkis & Associates and book an appointment with a lawyer from our legal team who can educate you well enough with all the information you need to know in cases of sex crimes.

Every New York sex crimes lawyer has been able to handle a wide variety of cases that deal with sexual abuse of minors and other similar scenarios. With the modern world of today becoming filled with so much of the online community, it is also common to find cases where minors are sexually abused through online chatting. This is the exact case that happened to a professional attorney who was arrested for sex chatting with a 13-year-old and even meeting up with her in person to have actual physical sexual encounter.

There were two witnesses who emerged. The first witness testified that he knew the accused attorney to be a very dignified professional. In fact, Steven J. Lever, the attorney accused, is waiting for a job offer from the firm of the first witness. The second witness is a close family friend and testified too that Lever is a very honest person aside from being smart. The first hearing led for the suspension of the attorney for six months since the court was not convinced that he really had sexual contact with the minor involved.

But as per the view of an expert New York Criminal Lawyer, the sentence for the accused should be greater than that. Anything that abuses the rights of minors should definitely pay for all the consequences that come with such actions. Another credible lawyer believes that the abuse of Internet to take advantage of minors for sex, or endangering the welfare of a child, a grave misconduct, especially for another professional who should be smarter than the average person in the society. It is just right to not let any attorneys like Lever to still practice law with such an immoral background.

The court who handled the first hearing justified that such a light sanction was given since the accused was highly cooperative during the legal process of the case. He had no background on any disciplinary action and it was assumed that external factors of being stressed due to the recent passing of his mother could have been the thing that triggered him to entertain himself for a while through online chatting. Even the therapist who handled him said that there is a low chance of him doing the same offense again.

A Staten Island Criminal Lawyer said there is another case that shared almost the same details with this one. But the only difference is that in the other case, the actual sexual contact was proven. But with Lever’s case, there were no solid evidences presented. The alternative recommended sanction had a chance though to be given to the accused for as long as three years and he would be continuously go through evaluation with an expert psychiatrist. The biggest lesson learned about this is that no professional attorney should have the right to still practice their profession in the court if guilty of committing such an immoral crime.

No sex crime should ever get away from going through the right legal process. If you or any of your loved ones happen to get involved in such especially in the city of New York, do not hesitate to contact Stephen Bilkis & Associates. Sex crimes can be stopped in our society if we would all work together to crush it completely so that no human right will ever be devalued.

These days, it is very hard to trust others especially when it comes to leaving our kids with people who you can truly rely on. There are many cases these days where nannies and even babysitters are accused of committing sex crimes that involve the children of their own employers according to a New York sex crime lawyer. This goes the same for this case that is considered as an example here in this report for you to understand better the legal proceedings for such cases. The one involved here as the accused is James Watt.

Watt was convicted of rape, sodomy and for putting into danger the welfare of a little child. The crimes involved in his case are considered very heinous since it was committed against innocent and helpless tiny girls who are under 11 years old. These kids according to their parents were entrusted to him since he operates a basement based daycare center in the community. The problem that made everything worse according to another New York child pornography lawyer is that the daycare center was not registered.

A New York Sex Crime Lawyer said that all of the kids involved as victims gave their testimonies in detail even if it was really heinously specific in detail. The New York sex abuse lawyer backed this all up with formal medical evidence from experts done through proper medical examinations of the children. Many of them already showed suffering from diseases which are sexually transmitted. It was actually very sensitive to discuss but this could be a true learning experience for many and how they would be able to protect their children. The total number of crimes that was perpetrated against him includes twelve kids. This of course means that this case should be well investigated and be well prepared.

A Suffolk County Family Lawyer said that to add more formality and technicality on the investigation of this particular sex crime, the court got the service of a master psychologist by the name of Eileen Treacy. She is an expert in handling the sex abuse syndrome with kids. She interviewed seven of the kid victims and the result of her analysis led to the conviction of Watt being guilty of the crime. According to a New York sex with minor defense lawyer the reports were all asked to be gathered and presented to the court.

In the end, what was most important for the court is to offer utmost protection to the innocent victims of Watt. All of them have gone through so much trauma and abuse that this could bring negative effects to how they will handle the future ahead of them. And it is important that such a crime should not just go unpunished. It is also such a weak reason to use that he should not be convicted just because no one can say the exact dates of the sex crime and abuse that were committed. And hence, the Court made the right decision to convict and punish such a person as James Watt for pretending to love and care for kids just so he can take advantage of sexually abusing them.

A Westchester County Criminal Lawyer said that it is very important these days that you get to know or be in touch with the credible lawyer who can offer complete assistance to you especially if it is your own child who has fallen victim to such a heinous crime as this of Watt. The best place to start off your search for the right New York sex with minor defense lawyer is the office of Stephen Bilkis & Associates.

According to a New York DWI Lawyer, an alcoholic father appealed that the court should grant him full custody of his child without any visitation rights to the mother. The mother was granted sole legal and physical custody with visitation to the father. The couple had been before the Family Court on numerous occasions in the course of which the father's alcohol dependency had been a factor in visitation. He had previously been ordered to successfully complete alcohol treatment before unsupervised visitation would be allowed and was prohibited from consuming alcohol for 24 hours prior to or during visitation.

A few months after the order was entered, another series of proceedings were commenced between the couple after the mother refused to turn the child over for visitation one afternoon because the father showed up visibly intoxicated. The incident prompted the father to file violation and modification of custody petitions. The mother, in turn, filed a modification petition alleging that the father was once again consuming alcohol on a regular basis and seeking, among other relief, to suspend visitation pending successful alcohol treatment and a family offense petition, alleging that the father made repeated threats to remove the child from the state. In her modification petition, the mother also noted that the father had recently been arrested on another alcohol-related offense.

A New York DWI Lawyer said that based on records, the Family Court dismissed the father's petitions for failure of proof and modified the prior order by directing him to undergo alcohol treatment and permitting supervised visitation on the condition of his active engagement in such treatment. It also denied a motion for a new trial.

The father argues that Family Court's finding that he was intoxicated on the afternoon in question was not in accord with the evidence. The determination of the Family Court, which observed and heard the testimony of all witnesses, is entitled to great respect and will not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record. The mother's undisputed testimony established that she denied the father visitation on the afternoon in question out of concern for the child's safety. According to the mother, when the father arrived, he almost fell over while getting out of his car, smelled of alcohol and admitted that he had been drinking. He then refused to take a breathalyzer test when the two proceeded to a local police station in an attempt to resolve the dispute. While a bartender testified that she served the father only one nonalcoholic beer an hour or two before this scheduled exchange, the court found that his testimony did not establish that he had not been drinking prior to his encounter with the mother. Under the circumstances,a Nassau County DWI Lawyer said, the record fully supports the court's determination that a sufficient change in circumstances, namely, the father's resumption of drinking, warranted a modification of the prior order and that such modification was in the child's best interest.

The father also argues that the Judge became an unsworn witness against him thus mandating her disqualification but the court was not persuaded. The Judge was intimately familiar with the issues plaguing the couple, particularly the father's demonstrated need for alcohol treatment, since she presided over all prior Family Court proceedings. At the initial appearance, the Judge denied the father's request to reinstate visitation, but noted that she would reconsider the application in the event he availed himself of treatment, which, she noted, he had successfully completed in the past.

The Judge also informed counsel that she recently arraigned the father, in her capacity as a local town judge, following his felony DWI arrest and stated her observations of him in the course of that matter. In denying the father's subsequent request for disqualification based on her involvement in the criminal matter, the Judge stated that she could impartially and fairly preside over the instant proceedings despite the same.

While the father argues that it was improper for the Court to draw an adverse inference against him for refusing to comply with an interim order directing a complete substance abuse evaluation, there is no indication in the record that the court in fact drew a negative inference against the father for any reason or that the court imposed any type of sanction for his refusal to comply with the order. Thus, the argument is without merit.

Couple dispute may possibly be the hardest case to handle for a child is always caught in between. No parent would want to entrust his child in the hands of an intoxicated person. If you are in this kind of situation, the lawyers of Stephen Bilkis & Associates can help you win your case.

In this DWI case, the defendant has formerly entered a guilty plea to the charge of driving while intoxicated. The guilty plea of the defendant was found to be satisfactory for other charges like resisting arrest and the failure to undergo a sobriety test. Following the arraignment, the legal counsel of the defendant had filed several motions.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the motions filed were subsequently contested until a hearing to establish probable cause was scheduled. However, the hearing did not push through on that date. The matter was dismissed later on. On the same day, a conference before the trial was held in chambers with counsels also appearing. During the conference, the prosecution offered the defendant to make a guilty plea on his charges to reduce his sentence if convicted.

Before taking the plea offer of the prosecution, the court advised the defendant of his constitutional right to appear before the jury and stand on trial. The court also advised him that the prosecution had the burden of finding evidence against him. This means that the jury must be unanimous in convicting the defendant.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant was further advised by the court that his legal counsel can question the witnesses of the prosecution. After all the recommendations made by the court, the defendant declared that he is waiving his right to appear before a jury trial. The defendant had admitted that he was drinking a six-pack of beer while he was driving his car. The court sentenced the defendant to participate in the drinking drivers program of the city, similar to programs available for drug possession crimes. His driver’s license was also revoked for a year and ordered to pay the fine.

About 2 years later, the defendant was arrested again for DWI. The legal counsel of the defendant has filed a motion seeking the court to abandon the previous conviction of the defendant. The lawyer claimed that the judgment made during that time was in violation of the defendant’s rights.

The defendant asserts in his appeal that the former conviction should be abandoned because his lawyer did not advise him to contest the charge with non-operation of vehicle. He contended that the ineffective counsel of his lawyer had resulted in his guilty plea.

The defendant recalled the events during on the day that he was arrested. According to his statement, a police officer saw him inside the car. The officer told him to vacate his vehicle and take sobriety tests. The defendant refused because he said he was not intoxicated. The police officer allegedly said that since the key was inside the ignition slot, the defendant was guilty.

The issue raised in this case involved the failure of the defense counsel to present a possible theory of defense to his client, the defendant. The court will determine if this action will deny the defendant his right to meaningful and effective representation.

The defendant’s motion is based on the issue that the previous judgment of his case was obtained because his constitutional rights were violated. The defendant also wants the court to acknowledge that he was misrepresented when his lawyer failed to advise him of an alternative defense which could lead to a different judgment on his case.

According to the provisions, the guilty plea made by the defendant will only be valid when it is the defendant has made the decision out of his own free will. The guilty plea should also be a result of intelligent decision-making on the part of the defendant.

The defendant has the burden of proof to support his motion of ineffective representation. He must prove to the court that his counsel had committed errors in advising the defendant regarding his guilty plea.

Since the defendant could not present evidence that he was misrepresented, the court denied his motion to abandon the guilty plea on his case.

If you have been arrested and charged for a DWI case, sex crimes case or theft crime, you should have a lawyer defend your case in court.The downtown offices of Stephen Bilkis & Associates are always open for your personal consultation and inquiry.

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said that a police officer from New York City was almost struck by a truck while he was inside his vehicle patrolling the streets just before midnight. The officer testified that the truck went backward into the junction from on-street parking space without its rear lights illuminated. He also simultaneously sounded his horn and put his vehicle in reverse to avoid a collision. The truck then pulled forward, returning to its parking space. When the officer parked his vehicle and approached the truck, he saw that the man was seated in the driver's seat with the engine running. The officer asked the man where he was going and responded that he was heading home. After the officer obtained his license and registration information, the man turned off the engine and went out of the truck. Noticing a strong odor of alcohol, the officer asked whether the man had been drinking. The man acknowledged that he had consumed few beers at a bar on the adjacent corner.

Subsequently, the man's father came out from the bar and began yelling at the officer. The man handed his father set of keys and the father returned to the bar after being directed by the officer to stand back from the area. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said field sobriety tests were administered in which the man failed, and was placed under arrest. Based on the record, field sobriety tests are evaluations done by law enforcement officers in making roadside assessment as to whether a motorist is under the influence of alcohol or drugs. At the trial, the man stipulated to the propriety, reliability and admissibility of the succeeding breathalyzer test which revealed that his blood alcohol content was 0.15%.

In contrast to the officer's version of the events, the man claimed that he left the bar to lock the truck and did not operate the vehicle at that time. He also offered the testimony of family members and friends and asserted that they were drinking with him in the bar when he announced that he was going outside to lock his truck. A Nassau County Drug Possession Lawyer said they claimed that the man intended to return to the bar and was planning to spend the night at a friend's house which was within walking distance. The witnesses acknowledged that they didn’t see what happened outside after he departed from the bar. Hence, the bottom of the defense was that since the man left his keys on the bar, he was unable to operate his truck. Only one witness, his brother-in-law, was able to identify the keys as those to the ignition of the truck.

Even though the man acknowledged that he was intoxicated at the time in question, he still contends on the appeal that the verdict convicting him of two counts of DWI (driving while intoxicated) was unsupported by adequate proof and against the weight of the evidence due to the court’s failure to demonstrate that he operated the motor vehicle. However, a Queens Drug Possession Lawyer said that in the police officer's statement that he saw the truck move back and forth into the parking space with the man sitting on the driver's seat with the engine running as he approached the vehicle was sufficient enough to establish operation of the vehicle. The verdict against the weight of the evidence as the officer's account was not directly disproven by any of the defense witnesses, none of whom were outside the bar at the relevant time. The statement to the effect that the man could not have been operating the truck because his keys remained in the bar presented credibility questions which the jury, reasonably resolved in the court's favor. Accordingly, the decision is affirmed.
There are instances in our lives when we are incapable of defending ourselves and nobody is willing to testify to tell the truth. NY DWI Lawyers at Stephen Bilkis & Associates are capable of protecting you against these events. You may visit our offices which are located all throughout the New York Metropolitan area.

This is a pending motion of a man’s appeal to dismiss the charges against him. He seeks to dismiss the first count of accusation, murder in the second degree, the second count which is manslaughter in the second degree and all other counts of charges against him.

Based on the record, on the night of the incident, the man was operating his motor vehicle in an eastbound direction. It crossed the center line into the westbound lane of traffic then he collided with a westbound vehicle driven by a woman. As a result of the collision, a man seating on the front seat of the woman’s vehicle died. The grand jury returned a seven-count felony, charging the man with murder in the second degree, manslaughter in the second degree, vehicular manslaughter in the second degree, criminal negligence homicide, two counts of misdemeanor, DWI and failure to keep right. Under the facts presented here, the distinction between the two types of homicides takes place in the context of a driving while intoxicated fatality case.

The analysis results from the man’s motion requesting that the court review the grand jury’s minutes of the proceedings to determine if the evidence presented was legally sufficient to sustain an indictment for depraved indifference murder and manslaughter in the second degree.
The court allowed to an in-camera review of the grand jury’s minutes of the proceedings. Subsequently, the motion for the release of the minutes is denied. The grand jury was properly represented and received all appropriate legal instructions.

The court agrees with the Court of Appeals for the simple reason that it is difficult to conceive of many actions resulting in an unintentional murder which should be classified at the same level as intentional murder.

The court first rules that the factors and the evidence presented to the grand jury are sufficient to support a finding that the man, by his behavior, recklessly caused the death of another, as defined in the charge of manslaughter in the second degree. The evidence presented to the grand jury was sufficient for the jury to find that the man's actions created a considerable and unjustified risk that another person's death would occur. Consequently, the man's motion to dismiss the second count of the accusation is denied.

Relative to the depraved indifference murder charge, the court finds that the man's alleged actions, tragic and unfortunate as they may be, were not such that would elevate his actions to a level criminal liability equal to that of intentional murder, particularly in light of the Court of Appeals' recent instructions on the topic as to the degree and type of proof needed to support a finding relative to actions that create a severe risk of death, and also after a comparison of the factual elements that have been present in driving while intoxicated fatalities in which a murder in the second degree charge or conviction has been sustained.

Accordingly, the man’s motion with respect to the first count of the accusation charging him with murder in the second degree is granted and the count is hereby dismissed.
The man argues that the balance of the accusation should be dismissed since the court introduced evidence of his prior driving history, which includes a conviction for driving while ability impaired (DWAI) as a traffic infraction. While the actual conviction was not entered into evidence, its existence was made known to the grand jury. However, it does not follow that the charges must be dismissed as result. The grand jury received appropriate limiting instructions regarding the reference to the man's prior driving record.

The man's motion to dismiss counts three through seven of the indictment is denied.
Serious accidents can ruin one’s life. Unfortunately, we’ll never know where and when it can happen. The lawyers at Stephen Bilkis & Associates are group of competent people to provide you or a family member legal advice to guide you through your ordeals. Feel free to call any of our office near you.

Many cases in court somehow prolong before a decision is called especially when the corroboration is set to be enforced. In this case presented by a New York sex crimes lawyer, the case of Roger Doyle is set to be a rape case but they fight on the non-corroboration of other crimes that he is accused of like larceny, robbery and event assaults. He was believed to have risked the welfare of a child along with committing sexual abuse under the Penal Law which was made effective last September 16, 1967.

The complainant made a testimony against Doyle for intercourse and sodomy. The complainant’s side truly wanted to have the valid conviction of the accused for a case of consummated rape without the case of corroboration. As per the law, any individual can be deemed guilty of sexual abuse in the third degree if he creates sexual contact with another without getting the consent. It was compared to another case such as that of English. In that case though, a consummated rape happened but the accused was acquitted from it and instead was charged for assault, robbery and larceny.

Another Nassau County Sex Crimes Lawyer also compared it to other cases like that of Lo Verde, Young, Moore and Radunovic. In those cases, the rationale presented was still clearly valid for the prosecutors then cannot avoid the requirements of corroboration for the crime of rape. The concept of corroboration requires some limits. It is clear when a rape has happened, the sexual abuse in the third degree would be interdependent with the rape meaning it is related to it in an intrinsic level. This means that it is in aid affecting the crime if there would a testimony that would really prove its relation to it.

As per a New York Sex Crimes Lawyer, in this case, the goal for corroboration was not too possible to achieve especially with the offense of having committed sex abuse in the third degree. The contemplated offense could have been just a minor one which includes touching a woman without her consents in a dark theatre or even in the midst of a crowded terminal. The fight could have been easily won if the sex crime committed was considered to be a major one. In short, the accused was found guilty of rape but corroboration is not needed to convict at the third degree.

All these and more were decided upon with full justice and basing on legal proceedings only according to a Queens Sex Crime Lawyer. This is because it is logical to understand that any court cannot legislate or decide on anything just through their own interpretation of the entire scenario or incident. If there is one thing that we should understand best is that Doyle will still pay for the sex crime he has done on the minor 15 year old with him being already within the age range of 30 to 35 years old.

Corroboration and the various degrees involved in each sex crime can only be understood well if it will be explained to you by legal counsel. The best ones can be found within the office of Stephen Bilkis & Associates. It is not just about winning the case that you or your loved ones are in. With a competent counsel, you can be sure too to learn a lot from the legal proceedings and learn how to fight true and fair for your own rights and freedom.

This legal action is filed against a restaurant by a husband who seeks to recover damages for injuries he sustained in a vehicular accident. His wife was driving while intoxicated and lost control of the vehicle. He claimed that the restaurant violated a general obligation law because his wife’s intoxication resulted from the restaurant’s serving the alcoholic drink, according to a New York Criminal Lawyer.

The restaurant move for a legal action to terminate the complaint filed to them on the ground that the husband purchased the alcoholic beverages for his wife and thus has no cause of action against them based on a violation of the general obligation law. In support of their action, the restaurant relied on the statement and testimony of the couple.

According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, at around 10 to 10:30 p.m., the couple consumed a bottle of beer from another restaurant then went home. Afterwards, the couple then went to the restaurant which they summoned. The couple arrived at approximately 11:00 p.m. The husband bought beers for his wife and they both drank at least four to five bottles of it. They left the said restaurant at about 1:30 a.m. and the wife was the one driving the vehicle. As they were proceeding north, the car went out of control, crossed over to the opposite bound lane and jumped on a guard rail. The husband sustained serious injuries in the accident.

The couple submitted their affidavits in opposition to the action. They explained that when they stated the testimony that the husband bought the beer for his wife it was meant only in the sense that he supplied the money for the purchase because the money was in his pocket, but the money which he earns is shared equally by them and they file a joint income tax return. During the course of the evening, either of them would go to the bar to place orders for their beers and the husband never purchased drinks for his wife unless she asked for them.

The couple opposes on two grounds. The first argument states that, to impede the husband from recovery under the general obligation law would be an unparalleled extension of the concept of procuring alcoholic beverages and would leave husbands and wives unprotected by that law. They contend that both public policy and law treat a married couple as a single entity and that marriage entity bought and paid for the beer. They also claim that there is a factual issue as to whether the husband bought the alcoholic beverages for his wife.

According to the couple, because of their status as married, they were drinking companions and from time to time they go out to socialize and have a few beers together as they did on the night of the accident. They frame the issue on the motion as whether a husband can be considered the procurer of alcohol for his wife when his wife requests the alcoholic beverages and places some of the orders for the alcoholic beverages herself, and joint income is used for their purchase.

A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said it is well settled that a person who procured the alcoholic beverage for the person whose intoxication allegedly caused his injury has no cognizable cause of action based upon a violation of the general obligation law. It is sufficient that the plaintiff merely contributed to the purchase of the alcoholic beverages which caused the person's intoxication.

Since the plaintiff's own affidavits establish that during the course of the evening, the husband placed at least some of the orders for his wife’s drinks and provided funds in which he had an interest for the purchase, he played a more affirmative role than that of mere drinking companion to his wife. The court finds that the husband procured the alcoholic beverages and accordingly, the general obligation law cannot be maintained.

The Plaintiff further argues that the case law which precludes damage recovery to one who procures the alcoholic beverage should not apply to a married couple. Under the plaintiff's analysis, a spouse would have to coerce his or her partner into drinking in order to be regarded as a procurer of alcoholic beverages for the intoxicated partner and be denied relief under the law. Such a result would carve out an exception for married a couple which has no legal basis. Whether a person procured alcoholic beverages for another must be decided without regard to a person's marital status. A person who does not procure alcoholic beverages for his spouse is protected by the law; one who does is not.

Since the husband’s cause of action cannot be maintained, the wife’s derivative action must also be dismissed.

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer commented that tragic things can happen merely because someone is under the influence of drugs or alcohol. When you are caught in this kind of circumstances and you feel the need for legal advice, speak to at Stephen Bilkis & Associates is always ready and prepared to respond to your legal related demands.

A driver from New York appealed when he was convicted of the crimes of vehicular manslaughter in the second degree and two counts of DWI (driving while intoxicated) and the traffic infraction of failure to keep right.

In tne early morning, following an evening of drinking at a bar, the defendant commenced driving his car with one passenger in the front and the victim, who was acutely intoxicated in the back seat. Shortly afterwards, the defendant was involved in a single vehicle accident, in which his car struck a guide rail, crossed the road and went into a ditch. Although the front seat passengers were not seriously injured, the one seated at the back died. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the pathologist who conducted the autopsy concluded the cause of death was Aspiration gastric contents due to Concussion. A jury found the defendant guilty on all four counts. His subsequent sentence included a prison term, a fine and restitution for vehicular manslaughter, one year in jail on each of the driving while intoxicated counts, and a fine for failure to keep right. All the prison terms were concurrent.

Records revealed that the defendant argues that his conviction of vehicular manslaughter in the second degree was not supported by legal sufficient evidence. When analyzing legal sufficiency, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution and determine whether there is a valid line of reasoning for a rational jury to have found beyond a reasonable doubt each of the essential elements of the crime. Vehicular manslaughter in the second degree is comprised of criminally negligent homicide in which the death is caused by an operator who is driving while intoxicated. The defendant contends that the evidence failed to establish criminal negligence and failed to show that his conduct caused the victim's death.

Criminally negligent homicide involves a failure to perceive a risk of death, and some serious blameworthiness in the conduct that caused it. The risk involved must have been substantial and unjustifiable, and the failure to perceive that risk must have been a gross deviation from reasonable care. There was proof that both the defendant and the victim had been drinking substantial amounts of beer and shots of liquor throughout the evening and early morning hours.

Despite his considerable consumption of alcohol, the defendant, after helping place the victim in his car, began driving. The front seat passenger testified that following the accident, he wanted to get help for the victim, but the defendant told him not to and, instead, instructed him to assist in attempting to get the car out of the ditch. The accident occurred near a house and the occupant of the house awoken at the sound of the accident and stated that they heard the occupants trying to get the car out of the ditch for about half an hour. Several witnesses who came upon the scene more than half an hour after the accident described the defendant as appearing severely intoxicated with slurred speech and difficulty standing. The defendant acknowledged to a police officer at the hospital that he had been drinking and missed a turn because he was going too fast. He submitted to an alco-sensor test that indicated positive for alcohol, and a subsequent blood alcohol test was taken a considerable time after the accident revealed a level of .17%. The evidence adequately supports the jury's determination that the defendant's conduct constituted negligence.

The defendant contends that the victim choked on his own vomit. A Bronx Criminal Lawyer said the pathologist who performed the autopsy testified that the large hematoma on the victim's forehead revealed that he had not choked prior to the accident since such bruising would not have occurred if he is already dead. He further explained that, despite the victim's high blood alcohol level, his gag and cough reflexes would have remained responsive. However, the pathologist added that the victim sustained a concussion in the accident and a concussion made it significantly more likely that the victim was not able to cough and clear his throat from vomit. The evidence adequately established that the victim was alive when he was placed in the defendant's car and the defendant's conduct was a sufficiently direct cause of the victim's death to support the verdict.

The argument that County Court erred, after conducting a hearing, in admitting the results of the horizontal gaze nystagmus test is also unpersuasive. The defendant failed to establish an abuse of discretion or extraordinary circumstances that would merit modification of his sentence.

The legal team at Stephen Bilkis and Associates can represent you or a family member in facing any lawsuit. Whether you have been charged with sex crimes, a theft, or DWI, give us a call so we can provide you free advice and consultation to better understand your situation. Our offices are located all throughout the NY Metropolitan Area.

A man was arrested for DWI (Driving While Intoxicated) by a New York State trooper while on patrol in the City of Rome. The trooper observed a Chevrolet weaving within its lane and ½ car lengths into the other lane. The weather conditions were dry at that time. As the trooper proceeded westerly onto Rabbit Road he observed no violations, but after the vehicle turned left, he observed the vehicle go over into the other lane upon curves, and went over the center line once. The vehicle then proceeded where it was stopped at the direction of the officer. The testimony did not indicate at which time the defendant entered the City of Rome. Aside from the driver, there were two other occupants in the vehicle. The trooper approached the driver, identified as being the defendant, and noticed an average odor of alcohol upon his breath. The trooper asked the defendant to produce a license and registration which he did and then grabbed a cigarette from the passenger in the back seat.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the trooper asked the defendant to step out of the vehicle so that he could ask him questions. Upon stepping out of the vehicle, the defendant used the door for support. The trooper then asked the defendant where he had been drinking and he responded that he drank in a bar. The trooper also asked him how much had he drunk and the defendant replied that he drank only one and added that he had a couple of beers and shots. He was asked where he was coming from and replied that he went to a funeral before going to a friend’s place.

The defendant's license identified him. The trooper then asked if he would perform certain field sobriety tests to which the defendant agreed. The trooper conducted a horizontal gaze nystagmus test and stated his background and experience in conducting such tests. A proper foundation was laid for conducting the test for field sobriety purposes. A walk and turn test was conducted but the defendant lost his balance twice by using his arms, did not walk heel-to-toe, made a wrong turn, and walked off the line. The defendant failed the one-leg-stand test by putting his leg down, and a sufficient foundation was established primarily through the cross-examination. On the finger-to-nose test the defendant missed his nose once. An alcohol sensor test was conducted to determine any consumption of alcohol and it was positive for such.

The trooper arrived at an opinion that the defendant was in an intoxicated condition based upon his observations and placed him under arrest for driving while intoxicated. The defendant was advised of his rights and also as to the results of a refusal of the chemical test. The defendant indicated that he did understand his rights but no waiver of his right to counsel was established and the defendant did not agree to answer any questions. The defendant did consent to the conducting of a chemical test. The statements at the scene at the defendant's own vehicle were knowingly and voluntarily made and were not the product of custodial interrogation.

The initial stopping of the defendant's vehicle by the officer was a limited seizure subject to constitutional limitation. A stopping of a vehicle for a violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law would constitute a reasonable suspicion for the stop, a valid exercise of the police power and police conduct which may be characterized as reasonable when balanced against an individual's interest in being free from governmental interference.

An NY Criminal Lawyer said that the offense committed in a private vehicle during a trip thereof extending through more than one county may be prosecuted in any county through which such vehicle passed in the course of such trip. Furthermore, the Criminal Procedure Law makes the provision applicable to geographical jurisdiction between towns and cities. Accordingly, even though the underlying traffic infraction occurred in one city, the entire matter would be under the jurisdiction of another city.

The State may stop a vehicle and question its occupants for a legitimate reason. The stopping of the defendant's vehicle was non-arbitrary and nondiscriminatory, since the officer observed the defendant operate his vehicle in violation of a provision of the Vehicle and Traffic Law pertaining to operation upon the right hand side of the highway. After stopping the vehicle, hearing the defendant admit that he had been drinking and detecting an odor of alcohol, the officer had reasonable suspicion to believe that the defendant was driving while under the influence of alcohol sufficient to request him to submit to field sobriety tests and the gaze nystagmus test.

The Alco-Sensor testimony was clearly not admissible to show intoxication. It is well settled that there must be a sufficient showing of reliability of the test results before scientific evidence may be introduced. Scientific evidence will only be admitted at trial if the procedure and results are generally accepted as reliable in the scientific community.

Likewise, a sufficient foundation was established as to the walk and turn test, the one-leg stand test, and the finger-to-nose test to use them for probable cause for the arrest, and also to be admissible at the time of trial for the jury's consideration together with other factors. Thus, the law requires that whenever the court intends to offer evidence of the defendant's statements to a public officer or testimony of observations of the defendant, they must serve notice of such evidence on the defendant within 15 days of arraignment and before trial. However, there are two exceptions to these requirements; the 15-day time provision may be waived for good cause and the notice may be excused if the defendant has in fact moved for suppression.

Clearly, a defendant cannot challenge what he does not know. Thus, the law requires that the notice specify the evidence intended to be offered. The notice served informed the defendant that the court intended to offer oral and written statements and specified the evidence as the law commands. Full copies of the statements need not be supplied but they must be described sufficiently so that the defendant can intelligently identify them.

Even if the court had found there to be inadequate notice, most of the statements were admissible against the defendant because he moved to suppress his statements and those statements were identified at the hearing addressing voluntariness.

Records revealed that the defendant was not in custody at the time he made the initial statements to the officer since the court finds at such a time a reasonable person, innocent of any crime, would have felt free to leave the presence of the police officer. Since the defendant was not in custody, it was not necessary for the officer at that time to advise the defendant regarding his rights.

The testimony of the officers as to their observations of the defendant and as to the trooper’s opinion that he was in an intoxicated condition provided reasonable belief on the part of the trooper that the defendant had committed the crime of driving while intoxicated or at least the traffic infraction of operating while impaired or the crime of operating a motor vehicle while having ten one-hundredths or more by weight of alcohol in the blood. The opinion of the officer was therefore sufficient to constitute probable cause for the arrest of the defendant and that the chemical test of the defendant's blood by analysis of his breath was not the product of an illegal detention.

Accordingly, the defendant's motion to suppress in all respects is denied.

Lack of information may result in a wrongful detention. If you find yourself arrested for sex crimes, a theft crime or drug crime, it is important that you know your rights. Stephen Bilkis & Associates can provide you free consultations and help you find the right approach to get you out of your wrong situations.

A motion was filed by the defendant to declare the evidence presented by the police officer as inadmissible. The court denied the motion since the police officer had reasonable reason when he approached the defendant’s vehicle, according to a New York DWI Lawyer.

According to the officer, he saw the vehicle of the defendant parked along the crosswalk and approached it. The officer noted that the vehicle had people asleep inside. The officer woke the occupants of the car and asked for identification. He noted that the driver showed signs of intoxication such as glassy eyes and slurred speech. The officer asked the driver to take the sobriety test.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that the officer in this case had probable cause to arrest the defendant if he was found to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol. According to the analysis of the court, the questions of the police officer were not interrogative in nature. Since this was the case, Miranda warnings are not required. During the arraignment of the defendant, he was charged with operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or DWI.

The court is tasked to review the procedural background of the case. The defendant was arrested for driving a vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic drinks. The charges were arraigned on the same date. The following year, the court had scheduled a suppression hearing. The purpose of the said hearing was to determine if there was probable cause regarding the arrest of the defendant at the scene. The court will also have to decide whether the defendant’s statements in the IDTU room should be declared inadmissible since there were no Miranda warnings issued to the defendant.

During the suppression hearing, the prosecution called on 2 witnesses who were also police officers. The prosecution has the initial burden of proof to establish probable cause regarding the arrest of the defendant and the behaviour of the police. If the prosecution will establish the needed proof, the burden will now shift to the defendant in proving the allegations made regarding illegal police conduct.

A Nassau County DWI Lawyer said that the prosecution will have to prove that the behaviour of the police towards the defendant was legal, therefore justifying the arrest of the defendant. According to the law, a police officer is allowed to approach anyone and inquire about basic information in a non-threatening manner. This may be questions about a person’s name, address and destination. In legal terms, this line of questioning is known as a request for information.

The next approach involves an officer who detects a crime is about to be committed or is involved in a criminal activity. The officer may stop and detain that individual to prevent the crime from happening. Police officers have the authority under the law to arrest anyone when have probable cause to believe that the same individual will commit a crime. In the DWI case of the defendant, the police officer had established probable cause before making the arrest.
The court has also review vehicle and traffic laws to aid in the judgment of the case. The law states that it is forbidden for anyone to park along the lines of a crosswalk. In relation to the case, the police officer had a valid reason for approaching the defendant’s vehicle since it was parked on the crosswalk.

According to the testimony of the officer, he was also concerned for the people inside the car since the area was known for high incidence of crimes. He wanted to make sure that they were safe that’s why he approached the vehicle. When the officer was close to the car, he also observed that the driver was also asleep along with the other passengers.

The court has ruled that the officer had probable cause in arresting the defendant since he was found to be intoxicated. The results of the sobriety test also confirmed that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol while driving.

A DWI case is not an easy thing to deal with. Stop worrying and hire legal counsel to represent you in your trial. Our legal counsel is highly skilled when DWI cases are involved. Contact the offices of Stephen Bilkis & Associates for a personal consultation and assistance.

It is common to find with any sex crimes that the offender appeals to the court of lessening the risk level category that they were assigned to in going through the treatment program for their benefit. This case of Allan Barnes, the offender,who takes issue to his being rated as a level three offender. It was clear that he never denied the physical injury he has done to his victim like scars and stitches on the victim’s lip and legs. Not to mention the memory problems she has suffered from due to the head injuries Allan inflicted too.

It was just a bit weird how he never denies this but keeps on telling the court that all these may have just been hearsay for the absence of convincing proof. It is more uncomfortable to unravel that despite his challenge on the judgment, he did not present any other version of the facts, at least his very own. A New York Criminal Lawyer said such proceedings are suggested by the court for the protection of the rest of the citizens of the community.

It is likely that a sex crime offender may reoffend again. The court does not deprive the offender to present any evidence that would not limit him in fighting for his own rights and for the greater interest of his liberty. When basing on the criminal background of the criminal, he has been an offender since his younger days charged with a burglary case. In Georgia, he was also once convicted of a drug possession way back in the early 80s. It was also interesting according to a New York child pornography lawyer who also studied this appeal that he was also once involved in a case for cruelty to animals.

It was discovered that the rape case was made after his release from his Georgia custody. The court basing it on these instances perceives that he is most likely to become a reoffender especially with having to commit a rape crime even after being released out of prison for another case. In Georgia, he committed possession of drugs while his rape crime was not associated with any substance abuse.

Another New York sex with minor defense lawyer also found out that Barne’s contention was based on his argument that he has been abstinent for quite a long time new. But this was just further dismissed with the lack of proper proof of the abstinence he was talking about. This should have been proved with proper and formal supervision from the right authorities. In the end, it was clear to everyone that there was enough evidence to show he deserved the level three ranking for sex crime offenders.

Sex crimes are handled best by the expert Bronx Criminal Lawyer, especially the ones who work for the office of Stephen Bilkis & Associates. With the help of our reliable legal team, you will not just be able to win your own fight but also help the society be free of these crime offenders which can put a lot of threat to the lives of women and children, most especially.

When you come in, we will provide you with vaulable legal guidance and a free consultation. We have offices located throughout New York City, including locations in Manhattan, Staten Island, Queens, the Bronx, and Brooklyn. We also have offices location in Suffolk County and Nassau County on Long Island, as well as Westchester County. Call us today to schedule your free consultation at 1-800-NY-NY-LAW.

Sex crimes cases are the crimes that many wish would really go down in numbers these days. This is because majority of the victims of these cases are the women and the minors. This particular case is about Webster L. Chapman who was convicted of sex offenses that deal with a minor. The incidents happened last 2006 in the months of March and February. The victim involved was the cousin of the defendant who was 17 years old then. The rest of the convictions included vandalism acts in the home of Joan Osbourne who used to be the mother in law of Webster. It happened during the time when his former wife and three kids were still residing there.

According to the New York Criminal Lawyer who studied the case, there are no solid evidence presented for the convictions of rape he was accused of. The testimony of the victim did not straightly say that there were physical force dealt on her for it all started when she was just lying in bed and he started touching her in the most sensitive parts of her body. At first, the victim said that it was somehow consensual. But when the time came that she wanted to stop already, he forced himself on her still.

The victim also said to another NYC Criminal Lawyer who was part of the team that she has attempted to leave the house for a lot of times already but still returned on her own liking. She said that the accused can be way too loud and mean especially when it is under the influence of alcohol. There were also threats coming from Chapman on several occasions when she would refuse to have sex with her. If the court would just base its judgment from these testimonies, then it truly is not sufficient to win the case against the accused.

The victim also told a New York sex with minor defense lawyer that when she became drunk at one point, she ended up being in the room of Chapman where she first got into consensual sex again. But things changed when Chapman tried inserting a sex to in her most private part which she did not allow but still was forced on her. This could have been a solid testimony already but since the victim was still able to communicate despite her claim of being intoxicated was too weak for the case.

He also had threatened his ex-wife by cursing her and almost slitting her throat. It took one witness to attest all of these facts that he verbally abuses his wife. His roommate, Donald Palmer, also testified against him that he once told him of his plans to retaliate to his ex wife by spraying paint on the house of his mother in law, even if his own children are there. In the end, he was still found guilty of about 11 counts of the indictment.

You need not feel alone or scared if you happen to be a victim of a rape crimes. You can be sure to find a reliable lawyer fro the office of Stephen Bilkis & Associates. The advantage of getting a lawyer can be truly helpful not just in helping you win your case but also add to your learning of how you would defend your rights as a human being. You will feel assured with the assistance of such expert lawyers.

Whether or not the sex crime committed is way too harsh or not, it is important to handle it well especially with the help of an expert legal counsel. It is a fact that our modern society today is filled with a lot of sex crime offenders not just due to personal deficiencies but also triggered by the advance media especially with the onset of online technology. This particular case that was tackled by a New York rape lawyer can be very educational especially when you find it too difficult to understand such crimes committed.

The case involves a Mark S. as the appellant whose case was related to the Mental Hygiene Law article 10 by the court which handled it. He is considered to be a very dangerous sex offender that he was sent to a treatment facility for further observation. To add more, Mark also was convicted already in the past with two rape cases that involved him implementing force in touching three victims, all females. He was only 23 when he was charged rape right on the third degree already. According to a New York sex with minor defense lawyer, he was also guilty of endangering the life of a child for having sexual encounter with a minor female who was only 17 years old then or even younger than that.

The New York Criminal Lawyer who once helped in the case by gathering facts, the victim herself said that she consented on having a relationship with the accused. But things turned out differently when she was always forced to have sex with him even when there are times it was totally against her will. Of course, Mark pushed on the legalities of their relationship but the lawyers defended that it was still illegal. He also said that he has the knowledge she was 17 but not anymore younger than that.In another scenario, same accused was charged of touching an 18-year-old employee by force as he simply gabbed her most sensitive parts.

After the hearing of the case, the court perceived that he falls under the Mental Hygiene Law article 10 which involves getting him checked in inside a treatment facility. It was Joel Lord who handled all his examinations with the help of the Office of Mental Health. The results of all the tests all point out one thing that he has the appetite for sex with females who do not offer consent. The entire court then and the Nassau County Sex Crimes Lawyer who handled the case back then agree to the decision and findings that Mark is suffering from a mental sickness. In most of his cases, majority of those were nonconsensual all discovered by listening to the recounted facts shared by the victims. The court gathered up all the necessary opinions and findings done professionally to conclude that Mark truly needs help as to help him put a stop to his continuous acts of sex crimes.

It is possible for anyone of us to help our society lessen the sex crimes or abuse that most of our women and children are suffering from these days. We can start by checking out the assistance and guidance of the best Queens Sex Crime Lawyer. It is where you can find credible and all out assistance of the office of Stephen Bilkis & Associates. By helping each other out, we can make our society a better and safer place to live in.

Several police officers were charged with various crimes arising out of their conduct in connection with their search for a lost police radio. According to a New York Drug Crime Lawyer, the records of the case, the police officers went to two apartments to pursue a lead regarding the radio. The radio had been lost during an arrest related to a drug crime in the area several days earlier. The records said the police officers pushed their way into two apartments, ransacking both, and unlawfully detained the individuals encountered within the apartments. In searching the second apartment, the police officers discovered vials of crack coccaine and threatened the occupants therein that they would be charged with coccaine possession if the radio were not promptly returned. The police officers allegedly told the apartment occupants that they would "forget" about the drugs if the radio was returned. Administrative proceedings were then commenced against the police officers by conducting hearings.

Following a jury trial, each police officer was found guilty of unlawful imprisonment, coercion, criminal trespass, and official misconduct. Two of the officers were also convicted of falsifying business records. Prior to sentencing, the police officers moved to set aside the verdict alleging improper use of their statements in connection with the indictment and trial.

A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said that among the numerous issues raised on appeal, the police officers challenged the sufficiency of the trial evidence, the cour'ts charge on unlayful imprisonment, alleged inconsistencies in jury verdict and the court's restriction on cross-examination of certain witnesses. Each of the police officers gave similar statements essentially denying any wrongdoing. The policemen testified in court that they saw one of the occupants of the apartment in the alley and he dropped the cocaine when he saw the police officers. One of the policemen said he has arrested the same person for marijuana possession prior to the incident.

The court found that the evidence was more than sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict of guilt, that all the elements of the crimes charged were established and that the guilty verdicts as to certain counts and not guilty verdicts as to others are not inconsistent with one another. While the police officers continue to claim that, at worst, their conduct constituted no more than an impermissible search for which there is no criminal liability, and that to uphold the guilty verdicts would be to seriously "chill the ability and good faith efforts of law enforcement to protect the public, the evidence before the jury amply demonstrated that defendants far exceeded the bounds of permissible police conduct and that they committed the crimes of which they were found guilty.

A Nassau County Drug Possession Lawyer said that the court noted that an indictment is not fatlly tainted merely because someone involved in the criminal prosecution may have been exposed to a portion or all of the police officers' immunized statement, although clearly precautions should be taken -- and stringently observed -- to prevent such occurrence.

Drug addiction is a rampant problem in society and affects everyone. Being involved in a lawsuit arising from this crime is difficult. There are attorneys will stand by you and help see you through your case. These attorneys can argue your side and make sure that you and your loved ones are compensated.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates with its Queens Drug Possession Lawyers, has offices throughout the New York Metropolitan area. Our attorneys can provide you with advice to guide you through your difficult situations. Without our attorneys, you may lose your rights which may cost you a significant amount of money.

The defendant in this case is charged with a DWI and violation of vehicle and traffic laws. A hearing was ordered by the court to determine if the blood test obtained from the defendant had led to the violation of vehicle and traffic laws.

The police officer who arrested the defendant was named the witness in the hearing. There were no witnesses for the side of the defendant. The court heard the testimony of the witness and examined the evidence presented before it.

According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, after the witness had testified, the court has found the witness to be credible since the witness is a veteran police officer. On the day of the arrest, the officer was on his usual patrol when he received a report concerning a vehicle accident. He arrived at the scene and found the two cars involved in the accident. He noted that one car had attained damages on its rear end. The other car had damages at the front. The police officer chose to approach the car with the front damage. The driver of the vehicle was the defendant in this case.

A Staten Island Criminal Lawyer said the officer proceeded to ask the condition of the defendant and inquired about the cause of the accident. According to the defendant, he was driving his car along the road when he hit another car. The police officer noted during that time that the defendant had glassy and bloodshot eyes. The defendant also had slurred speech when he spoke. The officer also noticed that a hint of alcohol seemed to come from the vehicle.
It was during this time that the officer had asked the defendant if he had drank recently. The defendant admitted that he did take alcoholic drinks. When the police officer asked the defendant to step out of the vehicle, the officer noticed that defendant had difficulty maintaining his balance. The officer concluded that the defendant was driving while intoxicated. He arrested the defendant and had him tested at a medical center.

According to his statement, the police officer called the highway patrol to request for the blood kit to be taken to the defendant. He made the call while they were on their way to the hospital. The blood kit was needed to take a sample of the defendant’s blood. A blood sample was needed to detect the presence of alcohol in the bloodstream. An emergency room nurse was requested by the police to take a blood sample from the defendant. The sample was sealed and placed inside the box of the blood kit.

Based on witness testimony and the evidence presented in this case, the court has determined that there were sufficient grounds in which the police officer had acted on the defendant. The court noted that the officer responded to a radio report regarding the accident. It was the police officer’s duty to respond to a road accident and provide assistance if needed. It was also his job to assess the situation including observing the behaviour of the vehicle driver. Since it was the defendant’s car that had the front damage, it was clear that the defendant had caused the accident. The defendant himself admitted to the officer that he had been drinking. This explains the accident since he was driving while intoxicated.

It was also clear to the court that the defendant showed the usual signs of intoxication. This is direct evidence that the defendant had been drinking. Other signs include the difficulty in maintain body coordination and the smell of alcohol on his car. The officer had established probable cause in light of the evidence presented.

The statements given by the defendant including his admission that he was drinking were given in his own free will. Therefore, the court has decided to deny the motion filed by the defendant to suppress the statements. However, the defendant’s motion to suppress the blood sample results was granted due to the unclear identity of the individual who drew the blood sample.

A DWI case can be tough to deal with. You don’t have to think anymore when you hire the legal services of legal counsel. Whether you have been charged with sex crimes, theft or a DWI, ask for a free consultation at the offices of Stephen Bilkis & Associates.

A New York DWI Attorney will understand what needs to be done to defend you in court. With the assistance of Stephen Bilkis & Associates, you can never go wrong.

A man was arrested in November 14, 2007 for driving while intoxicated and his license was revoked. As part of his conviction, his driver’s license was revoked for six months. But because this conviction was the man’s first, he was able to join a rehabilitation program offered by the Department of Motor Vehicles.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that as part of the rehabilitation program, the man was issued a conditional license. This license imposed restrictions on him: he can only drive to and from work; he can only drive to the rehabilitation program and its related activities; he can only drive to and from school; and he can only drive between 12:00 noon and 3:00 p.m. on Saturdays.

On February 10, 2008, the man was arrested once more for driving while intoxicated. He was arrested at 1:04 p.m. He was with his girlfriend and upon his arrest he told the arresting police officer that he and his girlfriend came from a bar. He was charged for driving while intoxicated and other offenses. Under the indictment, he was charged with aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree.

During the DWI trial, the man asked that the charge of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree be dismissed. He claims that he was not unlicensed at the time of his second arrest. He did have a license, albeit a conditional one. He argued that he should only be charged with unauthorized operation of a motor vehicle, a misdemeanor that carries with it a penalty of $500 and 15 days’ imprisonment.

A Suffolk County Criminal Lawyer said the People vigorously opposed the motion arguing that the penalty of the charge of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree is higher and is a more suitable punishment for the man. Because when he went to drive on a public highway, he knew full well that his license had already been revoked. This crime carries with it a higher penalty of 30 days’ imprisonment. After all, he was already convicted of driving while intoxicated and his license was revoked, and then, after he was given a conditional license, he again went and drove his vehicle on the public highway in violation of the conditional license which has also been revoked for driving while intoxicated for the second time. Driving while intoxicated and without a license carries with it a stiff penalty of 180 days’ imprisonment. Driving without a license after the license was revoked for driving while intoxicated carries with it a much higher penalty of up to four years. The People argue that the man’s callous violation of the law cannot be rewarded with a light penalty. Doing so will disregard the State’s policy to curb drunk driving.

The Supreme Court decided to dismiss the graver charge against the defendant of driving with a revoked license and instead found him guilty of the lesser misdemeanor of driving in violation of the conditions of his license.

The Supreme Court decided that the man’s license was revoked after his first conviction for driving while intoxicated but he was issued a new conditional license. His second arrest for driving at a time and for a purpose that is not allowed under the provisions of his conditional license is a mere violation of the terms of his conditional license.

This interpretation of the statute is the most plausible reading of the law as the legislature has amended it. The most recent amendment of the law involved the raising of the fine from $100 to $500 but the prison term of 15 days remained intact.

A conviction for driving while intoxicated carries with it not only a prison term, it also carries with it subsidiary penalties such as a fine and revocation of the convict’s driver’s license.

Conviction for driving while intoxicated is a serious offense that will remain in your permanent record. Whether you have been charged with a DWI, sex crimes or a theft charge, it is important to ensure that your rights are protected. At Stephen Bilkis and Associates, well-trained and capable attorneys are ready to assist in your defense. They will present your case and argue it for you.

Sometime on January 20, 1956 in the City of Rochester, New York, a person drove his automobile (1953 Plymouth) unlawfully and figured in a collision at the corner of South Union Street with another automobile (1951 Chevrolet). When a police officer arrived at around 3:45 p.m. the driver of the 1953 Plymouth had already left the scene. At around 4:30 p.m. the police officer had found out where the owner of the 1953 Plymouth lived. He went there and the person who answered the door seemed to the officer to be unsteady on his feet. He had bloodshot eyes and he smelled of alcohol.

According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, the police officer asked the man if owned the 1953 Plymouth which was involved in a collision on South Union Street. The man said yes and he explained to the police officer that he left the scene of the accident because he did not want to be arrested for driving while intoxicated. He claimed that since the accident occurred, he had not had a drink. When the police asked the man to accompany him to the precinct, the man walked unsteadily as he tried to get his shoes and put them on his feet.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the man was arrested for the misdemeanor of driving while intoxicated. At his trial he claimed that his arrest was unlawful. He claims that the crime of driving while intoxicated is a mere misdemeanor and the police officer had to have witnessed the misdemeanor happening right in front of him for him to effect the arrest without a warrant. And since he was arrested for a misdemeanor without a warrant, his arrest is illegal and the charges should be dismissed.
The man also urges that the information against him should be dismissed on the ground that it is fatally defective because it contains insufficient evidence as it only contains hearsay testimony of the police officer.

The Court ruled that the arrest was valid because the man fled the scene of the accident. The police pursued him to his house. And when there, the police officer asked the man if he owned the 1953 Plymouth and he admitted that he did own it. When the police officer saw the man stagger and sway; when he smelled alcohol on his breath; and when he saw his bloodshot eyes, the police officer had probable cause to believe that the man was indeed driving the 1953 Plymouth while intoxicated. The arrest without a warrant is legal. Because the arrest is legal, the man has been legally placed under the jurisdiction of the court.

After he had been arrested and made to stand before the court, the information which contained the charges served only to inform the man of the accusation against him. The information itself need not contain sufficient evidence to support the issuance of a warrant of arrest since the man had already been arrested.

The information itself was supported by a deposition under oath of the police officer who set forth the facts which tended to show that a crime had been committed and the man was probably guilty of that crime. All that is necessary to make the information sufficient is for it to identify what crime was being charged against the accused and the identity of the accused. This is necessary so that the man can know that he is being charged with and so, prepare for his defense.

The information need not state all the bases for the charges. It is enough that the facts contained in the information be based on the personal knowledge of the police officer. It is these same facts to which the police officer will testify during the trial.

Have you fled the scene of a vehicular accident to hide the fact that you were driving while intoxicated? This act can bring about criminal prosecutions as well as civil suits in damages. You need an experienced and ably trained lawyer to guide you through the complexities of the legal system. Whether you have been charged with a DWI, sex crimes, or a theft crime, it is important to ensure that your rights are protected.

Two couples went out on a group dinner date on February 2, 1960. According to a New York Drug Crime Lawyer, after dinner, they drove to a restaurant on Staten Island at around 9:00 p.m. In between the dance numbers, the two couples drank. One lady passed out from having taken too much alcohol. Her date steadily drank double bourbons straight. Her date became drunk and noisy. He fell to the floor and some bystanders told the bartender not to give the obviously drunk man anymore to drink.

The bartender kept giving the man more double bourbons reasoning that the man was just enjoying himself. Later, at 1:00 p.m., the two couples left the restaurant. The lady who passed out was asleep in the passenger seat in front. Her date, the man who passed out after imbibing several double bourbons insisted on driving.

When the car had travelled about nine miles from the restaurant, the lady’s date who was driving while intoxicated lost control of the car which veered off the road and crashed into a building. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the driver was killed and his date who was sleeping in the front seat was seriously injured.

She sued the restaurant and the bartender under the Dram Shop Act. The jury found for the lady and on appeal by the bartender and the restaurant, the appellate division affirmed the jury verdict.

A Nassau Count Drug Possession Lawyer said that the Supreme Court is asked to decide if the jury verdict finding the restaurant and the bartender liable for damages for the injuries sustained by the sleeping lady is proper under the statutes.

The Supreme Court first stated that the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law defines it as a crime for any person to sell any alcoholic beverage to a person who is already intoxicated or already under the influence of liquor. This law also recognizes that any person who is injured by the intoxicated person has a right of action against the person who caused or contributed to the intoxication. The injured person is entitled to actual and exemplary damages from the person who caused the intoxication.

A Queens Drug Possession Lawyer said the Court traced the history of this law, stating that in 1873, the law prohibited the injured person from recovering damages from the person who sold alcohol to an intoxicated person who caused the injury if the injured person was also intoxicated.
This is what the restaurant and the bartender contended: they assert that they cannot be found liable for the injury to the lady because the lady herself was drunk at that time. They claim that the lady’s drinking caused or contributed to her date’s intoxication.

The Supreme Court rejected their argument. Just because the lady was also intoxicated did not mean that she caused the intoxication of her date. She cannot be deprived of the right to recover actual and exemplary damages. The Court reasoned that the lady got drunk while drinking with Taylor but she did nothing to encourage him to drink more. She passed out before he got really drunk and fell on the floor. She was asleep, passed out from having drunk too much, at the time that her date kept drinking more and more of the alcohol sold to him by the bartender. Simply drinking with her date who later became intoxicated cannot be viewed as causing the intoxication or contributing to the intoxication of her date. Her own drinking cannot be viewed as a contributory factor to the intoxication of her date. For these reasons, the court upheld and affirmed the jury verdict in favor of the lady.

When facing a civil suit in damages for causing injury to another while driving under the influence of alcohol, can you raise the defense that the bartender who kept selling you alcohol even when you were so obviously intoxicated should also be held jointly liable? Call Stephen Bilkis and Associates and talk to any of their attorneys. They can help explore the possibility of mitigating your liability for damages by giving you a possible defense: you and the person who got injured by you can also run against the bartender who kept selling you drinks.

In New York City, a man was charged with four counts of manslaughter in the second degree, four counts of vehicular manslaughter in the second degree, two counts of DWI (driving while intoxicated), reckless endangerment in the second degree, driving with a suspended registration and various traffic infractions. A New York DWI Lawyer said that the charges arise out of a single-car collision that resulted in the death of three people, a pregnant woman and her son and the sister of the pregnant woman. Also at issue is whether the son, delivered by cesarean section after the death of the mother, was an additional fatality under the law. The defendant is alleged to have been driving while intoxicated and above the legal speed limit when he ran a red traffic signal and collided with the family crossing the intersection.

Records revealed that the defendant had the opportunity to examine the Grand Jury minutes and claims that the evidence before the Grand Jury is insufficient to support any of the charges of manslaughter in the second degree while conceding the sufficiency of the evidence regarding the charges of vehicular manslaughter involving the deaths of the three victims. The defendant claims, however, that none of the charges were sustained with regards to the son. He argues that he cannot be charged with the death of a child who was never legally alive.

A New York DWI Lawyer said that he also seeks a number of rulings to be disqualified prior to trial. He seeks to exclude the testimony of a lay witness who testified as to the speed at which his vehicle was traveling; the testimony of his alleged drinking prior to the collision; the prosecution from introducing evidence of the name and nature of the bar where he was said to have been drinking; and to exclude the testimony that two empty beer cans were recovered from his vehicle. He also seeks to disqualify the court from introducing evidence of his refusal to submit to a coordination test. In addition, he moves to suppress his statements allegedly made to a Police Captain.

For charges to be sustained, a Nassau County DWI Lawyer said that the court must find that the court have met the burden of establishing a legitimate presumption of criminal conduct. The sufficiency of the Grand Jury presentation is established by determining whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the court, if unexplained and un-contradicted, would warrant conviction by a jury. As long as the Grand Jury could rationally have drawn the guilty conclusion, the evidence is sufficient. Questions of credibility or weight of the proof are not to be considered by the reviewing court but remain the exclusive domain of the Grand Jury.

The defendant concedes that the Grand Jury heard sufficient evidence to indict him for vehicular manslaughter but contends that it was not presented with evidence sufficient to indict him for manslaughter in the second degree. The court agrees with the defendant's first assessment but rejects his second.

In order to sustain charges for vehicular manslaughter, the court must show that the defendant, acting with felonious negligence, caused the death of another by operating a vehicle while intoxicated. A person acts with felonious negligence when he fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk and that failure constitutes a gross deviation from the standard. The identical act is elevated to reckless conduct when the person is aware of but consciously disregards the same substantial and unjustifiable risk. Moreover, the conscious disregard of such risk encompasses the risk created by a defendant's voluntary intoxication.

The Grand Jury heard evidence that the defendant was voluntarily and excessively intoxicated, beer cans were recovered from his vehicle, he drove his vehicle significantly above the legal speed limit, and that he disregarded or disobeyed a red traffic signal before crashing without warning into an unsuspecting family crossing the street with the traffic signal. Such conduct on the defendant's part can certainly be characterized as reckless within the meaning of Penal Law and would suffice to establish a legitimate presumption that he engaged in the blameworthy, risk-creating conduct associated with reckless manslaughter.

With regard to the counts of vehicular manslaughter and reckless manslaughter involving the son and his status as a person, the presentation before the Grand Jury met the legal standard for sufficiency. The Grand Jury, presented with opposing expert opinions, was entitled to reject the opinion of the Medical Examiner in favor of the opinions of the treating physicians and an expert in pediatric cardiology. They testified that a fetal heart beat was detected after the mother's death and that the son was delivered by cesarean section, fully formed without a heartbeat. They further testified that the heart, although jump started by medication, was beating on its own for a period of time without artificial stimulation before the son was pronounced dead.

The Grand Jury thus heard sufficient evidence from which to conclude that the son was a person capable of being a victim of a homicide. The Penal Law defines a person who is the victim of a homicide as a human being who has been born and is alive.

The testimony of the son’s sustained heart beat and blood pressure was the defining feature in establishing his identity as a person. Upon separation from his deceased mother, his heart was jump started by outside intervention enabling him to become an independent person for a short period of time. Without any statutory specifications as to when or under what circumstances the heart can be revived or when it must commence beating, the son’s brief life as a person was clearly the product of a live birth.

The defendant's motion to disqualify the lay witnesses from giving opinions about the speed of his vehicle is denied. Such evidence is competent and admissible as long as a proper foundation has been laid. The testimony regarding the defendant's drinking at a topless bar will not be disqualified since it is relevant to establish both the defendant's state of mind and the extent of his intoxication. The testimony that the bar was off limits to police officers will also be permitted as relevant to the defendant's state of mind. However, the name of the bar and the nature of its entertainment shall be excluded as unnecessarily prejudicial.

The testimony that beer cans were found in the vehicle will be admitted because its discovery is relevant to the claim of the defendant's intoxication and to the level of his culpability. The defendant may establish either by cross-examination or through his own testimony that these beer cans does not reflect that he had been drinking while driving.

The defendant's motion in disqualifying the results of the Alco Sensor test is granted. As conceded by the court, the test is not deemed to be reliable evidence of intoxication. However, the motion to exclude the testimony of the defendant's refusal to submit to a field sobriety test for coordination is denied. The Court analogized the refusal to perform field sobriety tests to the refusal to permit a chemical analysis test under Vehicle and Traffic Law. The Court stated that it was constitutionally insignificant that one was statutorily authorized while the other was not. The court reasoned that if evidence is constitutionally permissible, the absence of authorization in a statute does not make it impermissible.

Losing a loved one due to the negligence of others is a nightmare for anyone. At Stephen Bilkis and Associates, you can rely on the reliable group of lawyers to fight for your rights and make sure that the law is being implemented to its fullest extent.

According to a New York Sex Crime Lawyer, it was about a decade ago already when the SORA or the Sex Offender Registration Act was enabled. It is a requirement for sex offenders to register within ten days of their discharge from parole or incarceration according to the Correction Law. This law was made so as to control the likelihood of the offender repeating their crimes and furthermore protecting the society from such criminals. The SORA consists of three levels of risk with one the lowest and three as the highest. It comes with risk assessment guidelines that the experts assigned follow. To know more about it and its purpose, a New York sex crime lawyer discusses the case of a certain Shawn Kennedy.

Kennedy was charged in 2000 and was considered to be a level two offender. He went under the provision of the Uniform Code of Military Justice since he was a part of the Navy. His indecent assault crime was deemed to be a discredit to the entire armed forces and the Navy itself sentenced him to a discharge through bad conduct and with less pay. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that he was not put to prison not pay any fine.

The court has the right to reason out that indecent assault is still a federal crime. This then would require Kennedy to register in SORA. Besides, once an officer is discharged from service, then there is no necessity for them to even still inform the Navy of whatever program they may have to go through. It is very great news that all 50 states in the country have this kind of registration system for sex offenders.

According to a credible Nassau County Sex Crimes Lawyer, you can be able to know the complete listing of registration requirements for such with the documents of Surveys of Criminal Laws, Westlaw 50 State Surveys and the likes. Even if the offender is a naval officer, it is just right that he also go through the right treatment procedures just like the rest of the commonly accused. Such laws against crime offenders are concentrated on the details of the crime that fall under this treatment and procedure regardless if the offender is a normal citizen of the society or holds a certain authority.

The SORA is an important part of the legal process for any extreme sex offender to go through for their benefit and for the benefit of the society. According to a Queens Sex Crimes Lawyer this is very essential to be implemented wisely and consistently for this can help a lot in lessening the number of crime offenders in our societies. The SORA was not made to punish the offenders deliberately but instead help them in an overall note to recover also from any possible mental sickness that may have triggered the sex crimes they have committed.

There are many things that any regular person does not know about the intricacies of sex crimes. And if you want to learn more about it, you must check out the assistance of a qualified lawyer. You can start getting in touch with a credible one by visiting the company of Stephen Bilkis & Associates.

Sex crimes according involves a lot of complications on how you can offer utmost protection to the victims. Victims of such kinds of crimes can be truly traumatized and even find themselves restless and threatened all the time. In this sex crime case of Wesley Foster, the amendment is asked to be modified for the further protection of the victims of the suspect’s alleged domestic violence acts. It was in July 5, 2004 when Foster attacked his ex girlfriend by breaking into her apartment and harassing her extremely.

He did this despite his orders of staying away from the victim. He was charged with several more cases of burglary and also criminal contempt amongst many others. It even involved stalking and extreme harassment. Everything was consolidated and the court advised him to go through treatment alternatives program. If he would go through such, then his degrees of conviction would be lessened and may even be dismissed. But if he would not give in to drug treatment, then the orders of the court would remain the same. He would be sent to prison for seven years.

Not only that according to a New York child pornography lawyer who was part of the team, his post release provision will be supervised up until five years. Besides the two chances that he was given, he still failed to finish the program. It was in 2006 when the appeal for added protection for the victims was amended that the maximum duration of the protection was even increased up to around eight years.This is just right especially with such an erratic behavioral problem shown by the accused.

Such permission to extend protection was meant for the greater benefit and protection of the victims and witnesses involved instead of just merely punishing the defendant. It is the responsibility of the court to ensure that all the victims and witnesses involved would have peace as reward to the courage and responsible citizenship they have shown in standing up for such an intricate case. This is of course with the utmost cooperation of the officials of the law enforcement bodies.

Such extension should be honored especially for the greater benefit of the offense victims. It is only the Supreme Court who has the say and power to issue this final order of protection extension up to about eight years which is the maximum. This takes effect from the date that the sentence was made. Any appeal to have this request dismissed will surely be denied by the court. As with the perception of an expert this is just right especially for the families who have already been broken and torn apart by simply being involved in such cases.

You can only get this request for utmost protection if you would try contacting any New York sex abuse lawyer from the office of Stephen Bilkis & Associates. They are the ones who can help you understand the legal procedures you must go through and the requirements of proof that you need to comply. Above all, to have a competent lawyer by your side will not just increases your chances of winning but also increase your knowledge on such cases. Next time, you will never be deprived of your rights nor will you be threatened by anyone who attempts to steal your freedom.

The defendant was charged with DWI including various traffic violations. A suppression hearing was scheduled to determine if the statements admitted for evidence were allegedly given by the defendant. The hearing will also determine if the breath test results of the defendant will be placed under suppression.

The only witness in the hearing was the police officer who arrested the defendant for driving while intoxicated. The court was tasked to make a decision regarding the motion to suppress by reviewing the facts and the precedents of the case.

According to a New York Crirminal Lawyer, the police officer who arrested the defendant is an experienced female officer who already had several DWI arrests under her belt. On the day of the arrest, the female officer was on her usual patrol when she pulled over the defendant’s car. When the officer approached the car, she asked to see the license and registration. While the defendant produced the needed documents, the officer asked the defendant if he knew why she asked him to pull over. The defendant remarked that he was driving like an asshole.

The police officer asked where the defendant came from and replied that he was at a friend’s house. When the officer had asked if the defendant had been drinking, the defendant gave an affirmative response. During such time, the officer noted that the defendant showed the usual signs of intoxication such as bloodshot and glassy eyes and slurred speech.

An NYC Criminal Lawyer said that the officer judged that the defendant was guilty of DWI and arrested him. The defendant was brought to the precinct. At the precinct, the defendant refused to take the chemical test and breath test. The officer gave the Miranda warnings to which the defendant acknowledged that he understood his rights. When asked if the defendant wanted to talk to his lawyer, he said yes. When asked if he wanted to continue talking to the officer without his lawyer present, he also affirmed. The officer moved on to asked him more questions. In the end, the defendant consented to taking a breath test. The first attempt gave an insufficient sample. By the second attempt, the defendant was positive with alcohol in his body.

According to the provisions of the law, a defendant who has been temporarily detained because he was pulled over is not considered detained for the purposes of Miranda warnings. When a defendant is submitted under a routine stop on the road, the questioning of the police officer should be treated as only investigatory in nature.

In the suppression hearing, the probable cause for the traffic stop and the arrest should be the legal issue being discussed. The police officer’s temporary stop of the defendant was a legal procedure and did not pose an issue of custody. It can be recalled from the statement of the officer that she did not read the Miranda warnings while she was talking to the defendant on the road. The statements of the defendant when he was pulled over were made out of his own free will. He was not forced by the police officer to say anything he didn’t want to say. The court has determined that the statements of the defendant were voluntary and should be allowed as evidence against him.

In the issue regarding the evidence acquired from the tests administered in the precinct, it appears that the defendant’s right to counsel had been violated. According to the law, when the defendant in custody has expressed his intention to have a lawyer present, no further questions should be asked by the investigating officers.

Despite the defendant’s affirmative response when asked if he was comfortable answering more questions from the officer, this does not mean that he is waiving his rights to counsel. The evidence that would prove his guilt was taken because his rights had been violated. Therefore, the court has ruled that such evidence is not admissible in court since it was obtained illegally.

A DWI case should not stop you from going about your normal routine. Get the help of a New York DWI Lawyer and expect top legal services at your disposal. Whether you have been charged with sex crimes, a DWI or theft crime, call the offices of Stephen Bilkis & Associates for more inquiries.

Sex crime violators are very rampant these days according to a New York Criminal Lawyer who once gathered surveys and studies about it. The factors that led to this are way too many to mention but what is important is that there are solutions and programs provided to help even the offenders to pay for what they have done or be treated if it was found out to be some kind of mental sickness. This is the same as the case here of Gonzalo Gonzales. He was fighting for his ability to complete the specific sex offender program set for him.

Based on the facts presented, it was last April 24, 2006 when the counselors from the correction program asked him to sign a form stating that he refused to take the said treatment which means failure of acknowledging his responsibility for the crime he was accused of. According to Gonzalez, he did not sign it for he never denied that responsibility for what he has done. He was very certain of himself that he did comply with the program.

The counselor Groge Pundy is responsible for screening and interviewing the sex offender program candidates. According to him who was further interviewed by Queens Criminal Lawyer, Gonzales did not take the program while still being in New York and under the custody of the state’s correctional services. One of the main requirements for the program is that the offender must be responsible to pay what’s due for the crimes he has done. If in the screening process alone, the responsibility is denied, then this just means refusal to enter the program as well.

Mr. Pundt interviewed Gonzales last April 24, 2006 about his willingness for the program. With the many offenders that Pundt interviews everyday, it is understandable why it was so hard to recall already. But the proof of the results of the interview concludes it all – that the offender denies responsibility for his crimes which are rape and sodomy. The court believes that this part of the screening process if important so that they can be sure the inmate would be receptive to all the therapy that he will go through.

It has no other purpose but to benefit well the inmate involved. And the court in this matter believed in the documents presented by Mr. Pundt. There may have been good time allowance already given to Gonzales but still he has denied such credits when he could have responded and cooperated with the orders of the court. Hence, in the end, the court found his contentions to be without sense after thorough review of what the offender is trying to prove. It decided for his petition to just be simply dismissed.

Every lawyer from the office of Stephen Bilkis & Associates is capable of helping you out with any of these very sensitive cases. If you want your sex crimes cases to be successful in court, then do not risk in letting just about anyone to handle your case.

In a lot of sex crimes these days, an expert New York Criminal Lawyer says that there are many accused who suffer from a certain kind of mental abnormalities. Such case lets the court decide that such accused undergo certain treatment like the SORA. But in this case, the alleged named as Elias McFarland. However, in this case he keeps on appealing that such program is unconstitutional and that he would fight for his right.

The court did not agree that the decision for the SORA is unconstitutional. It even scored him as a sex offender who is of high risk and falls as level 3 offender. But the defendant still continue to disagree and never stopped submitting written submissions to serve as additional support to what he is trying to prove. He contends here is no valid reason at all to have his level 3 designation to be lowered for he was certainly considered as a high risk offender which means he is of great harm to the society.

At one point, a New York Criminal Lawyer said it was questioned why the Attorney General’s office did not show up during the hearing. But as analyzed by a New York sex abuse lawyer who is well experienced, such decline to appear just meant that they are confident already of the way they assess the risk levels of such offenders. It just means that there is no need for them to even show up for all the proposition is already well settled. All the facts were all outlined well and complete sets of evidence were are presented without any chance of being argued by others.

According to additional data, Elias McFarland is 76 years old and he was trying to prove that he is too old to still go through such punishments. But with the background of his heinous crimes, the court did not allow such to happen for him not to go through proper treatment for he is of high risk already to the society. There was even one criminal background of Elias which involved him striking a very old woman who is 86 years old. And she was even sexually abused by Elias at such an elderly age.

Such cases are important to help the citizens of New York to stay protected from such sex crimes and also help the offenders themselves to still have a chance to be treated and change their lives for the better. The risk assessment of sex offenders is very important and decided on properly and formally by the Court with the help of medical and psychology experts who are capable of analyzing what happens in the mental and other aspects of such offenders and why they are forced to do such heinous crimes to others who are innocent and helpless like minors and women in majority.

If you want to know more about how sex offenders are assessed according to their level of risk to the society in general, then you can try visiting the office of Stephen Bilkis & Associates and find a reliable lawyer who can help you be well informed with how the entire process works. Whether you have been charged with sex crimes, a drug possession crime, or a theft crime, it is important that your rights are protected at all times.

Many New York sex crime lawyers truly emphasize the effort of every state in the country to help not just the victims of sex crimes to recover but also those who are offenders. They also go through certain programs where they can be treated of their possibly mental sickness and help them become better individuals still in the future. Such process and programs is also the means of the court to protect the rest of the people in the societies especially if the offender is of the high-risk type already. So was the case of a certain Frederic C. Carpenter Jr. who appeals to not fall under the category of a risk level three sex offender.

A New York Sex Crime Lawyer said it was in September of 2000 when he was convicted of separate accounts which happened in 1998 and also 1999. Both cases involved different victim with one being an 11-year-old relative. The second incident was with his wife who complained of sexual abuse. Carpenter was sentenced to spend 2 to 4 years in prison and also five years of what the court terms as postrelease supervision.

To further help the supervision of the offender even after his time in prison, it was the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders who made an analysis and assessment that he falls to be a risk level three sex offender which cannot be lowered anymore, as assessed too by a New York Criminal Lawyer. His failure to accept responsibility also added to his risk level instead of helping him decrease it. The offenses made were properly analyzed since Carpenter was found guilty within two days.

The court has no errors in such finding especially since everything was based on all the presented facts and data with regards to the crimes that Carpenter committed. It also depended on the sworn statement of Carpenter’s wife especially during the actual hearing. All the points that have gathered up with the sexual abuse conviction all leads and sums up to the use of utmost violence and sexual contact along with not accepting the responsibility behind the crimes. A Nassau County Sex Crime Lawyer said that Carpenter only agrees to the decision if he will be classified as risk level two offender and not at level three.

It is hard to question the decision of the court to accept that he is a risk level three offender. The court finds the arguments of Carpenter being lack of credibility and proper merit. A Queens Sex Crime Lawyer said it was believed that all the assessments presented about him are true and properly done with regards to the kinds of crimes he has committed. Not to mention that there were some traced drug crime in the past connected to the offender but was not anymore highly raised during the arguments.

It is not just in New York that many sex crimes happen. These are becoming all the more rampant these days all over the world. It is important that you know your rights and how you would fight for it with the help and proper assistance of a New York sex crime lawyer. You can surely find one of the best lawyers when you start search in the office of Stephen Bilkis & Associates. They are made up of competent teams of lawyers who have the expertise in such cases who can help you win your own.

According to a New York Drug Crime Lawyer, a 59-year old man is currently serving an aggregate prison term of 21-1/2 years to life arising out of his 1982 convictions for various drug crimes, including marijuana possession, and attempted escape from prison. The prisoner challenged the denial of his application for parole before the Board of Parole. .

The court held that record demonstrates that the Board appropriately considered the statutory factors, including the seriousness of the prisoner's crimes, his prior criminal history, positive program achievements while incarcerated and post-release plans.

While the dissent minimized the seriousness of the prisoner's offenses, describing them as neither violent nor accompanied by a history of violent crimes, the record before the Board showed that the prisoner petitioner had been a drug dealer for 10 years and that his activities escalated to high-level cocaine trafficking that did, in fact, directly lead to the violent death of one police officer and the grievous wounding of another at the hands of his co-defendant brother. The court said that, contrary to the dissent's view, the Board could reach its conclusion after weighing the prisoner's accomplishments in prison against the level of violence associated with the drug trafficking and the drug crimes of which he was convicted without improperly considering matters outside the record

A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said that the court also said that it is not its role to assess whether the Board gave the proper weight to the relevant factors, nor articulate each factor in its decision, and it is permissible for the Board to emphasixe the seriousness of a petitioner's offense. It is only important to determine whether the Board followed the statutory guidelines and rendered a determination that is supported, and not contradicted, by the facts in the record. The court further said that it could not effectively review the Board's weighing process, given that it is not required to state each factor that it considers, weigh each factor equally or grant parole as a reward for exemplary institutional behavior.

The dissent noted that the 1980 drug crime committed by the prison involved a large amount of cocaine, but, unlike many other cases in which the Board has relied primarily on the seriousness of an offender's crimes in denying parole, the prisoner's crimes were neither violent nor accompanied by a history of other serious or violent crimes. The dissent further noted that the prisoner had a perfect disciplinary record for at least 15 years, completed all of the recommended programs, overcome drug and alcohol addictions, and participated in various vocational and educational programs. A Nassau County Drug Possession Lawyer said the prisoner's post-release plan include participation in a veterans' transitional employment program and volunteering in programs for substance abusers.

Accordingly, a Queens Drug Possession Lawyer said that the court concluded that as the Board's determination in this case is supported by the record and does not display irrationality bordering on impropriety. The court declined to disturb the denial of the application for parole.

Drug addiction is a rampant problem in society and affects everyone. Being involved in a lawsuit arising from this crime is difficult. There attorneys will stand by you and help see you through your case. These attorneys can argue your side and make sure that you and your loved ones are compensated.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates has offices throughout the New York Metropolitan area. Our attorneys can provide you with advice to guide you through your difficult situations. Without our attorneys, you may lose your rights which may cost you a significant amount of money.

Two adult men appealed from judgments of a state court convicting them after a joint trial of the drug crimes of sale of a dangerous drug and marijuana possession and sentencing each of them to seven years imprisonment.

According to a New York Drug Crime Lawyer, one of the accused argued on appeal that the court had previously accepted a plea of guilty to the lesser crime of attempted criminal possession of a dangerous drug, a Class E felony, to cover the entire indictment; that thereafter, the court unilaterally set aside that plea and directed a trial upon which the defendants were convicted of the Class C felony for which they were indicted and for which they have now been sentenced. In essence, they assert a claim of double jeopardy.

Sources, however, showed that during the joint trial the accused applied to withdraw his plea of guilty and the court granted that application, and this was the understanding of all at the time. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said it is apparent that the court thought that the defendant was moving to withdraw his plea and not that the court was acting unilaterally.

The court explained that a major purpose of requiring a party to make known his objection to an action by the court is so that the court shall have an opportunity of effectively changing the same. The court pointed out that if the defendant's attorney at that point in the joint trial had thought and said that he had not made an application to withdraw the plea of guilty, there can be no doubt that the court would have required him to say whether he was or was not moving to withdraw the plea. The court noted that the defendant's attorney did not suggest in any way to the court that the court's interpretation was incorrect. But now appellate counsel reading the cold record urges the court to interpret what took place in a way different from what the parties understood at the time.

A Nassau Count Drug Possession Lawyer commented that if the court had unilaterally and improperly purported to set aside a plea of guilty, the defendant would have had an a defense of previous prosecution to any further proceedings, which would be the subject matter of a motion in the trial court to dismiss the indictment. However, the defendant never raised that argument. Plainly, rather than be sentenced to something more than one year imprisonment, defendant chose to gamble on a trial.

The court thinks there was abuse of discretion and that a reversal of the indictment is not warranted. The court noted that the defendant had what the court at sentence called 'an extensive criminal background.' A Queens Drug Possession Lawyer said that these crimes, as brought out in connection with the motion, included assault and robbery, a grand larceny automobile arrest which had apparently resulted in a felony conviction for which he served time in state prison, possession of drugs, resisting arrest, and criminal sale of dangerous drugs.

Drug addiction is a rampant problem in society and affects everyone. Being involved in a lawsuit arising from this crime is difficult. There are New York Drug Crime Attorneys will stand by you and help see you through your case. These Attorneys can argue your side and make sure that you and your loved ones are compensated.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates with its NY Criminal Law Lawyers, has offices throughout the New York Metropolitan area including Corona, NY. Our Attorneys can provide you with advice to guide you through your difficult situations. Without our Attorneys, you may lose your rights which may cost you a significant amount of money.

Stephen Bilkis and Associates will also recommend Substance Abuse Lawyers who will help you.

According to a New York DWI Lawyer, the defendant has filed a motion to deny the request made by the prosecution that he should be sentenced as a felony offender for the first time. The defendant had given a guilty plea for attempting to sell illegal drugs. The defendant was convicted for assault charges which he admitted he was guilty. He was sentenced to a prison term of at least one or one and half years. The maximum sentence is four years. The defendant has already admitted that he was the same defendant who was initially charged for the first felony. The defendant has challenged the conviction made in his second conviction. The defendant contends that he received ineffective counsel from his lawyer.

The defendant presented a memorandum to support his motion. The letter memorandum contained an outline of the defendant’s case. It also includes information that the defendant had informed his lawyer about the facts of his alleged offenses. These offenses were the basis of his current assault conviction.

A New York DWI Lawyer said that the defendant further contends that his previous lawyer failed to present a DWI defense during his previous conviction. The defendant also challenged the prosecution that his guilty plea should be removed from the records since he was denied the effective counsel assistance. To support this statement, the defendant has submitted a letter from that lawyer who affirms the circumstances that are relevant to his guilty plea. The prosecution has opposed the motion of the defendant and filed a motion for the court to sentence him for his second felony conviction. It has been noted by the court that the defendant did not submit to a letter from the previous case’s lawyer that should have explained the circumstances involved.

A Nassau County Criminal Lawyer prosecution has established the preceding conviction. It is now up to the defendant to prove that it has no legal basis. The court has found that the defendant did not submit any document that would explain the circumstances of his guilty plea. The defendant did not provide an explanation as to why there was no affidavit from the counsel.

The testimony of the defendant during the hearing was found to be self-serving. It doesn’t contain an explanation for the defendant’s claims of ineffective counsel. Since there was no explanation provided for the surrounding circumstances, the court will next examine the assertion if his previous conviction had constitutional merit.

To shed light to the case, the court has evaluated the minutes of the defendant’s statements during his guilty plea. However, the court did not find anything relevant to the case. There was no information as to how the prior lawyer will defend his client. The contentions of the defendant were outlined in an unsworn document by the defendant’s current counsel. The memorandum prepared by the current counsel contained statements that are contradictory to the events described by the defendant concerning his assault case.

As the hearing began, the defendant had presented a different version of the events that had transpired. This was entirely different from the events relayed in the memorandum before the hearing. In the contradictory statement, he was involved in a fight with his girlfriend which led to physical blows. The girl sustained physical injuries. In this version of his statement, the defendant claimed that he was only acting out of self-defense and denied being intoxicated. The defendant admitted to drinking before the fight happened.

Due to the differences in statements, the court has found that the defendant’s testimony had no credibility. The defendant also admitted that he did not let his lawyer know that he was intoxicated at the time. He also admitted that he only told his lawyer that he had been drinking and not exactly drunk.

The evidence presented before the court proved that the defendant could not establish his claim of ineffective legal counsel. The previous lawyer’s performance was reasonably effective and showed no prejudice.

Stop worrying about your DWI case and hire a qualified legal counsel. To schedule a personal conference meeting, contact Stephen Bilkis & Associates and get a free consultation.

Frank Grady was indicted for two counts of third degree sodomy upon a victim identified as J.P; three counts of third degree sodomy upon a victim identified as C.V.; and one count of second degree sexual abuse against a victim identified as L.G. The third degree sodomy counts were classified as E felonies and the sexual abuse count as a Class A misdemeanor. The counts were all categorized as statutory in nature due to the ages of the victims, who were 16, 14 and 13, respectively.

Mr. Grady’s criminal defense attorney filed a motion with the Albany County Court to dismiss the indictment because of insufficient evidence. According to Section 130.16 of the New York Penal code, a person cannot be convicted of consensual sodomy, attempted consensual sodomy or similar sex crimes that includes lack of consent as an element if the failure to consent stems solely from the victim’s age. In cases of sexual abuse, molestation or other sex crimes involving an underage victim, the child’s testimony must be supported by additional evidence to prove that sexual contact occurred or was attempted. Essentially, the defense argued that the victim’s testimony should not be considered sufficient on its face value to render an indictment since they were all underage when the alleged sex crimes occurred.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that the court held that the defense’s arguments were illogical and noted that in common law, testimony offered by victims in sex offense cases was not required to be corroborated. The requirement for corroboration of victim testimony was fairly new at the time of Mr. Grady’s trial and applied to cases involving forcible or statutory sodomy.

According to the court, Section 130.16 of the New York Penal Code eliminated the corroboration requirement for forcible sex crimes but upheld it for cases involving statutory sex offenses where lack of consent is tied specifically to the victim’s age or mental capacity. The court also noted that corroboration is not required in cases involving other serious crimes, such as attempted murder, assault, robbery and burglary.

In particular, the court seemed to take issue with the fact that the teenagers in Mr. Grady’s case could be charged and convicted for serious offenses based on uncorroborated testimony but that they did not enjoy the same standard of trust when they themselves were victims. The court went so far as to raise the issue of whether Section 130.16 actually violated the rights of teenagers under the age 17 to equal protection under the law.

According to the evidence, the victims, J.P, C.V. and L.G., resided together in a group home for boys in Albany, New York. According to J.P., he was approached by Mr. Grady at a donut shop in December, 1977 and invited to go to his apartment. J.P. testified that he visited the apartment several times and on December 29, 1977, Mr. Grady allegedly performed sexual acts on him, including anal and oral intercourse.

J.P. also stated that Mr. Grady repeatedly insisted that he bring C.V. to the apartment so that he could commit the same acts upon the boy. J.P. eventually agreed and C.V. testified that he went to the apartment sometime before August 1978. On or about August 25th, 29th and 30th, Mr. Grady allegedly performed several acts involving anal and oral intercourse on C.V.

L.G. then testified that C.V. took him to Mr. Grady’s apartment on or near September 1st, 1978 and that Mr. Grady attempted to commit similar acts upon him.

After reviewing the evidence and testimony presented to the grand jury, the court determined that while the evidence was not fully developed, it was sufficient to satisfy the corroboration requirement and sustain each count of the indictment.

A Bronx Criminal Lawyer said that in the case of C.V., corroboration came through the testimony of J.P. that Mr. Grady repeatedly asked him to bring the boy to the apartment so that he could perform acts of sodomy. The court concluded that in each succeeding case, the preceding victim testified that he was responsible for introducing the next victim to Mr. Grady. This connecting thread served as satisfactory evidence for corroboration purposes. The court held that Mr. Grady’s actions and the actions of the victims constituted a scheme or plan and that the testimony of C.V. corroborated the statements made by the other two victims. The court essentially viewed each of the victims as one and the same and said that the evidence offered by each boy was admissible to prove not only his individual case but the other two as well.

After reviewing the evidence, the court held that the corroboration requirement of Penal Law 130.16 was satisfied and that there was sufficient evidence to sustain each count of the indictment. As such, Mr. Grady’s motion to dismiss was denied.

Sex crimes, including forcible and/or consensual sodomy, child sex abuse, sex with a minor and possession or distribution of child pornography are serious charges under New York law. If you’ve been charged with any of these sex offenses, you need the help of an experienced New York criminal defense attorney.

The law firm of Stephen Bilkis and Associates specializes in assisting criminal defendants in protecting their rights. Call 1-800-NY-NY-LAW today to get the help you need in fighting a sex offense charge. Alternately, you may also visit one of our New York area office locations to speak with a criminal defense expert in person. A sex crimes conviction can have serious and long-lasting consequences. Call Stephen Bilkis and Associates now to get the experienced legal representation you need to defend your rights.

When you ask an expert New York Criminal Lawyer these days, it is common to hear that most sex offenders suffer from severe mental abnormality or disease. To help you further understand this, we take a good example of this case of John Suggs. He is a known detained sex offender who suffers gravely from being mentally abnormal. During his trial, two expert psychologists presented in court to prove and offer their opining that John truly suffers from mental abnormality. The doctors are named as Dr. Krishner and Dr. Peterson.

One of the doctors rendered a summary report that described his childhood, teenager and adult history when it comes to history of trauma and abuse. It was outlined comprehensively as they recount all the helpful things that may have happened in the past of the accused. As a child, it was discovered that he was not taken good care of by his parents. At the young age of three, he was already wandering the streets and since then has become such a great rebel in school and even in the immediate community he was in.

According to another New York Criminal Lawyer, he also once set fire to a dormitory and even was convicted of the death of his own mother at one point. He even attempted to commit suicide at the young age of 11 by thinking of drinking mercury straight from a thermometer. It was at the age of 1 when he committed his first rape case. He kidnapped a female college student by pointing a knife straight at her and raped and stole some money from her in a room. The lawyer who once studied this case believes that this is such a case of extreme mental abnormality.

All these discoveries about the life of John Suggs shocked everyone including an expert New York Sex Crimes Lawyer with minor defense lawyer who became a part of the case. It is justified in such cases that when law and psychiatry work together well, then justice filled decisions are made so that justice can be truly achieved and for the society to not feel fear within the communities they live in. Nevertheless, the accused still fought for his case and mentioned a lot of alibis that did not work out well for the court to believe and give him a chance for.

He said he is very sick with diabetes and that he is not at all a serial rapist as how he was seen during the proceeding. When it comes to his alleged Anti-Social Personality Disorder, John said that he is not a rebel at all but just has a weird personality but just set in a different fashion or style. Even if Suggs appeared to be intelligent and even highly articulate in court, the crimes he has done will not be free from being punished according to the rightful laws of New York when it comes to dealing with sex crimes.

In New York, you can surely find lots of expert New York Drug Possession Lawyer who can help you in winning such cases and understanding its details. Getting involved in such cases is not just about putting someone down but to reveal the truth that would bring forth justice to everyone and the entire society. You can check out the legal office of Stephen Bilkis & Associates where you can be sure to find a skilled lawyer who can help you all throughout the proceeding and stand by your side to fight for your rights.

Every New York Sex Crime Lawyer these days finds a way to lessen the number of sex crimes that have been happening in our society. And one of the many effective strategies that can be done include informing citizens of how such proceedings go just like in the discussions of cases like this. This involves the case of a sex crime offender hidden behind the name of Robert V. It was in July of 2010 that the Attorney General of the State of New York ordered that he be detained and he should be supervised in a Mental Health facility for his treatment.

He was expected to continue being supervised by the office of Mental Health of New York after he has completed his sentence. It was in February of the following year that Robert filed his complaint saying that he was not convicted of a sex crime for it was never proven. And hence his robbery is not at all sexually motivated when he has done it in the past. He thinks that the need to get into a mental health facility is totally unconstitutional for it deprives him of his rights.

According to a New York Sex Crimes Lawyer, even if one crime committed seem to not be sexual, it can still fall under that if it belongs to a list of crimes included under the SORA or SOMTA law in New York. In this case of Robert, there were clear an solid evidences presented in court and that it was proven that he is a frequent sex offender. Such repetitions in sex crimes are great proof that there is something not normal with the behavior or mental status of the accused.

A civil process is done and decided upon by the court to examine and further analyze the offenders who have returned to the community after serving their sentence but still shows great signs of being mentally unstable. The provision is set to be more limited and the level of freedom of the offender may also have so much restraint by means of civil confinement. But the utmost goal of such treatment programs just has the purpose of protecting the general public from the harm that these offenders can do to them, commented a Nassau County Sex Crimes Lawyer.

The result of the court is that they denied the request of the accused to not go through the mental health treatment. With all the major exhibits and evidences presented, it was clear for everyone including the New York sex with minor defense lawyer who was part of the investigating staff that the offender should go through the right risk assessment so that he can be able to go through the right treatment for the utmost benefit of the general society especially for the citizens of New York.

A Queens Sex Crimes Lawyer said that such programs are very important for everyone in New York to know about better so that you know how to fight for your rights and of your loved ones to be able to steer away from being abused by such offenders like the one discussed in this particular report. You can best learn about such cases and the formality of legal proceedings with the help of an expert New York sex crime lawyer. You can get to even hire the best New York rape lawyer if you would take the time to visit Stephen Bilkis & Associates office based in New York. To help the general community we live in be free of sex offenders is a great way to start protecting especially the women and children in our society.

According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, several police officers were charged with various crimes arising out of their conduct in connection with their search for a lost police radio. According to the records of the case, the police officers went to two apartments to pursue a lead regarding the radio. The radio had been lost during an arrest related to a drug crime in the area several days earlier. The records said the police officers pushed their way into two apartments, ransacking both, and unlawfully detained the individuals encountered within the apartments. In searching the second apartment, the police officers discovered vials of crack coccaine and threatened the occupants therein that they would be charged with coccaine possession if the radio were not promptly returned. The police officers allegedly told the apartment occupants that they would "forget" about the drugs if the radio was returned. Administrative proceedings were then commenced against the police officers by conducting hearings.

Following a jury trial, each police officer was found guilty of unlawful imprisonment, coercion, criminal trespass, and official misconduct. Two of the officers were also convicted of falsifying business records. Prior to sentencing, the police officers moved to set aside the verdict alleging improper use of their statements in connection with the indictment and trial.

Among the numerous issues raised on appeal, the police officers challenged the sufficiency of the trial evidence, the cour'ts charge on unlayful imprisonment, alleged inconsistencies in jury verdict and the court's restriction on cross-examination of certain witnesses. Each of the police officers gave similar statements essentially denying any wrongdoing. The policemen testified in court that they saw one of the occupants of the apartment in the alley and he dropped the cocaine when he saw the police officers. One of the policemen said he has arrested the same person for marijuana possession prior to the incident.

A Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer said that the court found that the evidence was more than sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict of guilt, that all the elements of the crimes charged were established and that the guilty verdicts as to certain counts and not guilty verdicts as to others are not inconsistent with one another. While the police officers continue to claim that, at worst, their conduct constituted no more than an impermissible search for which there is no criminal liability, and that to uphold the guilty verdicts would be to seriously "chill the ability and good faith efforts of law enforcement to protect the public, the evidence before the jury amply demonstrated that defendants far exceeded the bounds of permissible police conduct and that they committed the crimes of which they were found guilty.

The court noted that an indictment is not fatlly tainted merely because someone involved in the criminal prosecution may have been exposed to a portion or all of the police officers' immunized statement, although clearly precautions should be taken -- and stringently observed -- to prevent such occurrence.

Drug addiction is a rampant problem in society and affects everyone. Being involved in a lawsuit arising from this crime is difficult. There are attorneys will stand by you and help see you through your case. These Attorneys can argue your side and make sure that you and your loved ones are compensated.

Whether you have been charged with sex crimes, or a drug offense, contact our office for assistance. Stephen Bilkis & Associates has offices throughout the New York Metropolitan area. Our office can provide you with advice to guide you through your difficult situations. Without our legal help, you may lose your rights which may cost you a significant amount of money.

In 1981, a wife was shot and killed at her home by her estranged husband. The defendant husband was charged for murder in the second degree for intentionally causing the death of his wife. At trial, the husband did not deny that he fired the shots which killed his wife; rather, he offered evidence to establish that he did not have the right state of mind to commit intentional murder. Specifically, the husband sought to show that at the time of the shooting he was suffering from hypoglycemia, a condition resulting from his having taken an excessive amount of insulin to control his diabetes, which rendered him, in effect, intoxicated and incapable of forming the requisite intent.

Records revealed that the defendant husband requested to the jury that manslaughter in the second degree and criminal negligence homicide be charged as lesser included offenses of intentional murder. After the County Court denied his request, the husband was found guilty as charged and a term of imprisonment of 25 years to life was imposed. The husband appealed and raised several grounds of error.

Initially, the Penal Law has established a hierarchy of culpable mental states with felonious negligence as the least liable mental state, recklessly as the next highest, and intentionally as the most liable mental state. It is further recognize that the lower mental states are necessarily included in the higher forms of mental liability. A review of the statutory definitions of criminally negligent homicide, reckless manslaughter and intentional murder reveals that these crimes are distinguished only by the degree of their required mental states. Thus, it is impossible to commit the greater crime without concurrently, by the same conduct, committing the lesser crimes. Criminally negligent homicide and reckless manslaughter are, therefore, lesser included offenses of intentional murder.

Accordingly, in determining whether County Court erred in its refusal to charge the lesser included offenses, it is necessary to consider whether a reasonable view of the evidence which were considered favorably to the husband would have permitted the jury to conclude that the husband committed the lesser but not the greater offense. Review of the record concluded that a reasonable view of the evidence favorable to the husband would support a finding that the husband acted recklessly rather than intentionally, and the lesser included offense of reckless manslaughter should have been charged in the alternative to intentional murder.

The record establishes that hypoglycemia is a condition in which the body does not have sufficient sugar to function properly and which can be caused by insulin. There is other evidence that an individual suffering from hypoglycemia could be mistaken for an intoxicated individual. Additionally, the jury could have found from the facts presumed at trial that at the time of the shooting, the defendant, a diabetic, was not following a prescribed course of treatment, had been drinking to excess, had taken an extra dose of insulin to compensate for these transgressions, and was carrying a gun, supposedly for protection. The jury might further have found, consistent with the testimony of the defendant's medical expert, that he was in a hypoglycemic state from his excessive drinking and insulin injections and did not have the requisite intent for intentional murder at the time of the shooting. Drugs have been recognized as a cause of voluntary intoxication and there is no logical reason why insulin should be treated differently, especially in light of the expert testimony that hypoglycemia, also known as insulin reaction, could produce an intoxicated state. Accordingly, the jury has reasonably concluded that the husband did not act intentionally, the liable mental state required for intentional murder.

Furthermore, the facts reasonably support a conclusion that the defendant acted recklessly and, thus, committed reckless manslaughter. One acts recklessly when he is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that will occur; and when the risk is of such nature and degree constitutes a gross nonconformity from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation. By not following prescribed medical treatment and by taking extra insulin and drinking excessively at a time when he was carrying a gun, the defendant could be found to have consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk of killing another person by using the gun and, thus, to have acted recklessly.

The voluntary intoxication claimed by the defendant is not available to negate the liable mental state. Accordingly, there is a reasonable view of the evidence that the defendant did not act intentionally but acted recklessly and committed reckless manslaughter. A charge on manslaughter in the second degree in the alternative to intentional murder was thus required.
Judgment was reversed, on the law, and matter remitted to the Court of Albany County for a new trial.

Family members should protect each other from any form of harm but when a member does otherwise when they are intoxicated, seeking legal advice is a must. A dedicated team of New York DWI Lawyers at Stephen Bilkis and Associates is always ready to provide you with assistance and sound counseling.

According to a New York DWI Lawyer, a Lounge bar petitioned for the dismissal of charges against them by the State Liquor Authority after they were found guilty of selling alcoholic beverages to a person under the age of 21 years. The bar's liquor license was suspended for 15 days and was imposed a penalty. The person to whom the bar allegedly sold the alcohol was killed in a car accident shortly after driving while intoxicated from the Lounge bar.

A Nassau County Criminal Lawyer said that the record establishes that the Lounge was a topless go-go bar whose entertainment fee was included in the additional cost of each customer's first drink. The Lounge bar's witnesses testified that its doorman admitted the minor after he displayed false identification. However, the police officer who subsequently inventoried his personal effects found a variety of identification documents, but no false ones. Moreover, his two friends testified that the identification was not checked at the door, but that he was admitted while they were excluded based on their respective physical appearances.

A New York DWI Lawyer has not disputed that the minor spent about an hour inside the bar. During that period, when his two friends testified that they approached the door to the Lounge bar and observed him inside drinking from a bottle of beer, the Lounge bar witnesses claimed that he was not served any alcohol. In addition, all of the witnesses agreed that at some point he endeavored to bribe the doorman to admit his two underage friends. According to his friends, while negotiating with the doorman, he was visibly drunk and was holding a bottle of Budweiser beer in his hand. The bribery attempt was reported to the bar manager, who testified noticing the minor who was then intoxicated and signaled the barmaid to stop serving the minor alcoholic beverages. No Lounge bar employee made any effort to drive him out.

At the hearing, the minor person’s two friends, also under the age of 21 at the time of the incident, testified that prior to going to the Lounge bar, they were all drinking in another establishment where, without having their identification checked, they were served with beers. The threesome then drove to the Lounge bar and only the deceased minor, who already appeared intoxicated, was admitted. The two friends, who remained outside, tried to see him whenever the front door opened and, at some point, saw him drinking from what appeared to be a bottle of beer. The two friends could not see the bar from outside the front door and they did not see how he obtained the beer. When he went out of the Lounger bar and returned to the car, he was pretty drunk and was holding a bottle of beer which he threw out the window before the car accident.

After the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge held that the charge had not been sustained by evidence. However, the finding was reversed by the Sate Liquor Authority, which held that the evidence introduced at the hearing sustained the charge. The State Liquor Authority issued the order which suspended the petitioner's liquor license for 15 days and imposed a $1,000 penalty.
The standard to be applied is whether the illegal conduct was open, observable and of such nature that its postponement could, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, have been prevented. According to the credible testimony, the minor person was inside the bar for an hour drinking beer while he was visibly intoxicated, and gave the club's employees reason to question his majority when he unabashedly attempted to bribe the doorman to admit his juvenile companions.

Critical witnesses could have established how the minor obtained the illegal beverage was available but chose not to testify. His friends, who were never admitted to the Lounge bar, had no opportunity to observe him purchasing his beer. Under the unusual circumstances, as in many a criminal conviction, the allegation depends necessarily upon circumstantial evidence which must not be unsound.

Legal disputes over intoxicated drivers often hurt businesses and may cause great amount of money. If you find your company in need of sound advice, feel free to call and consult with legal counsel from Stephen Bilkis and Associates. Our offices are located all throughout the NY Metropolitan Area.

Anne-Marie P., a juvenile, was charged with various sex crimes that included one count of first degree sodomy, two counts of first degree sexual abuse, two counts of third degree sexual abuse and one count of sexual misconduct. These crimes were allegedly committed against Megan H., who was six years old at the time she testified. The court was satisfied in her ability to offer sworn testimony. The case went to trial in Family Court.

Megan testified that the juvenile defendant pulled down her pants and penetrated her vagina using her fingers. She also stated that the defendant put her mouth on her breasts and touched her behind. According to the victim, she attempted to escape the room where the inappropriate sexual contact took place. She also said she did not give Anne-Marie P. permission to do these things.

According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, Megan also testified that she had seen the defendant place her mouth on her brothers’ penises. Cross-examination revealed that Megan had told her mother what happened as well as the detective who took her statement. Reportedly, she could not remember the date or time the inappropriate sex acts took place. She also said that incidents similar to the ones she described had never happened to her friends and she had never seen anything so portrayed on television.

The girl’s mother, Cathy H. testified that Megan told her about the incidents. Reportedly, the defendant had been babysitting the victim and her brothers on the night of August 5, 1985. Cathy H. asked the defendant about the events Megan described but the juvenile denied the allegations. When Megan’s father came home from a business trip on August 8, 1985, the couple contacted police about the incident.

Anne-Marie P. testified that she did babysit for Megan and her brothers on the date in question. She denied any of the claims regarding sexual abuse or inappropriate sexual touching involving the minor children. Her attorney then raised the issue of whether Family Court was the proper venue for her case.

According to her testimony, Megan H. lived in Nassau County, which is where the events occurred. The defendant also acknowledged that she was babysitting the children in their home, which had a Nassau County address. As such, the court agreed that there should be no dispute over the jurisdiction. Furthermore, it was also acknowledged that the defendant testified to being 14 years of age, which also supports the case being heard in Family Court.

A Nassau County Criminal Lawyer said that Anne-Marie’s representatives also argued that there was no circumstantial evidence to support a conviction. Under Penal Law 130.16, corroboration was not a requirement in order to prove consent in sex offense cases involving underage children.

The court found that the victim’s testimony was credible and consistent and by itself, established proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged sex abuse had occurred. Following this conclusion, the court upheld the charge of first degree sexual abuse but dismissed the other counts based on a lack of evidence. The court referred the case to the Nassau County Probation Department for a complete investigation, including a psychiatric and psychological evaluation of the juvenile defendant.

As evidenced by this case, sex crimes do not always involve an adult committing a sexual offense against a minor child. In some cases, another child may be the perpetrator of lewd acts or sexual abuse. Fortunately, the juvenile’s parents hired an experienced criminal defense lawyer to protect her rights.

If you or your child has been charged with sexual abuse of a minor, sodomy, another crime involving sex acts with a child, or endangering the welfare of a child or related offense, you also need to speak with a New York criminal defense attorney right away. The law firm of Stephen Bilkis and Associates specializes in defending the rights of individuals who’ve been charged with a serious sex offense. Call 1-800-NY-NY-LAW today or stop by one of our New York area offices to discuss your case. Don’t hesitate to get the legal help you need to defend yourself against a sex offense charge.

Edgar Bagarozy was convicted of sex crimes that included two counts of second degree sodomy for four instances of improper sexual contact with three young boys. Mr. Bagarozy was sentenced to two consecutive terms of 3 ½ to 7 years. Each victim testified that he had allowed Mr. Bagarozy to engage in oral sodomy in exchange for a trip to the movies or an amusement park.

Charges involving one of the victims, identified as Dennis M., were dismissed after the boy recanted. He claimed that he had falsely accused Mr. Bagarozy after being intimidated by the police. In the case of the two other victims, Angel J. and Manny O., Mr. Bagarozy was convicted of the sodomy charges.

The defendant opted not to testify at trial, despite the fact that the prosecution focused on his sexual preference and submitted a large volume of evidence attesting to his previous sexual acts involving young boys. Specifically, evidence was introduced regarding Mr. Bagarozy’s affiliation with NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association) as proof of his intent to commit sodomy. Following his conviction, Mr. Bagarozy’s criminal defense lawyer filed an appeal with the Supreme Court Appellate Division, First Department.

A New York Criminal Lawyer explained that the court examined the testimony presented at trial in making their determination. According to trial records, sometime in February 1984, 13-year-old Manny O. was in Mr. Bagarozy’s apartment watching movies. As they watched television, Mr. Bagarozy began playing with the boy’s hair. He then promised Manny he would take him to Action Park if he would allow him to perform oral sodomy on him. In November 1984, Manny was in Mr. Bagarozy’s apartment with another boy named Luis. Manny consented to the oral sodomy and Mr. Bagarozy took him and the other boy to the movies.

In January 1985, 11-year-old Angel J. went with Luis and another boy named Tony to Mr. Bagarozy’s apartment. Tony and Luis went into the bedroom. Angel went to the bedroom later on where he saw both boys with their pants down. Mr. Bagarozy pulled Angel’s pants down, put him on the bed and orally sodomized him. Angel then left the bedroom alone.

In January 1987, Mr. Bagarozy placed a phone call to Manny from Rikers Island where he was being held in custody after being arrested. He stated to Manny that he should not say anything to police about what happened in the apartment. He telephoned Manny again shortly before the trial began and advised him not to come to New York.

A Suffolk County Criminal Lawyer said that Tony and Luis, who were both 14, testified on Mr. Bagarozy’s behalf. Tony denied any sexual contact and also denied witnessing any sexual acts involving Angel. Luis testified that Mr. Bagarozy never touched him inappropriately and that no sexual contact, including sodomy, ever occurred.

The prosecution’s focus on Mr. Bagarozy’s sexual preference was also a focal point for the court. Prior to trial, she sought to introduce evidence regarding Mr. Bagarozy’s two prior convictions for second degree sodomy. The basis for her argument was that since both the prior crimes and the most recent sexual abuse involving minors were perpetrated against underage Hispanic boys, this established a pattern of behavior. The prosecution’s motion was denied but left the door open for her to refile later on if the prior convictions became relevant to the case at hand.

The trial court chose not to rule on a defense motion which would have excluded literature, photographs and videos taken from Mr. Bagarozy’s apartment after he was arrested, including the NAMBLA newsletters and a poem which described the performance of oral sodomy on a young boy.

In opening statements, the defense acknowledged that the evidence would show that Mr. Bagarozy was gay but that there was no proof of any improper sexual contact with a child. Furthermore, the defense argued that the police had manufactured the allegations against him based on homophobic fear.

The prosecution renewed her pre-trial application regarding evidence of Mr. Bagarozy’s prior record and personal background, based on the defense’s allegation that police had been surveilling him extensively prior to his arrest. The court again chose to deny this request. At trial, the prosecution questioned Sergeant Maginnis, the officer who had arrested Mr. Bagarozy. In her questioning, she attempted to elicit information about Mr. Bagarozy’s known background and specifically asked if he was a known pedophile. Defense moved for a mistrial but the court allowed the trial to continue and advised the jury to disregard the prosecution’s question.

The prosecutor eventually conceded that it was impossible to prove any sexual contact, sexual abuse or sodomy in the case of Dennis M. She did ask him about the erotic material found in the apartment but he denied ever seeing any of it. Defense council questioned Dennis about his involvement in a harassment lawsuit against the police. The prosecution attempted to establish a link between Dennis and another NAMBLA member but ultimately, the trial judge instructed the jury to disregard this evidence. She was, however, allowed to question Dennis M. as to whether he had any prior knowledge of Mr. Bagarozy’s sexual attraction to or involvement with young boys. At the end of her questioning, she asked the court to strike any and all testimony concerning the federal lawsuit.

Manny O. testified that he had seen NAMBLA literature at Mr. Bagarozy’s apartment on at least one occasion. The literature was then passed on to the jury for examination but stated that it was to be viewed only as indicative of his intent at the time of the alleged crimes, rather than a declaration of his beliefs.

A Detective Healy, who was working undercover inside NAMBLA, testified that he knew Mr. Bagarozy as Richard Boyer, a name that was listed as a contributor to the organization’s newsletter. The prosecutor questioned Mr. Healy as to whether he had ever seen Mr. Bagarozy at a NAMBLA meeting where sex acts had been performed. Defense again moved for a mistrial during this line of questioning.

During the cross-examination of Peter Meltzer, the publisher of the NAMBLA newsletter, the prosecution violated the court’s restrictions and asked him numerous questions outside the scope of what was allowed. The poem about oral sodomy that was found in Mr. Bagarozy’s apartment and had been printed in the NAMBLA newsletter was of particular concern.

In summation, the prosecution made an allusion to Jesus and characterized Mr. Bagarozy’s alleged crimes as an attempt to keep them from going to Heaven. The jury subsequently convicted him of the sodomy charges relating to Manny and Angel.

In reviewing the case, the appellate court pointed out that the central issue at trial was whether Mr. Bagarozy had committed sex acts with a minor, not his actual state of mind at the time. However, the prosecution’s line of questioning and the evidence she introduced focused solely on Mr. Bagarozy’s sexual preference, which was outside the scope of what the trial court agreed to allow. The court further concluded that both the prosecution and the trial judge incorrectly equivocated intent and proclivity and the introduction of the evidence relating to Mr. Bagarozy’s NAMBLA affiliation should not have been allowed. Furthermore, her references to Mr. Bagarozy being a pedophile were also improper. Inciting Biblical imagery in her summation was also considered to be an error that could not be overlooked.

Based on the prosecution’s handling of the case and on contradictory testimony presented by Manny O., the appellate court ruled that Mr. Bagarozy’s conviction for the two second degree sodomy counts should be reversed and his case remanded for a new trial.

The defendant in this case faced serious charges and without the help of his defense attorney, he may not have been able to escape an unfair prosecution. Fortunately, the prosecutor did not pursue additional charges against him, such as possession of child pornography or dissemination of obscene material to minors.

A conviction for rape, sexual abuse, child molestation or another sex crime in New York can have serious consequences, including imprisonment and registration as a sex offender. If you or a loved one has been charged with any of these crimes, you need to contact an experienced New York criminal defense attorney today.

The law firm of Stephen Bilkis and Associates specializes in defending clients who’ve been charged with sodomy and other sex offense. Call 1-800-NY-NY-LAW or visit one of our New York area office locations to discuss your case. Don’t let a conviction for a sex offense ruin your life. Call Stephen Bilkis and Associates today to get the experienced legal representation you need to protect your rights.

Michael Hernandez was found guilt of six counts of first degree sodomy, one count of attempted first degree sodomy, two counts of second degree sodomy and one count of first degree sexual abuse. Following his conviction, the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders recommended designating Mr. Hernandez as a risk level three sexually violent offender upon his release. Mr. Hernandez’s criminal defense lawyer requested a risk assessment hearing to determine whether he should be assigned to risk level two based on the evidence.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that according to trial records, Mr. Hernandez was convicted on sex crimes charges for committing improper sexual acts with five boys, aged 11 to 15. Apparently, Mr. Hernandez had convinced the boys to run away from home and go to a shack in the woods near Pelham Bay, where the sexual offenses occurred. At the time the sexual acts were committed, Mr. Hernandez was 19. He received a sentence of 8 1/3 to 25 years with a release date of November 7, 2011.

On October 23, 2003, the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders submitted a risk assessment which recommended classifying Mr. Hernandez as a sexually violent offender based on score which was calculated by assigning a certain number of points for specific details of his crimes. Mr. Hernandez’s score totaled 165 points and was broken down accordingly: 10 points for use of force; 25 points for sexual intercourse and/or aggravated sexual abuse with the victim; 30 points for more than three victims; 20 points for a continuing act of sexual misconduct; 20 points for the victims being under age 16; 10 points for Mr. Hernandez being under age 20 at the time the crimes occurred; 30 points for a prior violent felony or misdemeanor sex crime conviction; 10 points for the prior crime occurring less than three years before the most recent acts; and 10 points for unsatisfactory conduct while incarcerated.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that after calculating his risk level, the Board created a case summary based on a review of Mr. Hernandez’s file, including information gathered during the pre-sentencing investigation, his prior criminal history and his behavior since being imprisoned. According to the case summary, Mr. Hernandez was adjudicated as a youthful offender for a weapons offense in 1986 for which he received five years probation. While on probation, he was arrested for the sex crimes for which he was convicted. Specifically, Mr. Hernandez sodomized and sexually abused the five young boys over a period of two weeks. The sexual abuse of the minors involving fondling, as well as oral and anal sodomy of at least one victim. One of the boys testified that Mr. Hernandez kept a knife in plain sight while the sex crimes occurred and threatened to kill their families if they told on him. The boys also said that Mr. Hernandez had told them he had satanic powers and could control them. In addition, Mr. Hernandez incurred approximately 20 different violations while incarcerated.

Mr. Hernandez’s criminal defense attorney argued that despite the score established by the risk assessment, his client is not a threat to the community at large and should not be branded as a sexual predator. Specifically, the defense noted that since being imprisoned, Mr. Hernandez overcame a heroin addiction and became engaged to his fiancée. The defense also cite his age as an indication of his increased maturity level. The prosecution argued that these claims have no bearing on the outcome of the risk assessment and that they are not sufficient evidence to warrant a lesser risk level. The Bronx County Supreme Court was charged with deciding the issue.

A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said that the court first looked at the Board’s guidelines for determining what level of risk a sex offender may pose upon release and the likelihood of a repeat offense. Using the scoring system, the Board typically makes a recommendation as to whether an individual should be designated as a sexual predator, sexually violent offender or predicate sex offender. The risk level assigned to an offender determines what information can be shared with the public about his crimes and current location. The Board uses 15 separate factors in four categories to calculate an offender’s risk level. A score of 110 or higher leads to an assignment of risk level three.

In Mr. Hernandez’s case, the court was asked to determine whether he qualified as a level two risk rather than a level three. Risk level three is typically reserved for cases where the risk of a repeat offense is especially high. Offenders assigned this level will have their exact address and place of employment made available to the public.

The court examined the information used to calculate Mr. Hernandez’s score and considered the guidelines established by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders. Under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA), any individual who is convicted of first degree sodomy, attempted first degree sodomy or first degree sexual abuse is considered to be a sexually violent offender. In Mr. Hernandez’s case, he was convicted of all of these crimes. Based on the crimes he was convicted of, his prior criminal history, the age of the victims, Mr. Hernandez’s age and the fact that the crimes were ongoing, the court held that the Board’s initial risk level assessment was correct. Accordingly, his classification as a risk level three sexually violent offender was upheld.

Sexual offenses are considered to be serious offenses in New York state. A conviction for a sex crime such as indecency with a minor, possession of child pornography or child sexual abuse can not only land you in prison but leave you branded as a sexual predator for the rest of your life. If you’ve been charged with sodomy, molestation or any included drug crime, you need to speak with an experienced skilled legal counsel right away
.
The law firm of Stephen Bilkis and Associates specializes in handling cases involving sex and drug crimes. Our expert team of criminal defense lawyers is committed to proving your innocence and aggressively defending your rights. Call 1-800-NY-NY-LAW or stop by one of our New York area offices to discuss your case. Don’t wait another day to get the expert legal representation you need to fight a sex crimes charge.

James Barbour, an established Broadway actor, was charged with the sexual assault on a a 15-year-old girl in 2001. His attorney, Ronald P. Fischetti, filed a petition on his behalf challenging an order from the Supreme Court which prohibited the defense from publishing the victim’s name in order to investigate her credibility.

A New York Sex Crime Lawyer said that the complaint was first filed against Barbour on April 4, 2006. On October 30, 2006, he was indicted on charges of third degree sexual abuse and committing a criminal sexual act in the third degree. His arraignment hearing was scheduled for December 6, 2006. The day before the arraignment, the District Attorney’s office gave information about the case to the New York Post and the New York Daily News. The news coverage that followed painted Barbour in a negative light and described the alleged sex crimes involved. Both newspaper articles included a telephone number and encouraged anyone with similar complaints about Barbour to call. The day after the articles were published, the New York Post reported that another girl had come forward to claim that Barbour had engaged in improper sexual conduct with her when she was 13.

A New York Sex Crime Lawyer said that on December 20, 2006, the Assistant District Attorney asked the court to direct all parties involved to refrain from making comments to the media about the case. Barbour’s criminal defense lawyer proposed setting up another telephone number for men who had been falsely accused by the most recent victim. The court granted the prosecution’s motion and directed the defense to avoid publishing the victim’s name in order to identify other men she may have made false claims against.

Mr. Barbour’s attorney then sought to vacate this order and to prohibit the court from citing the defense with contempt for violating the order.

The Appellate Division of the State Supreme Court was charged with determining whether to grant Mr. Fischetti’s petition. In the petition, he argued that there was no statutory provision or other reasoning for the prohibition on publishing the alleged victim’s name and that he was entitled to use the same type of investigative tools afforded to the prosecution. Specifically, the defense argued that the order effectively served as a violation of Mr. Barbour’s First Amendment right to free speech and his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel.

According to a Nassau Criminal Lawyer, the court concluded that the limitation on speech in the case was very narrow and that Mr. Fischetti never made a good faith effort to establish that not publishing the victim’s name had somehow limited his ability to form a defense. Moreover, the court held that defense counsel’s challenge to the order was logical but that in the interest of justice, it was not sufficient to merit a reversal of the order. Accordingly, the court chose to deny the petition.

Sexual abuse is a serious charge in the state of New York and conviction for this or other sex crimes, such as possession of child pornography, can potentially lead to life-altering consequences. If you’re facing trial for child molestation, sexual assault or similar sexual offenses, you need to hire an experienced Queens Criminal Lawyer to protect your rights.

The law firm of Stephen Bilkis and Associates is available to assist in defending individuals charged with child molestation or other inappropriate acts involving sexual contact. Call 1-800-NY-NY-Law today to speak with one of our criminal defense experts or stop by one of our New York area office locations to discuss your case in person. Don’t let a conviction for a sex crime ruin your life. Call Stephen Bilkis today to get the aggressive legal defense you need to fight charges involving sex offenses.

According to a New York Drug Crime Lawyer , a 33-year old man was indicted by a jury and charged with marijua posssession. Court records showed that the defendant was a second felony offender but not a violent offender. During the course of plea negotiations, the defendant was offered by the State a plea to a B felony in satisfaction of the indictment with a minimum sentence of four and a half years to nine years in state prison. Prior to defendant's plea, the New York State Legislature passed the Drug Law Reform Act, which was signed into law in 2004.

The People took the plea with a minimum sentence but the sole issue in contention is, what is the minimum state prison sentence now allowed by law given the passage of the new law.

A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said that the defense attorney argued that the newly enacted DLRA should be applied retroactively and authorized not only a plea to a B felony reduction from an A-I felony but also the appropriate sentence should be a three and a half year determinate prison term with postrelease supervision set by the court at a determinate time of the minimum of one and a half years to a maximum of three years.

According to the court, the new DLRA was the response of the New York State Legislature to a long-time call to amend the so-called Rockefeller drug laws which some have argued were outdated and draconian.

The new criminal laws applicable to this case provide, in substance, for allowing a plea to a B felony drug offense from an A-I or A-II drug offense. The New Penal Law, which provides guidelines for sentencing of drug offenders, set sentence for a second felony drug offender (nonviolent) convicted of a B felony at a determinate term from a minimum of three and a half years to a maximum of 12 years and postrelease supervision of a determinate term of a minimum of one and a half years to a maximum of 3 years.

A Nassau County Criminal Lawyer said there is no question that the crimes that the defendant is charged in this case were committed prior to the effective date of the relevant criminal law provisions. The court did not agree with the defense's argument that the relevant law should be applied retroactively. The court explained that the general rule is that non-procedural statutes are not to be applied retroactively absent a plainly manifested legislative intent to that effect. An exception is when the Legislature passes an ameliorative amendment that reduces the punishment for a particular crime.

Accordingly, the court found that the sentencing statute is not retroactive to crimes committed prior to the effective date of the said statute and that it is not the province of the trial judiciary to change the clear and unambiguous language of duly enacted law unless its application would effect an unconstitutional, illegal or harmful act.

A Queens Criminal Lawyer cautions that drug addiction is a rampant problem in society and affects everyone. Being involved in a lawsuit arising from this crime is difficult. There are New York Drug Crime Attorneys will stand by you and help see you through your case. These Attorneys can argue your side and make sure that you and your loved ones are compensated.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates with its team of criminal lawyer, has offices throughout the New York Metropolitan area. Our attorneys can provide you with advice to guide you through your difficult situations. Without our attorneys, you may lose your rights which may cost you a significant amount of money.

A driver was involved in a one-car accident in Albany County. The car he was driving left the highway and struck a tree. As the result of investigation, officers of the defendant Town Police Department went to the hospital to issue the plaintiff driver his appearance tickets charging him of DWI (driving while intoxicated), operating an unregistered vehicle and driving at a speed not reasonable and prudent. A New York DWI Lawyer said that a blood sample was taken from the plaintiff to determine his blood alcohol content, which later proved to be negative. Consequently, the charges against the driver were dismissed. Thereafter, the driver commenced a legal action against the defendant Town, the police department and the Police Officer for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. The defendants answered and moved for dismissal of the charges. In opposition to the motions, the driver conceded that his claim for false imprisonment did not lie, but contended that his malicious prosecution claim was viable because the defendants lacked probable cause to initiate the criminal proceeding which was terminated in his favor. The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motions and an appeal proceeded.

A New York DWI Lawyer explained that elements of an action for malicious prosecution are initiation of a proceeding without probable cause. Records show that the defendants submitted their testimony and affidavits of the police officers who were dispatched to the accident scene. The testimony and affidavits claim that the driver was observed to be somewhat incoherent, and that they detected a faint odor of alcohol emanating from him. When they asked the driver whether he had been drinking, the driver responded that he did not drink much. The police officers further alleged that the driver’s automobile had failed to negotiate a curve at the accident site and that the road surface was dry and free of any defects where the vehicle had left the road. Based upon the facts, the police officers asserted that there existed probable cause to issue the appearance tickets in question.

In opposition to the motion, the driver asserted that he had consumed no alcoholic beverages on the day of the accident, a fact confirmed by the results of his blood alcohol analysis, and that the accident resulted when he leaned over to pick up a cigarette that he had dropped. As to his alleged conversation with the police concerning his alcohol consumption, the driver alleged that he had no recollection of events from the time of the collision until he regained consciousness in the hospital two months later. A Nassau County Criminal Lawyer said that it appears that there are questions of fact as to whether probable cause existed for the issuance of the appearance ticket for driving while intoxicated. Notably, the driver’s alleged admission that he had not drunk much on the day of the accident was a matter solely within the knowledge of the moving parties, given the driver's lack of recollection of events following the accident, and should not form the basis for dismissal.

It follows that there is a question of fact concerning the issue of malice. If, on trial, the fact finder discredits the police officers' statements that they detected an odor of alcohol emanating from the driver and that the driver stated that he had not been drinking much, then he would be entitled to a charge that the fact finder might conclude that the felonious proceeding was instituted maliciously.

The Supreme Court agrees that there is a question of fact as to whether the proceedings were terminated in the plaintiff's favor. The defendants presented no evidence that the proceedings were not terminated in his favor and he was not required to come forward with any proof. Nevertheless, the defendants rely on a statement in the plaintiff's affidavit that the appearance tickets were dismissed in the interest of justice. A dismissal in the interest of justice is not sufficient to sustain a cause of action to recover damages for malicious prosecution. Such a dismissal would not have been pursuant to the law since the law refers to misdemeanor complaint and would not include the appearance tickets in question.

Wrongful accusations if not proven otherwise, may harm you and your family. It may also cause your freedom. At Stephen Bilkis and Associates, a team of skilled lawyers can help you triumph over these kind of circumstances. Make a call for free consultation and let our lawyers handle the troubles you have.

The defendant in this case was charged for DWI with two counts. The prosecution asked the court during the end of the defendant’s trial to include a lesser offense, driving while ability impaired or DWAI. The court granted the request despite the objection of the defendant. The defendant received acquittal from the jury on both DWI counts. However, he was convicted of the lesser DWAI offense.

The prosecution supported their motion to charge for DWAI since the law states that a defendant who has already been convicted for previous driving offenses should be charged with DWAI. This is treated by the court as a misdemeanor on the part of the defendant.
During the trial, no evidence was presented regarding the past offenses of the defendant. The prosecution has presented documents that would prove his past drinking violations. In his objection, the defendant contends that his past offenses should be proven based on special information.

The prosecution requested the court to have the jury promote DWAI as a lesser degree offense during the trial. However, the prosecution has changed their position and contends that the DWAI offense should be treated as a misdemeanour. However, according to the provisions of the law, it should not be treated as a lesser crime than DWI since both are unclassified.

To support the prosecution’s claims, interpreting the provisions in previous cases can be interpreted differently. According to the prosecution, the defendant can be punished for committing DWAI for a misdemeanour. However, proof must be presented during the trial to establish that the defendant had committed those offenses within the last ten years.

According to the provisions of the law, there is no statute that would be applicable to such offenses treated as misdemeanors. The drafting of the statutes relating to misdemeanors have indicated that these cases would warrant a prior conviction of the defendant. This must be done to elevate the offense or classify it as a misdemeanor.

During the trial, there was no proof presented by the prosecution concerning the past offenses of the defendant. The defendant challenges the prosecution to contest the existence of his past offenses by acquiring information for a second crime offender. After the prosecution’s review of the law, the court has found the prosecution to be without the needed proof to support their DWAI charge against the defendant. Since the burden of proof lies on the prosecution, failure to establish proof will be cause for denying the motion. The court has reviewed the provisions of the law and heard both sides of the story. The court has also reviewed previous cases that would help in the matter of deciding the circumstances of the case.

The law considers it improper to remove any aspect of the offense for the jury to consider. The only exception is when the said aspect is instructed by the defendant. In this case, the defendant did not admit to any of the past violations. This would mean that the prior convictions should be treated as an element of DWAI misdemeanour. This element will not be included for the jury’s deliberation.

The prosecution did not present this element while the trial was on going. The prosecution cannot change its mind and present it once the trial has ended. Due to this reason, the court has denied the motion of the prosecution to prove the existence of past convictions within the last ten years. The defendant was charged by the court with DWAI but with emphasis on traffic infarction. The court has also concluded that the prosecution can seek to establish a previous case within the last five years.

If you are charged with DWI, White Collar Crime, or a gun crime, you don’t have to go through it alone. Experienced legal counsel will help you prepare the best defense when you go on trial. Legal counsel is always reliable when it comes to these types of lawsuits. Visit the downtown area and look for the offices of Stephen Bilkis & Associates.

.

On October 16, 1997, a male identified only as C.B. made a videotaped confession to a Bronx Assistant District Attorney following his arrest. During the confession, C.B. discussed numerous criminal offenses and described on at least 11 different occasions on which he had entered private residences unlawfully and in some cases, masturbated onto a sleeping female victim. He also claims to be an exhibitionist and states that he needs help because he has a problem or illness that made him repeatedly commit the sex crimes.

C.B.’s criminal defense attorney subsequently filed a motion with the Bronx County Supreme Court to exclude statements made in the confession that related to the charges he was arrested on. According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, the motion also included a request to exclude testimony from the victims and the minutes of the Grand Jury proceedings. Specifically, defense counsel argued that the victim should be precluded from testifying at trial since the statements offered would be irrelevant; that the videotaped confession should be excluded since it contains evidence of unrelated and uncharged crimes; that the videotape itself was prejudicial; and that C.B. was not competent to testify as to his own mental capacity.

An Article 10 hearing was scheduled on April 9, 2009, to determine whether the tape confession should be admitted. Defense counsel also argued that the tape’s admission would violate C.B.’s constitutional rights and that Grand Jury testimony should be precluded since it was never referenced in the charges or plea allocution and should not be disclosed without a court order.

The Supreme Court held that the statements on the tape constituted admissions against interest. Accordingly, declarations or statements made be a defendant may be included in evidence as an admission if the statements are material to the issue at hand. The court held that the videotaped statements had a direct bearing on whether or not he did indeed suffer from a mental incapacity or abnormality. According to Article 10, a mental abnormality includes a congenital or acquired condition, disease or disorder that affects emotional and cognitive capacity in such a way that causes an individual to be inclined to commit sexual offenses and renders them unable to stop.

A Suffolk County Criminal Lawyer said that the court held that since C.B. admitted at least 11 different inappropriate sexual acts, this constituted evidence of his tendency to commit sexual offenses and his inability to control his actions. The fact that he also admitted to other crimes for which he was never charged did not detract from the credibility or relevance of the taped confession. In addition, the court held that his admissions regarding the uncharged crimes were not necessarily prejudicial and that the evidence could be viewed as admissible if it was relevant to a material issue in the case.

The court was also asked to consider whether C.B. was sufficiently competent to testify as to his own mental condition. The court held that there was a substantial difference between testifying as to one’s mental condition and past statements or actions that could provide evidence of an individual’s mental capacity. Specifically, C.B.’s statements did not qualify as expert testimony regarding his mental condition but they are indicative of evidence that the jury may consider in evaluating expert testimony offered at trial and in drawing conclusions about his present mental state.

With regard to C.B.’s due process rights, his criminal defense attorney argued that his client may have challenged the voluntariness of his statements if he had known that they might be used against him at a civil commitment proceeding. The court held that the fact that he might not have plead guilty had he been aware that the outcome of a future civil proceeding might be based on his prior criminal conviction did not merit a renewed right to suppress the confession.
The court did acknowledge that a party in a civil proceeding may deny an admission or submit evidence involving the circumstances in which an admission was offered.

In addition, the court chose to limit the admission of the videotape only to those portions up to and including the incident which occurred on May 29, 1997, which included six incidents in total. The court chose this option based on the belief that the incidents described in that half of the tape were factually similar to the offenses for which C.B. was charged and included sufficient statements regarding his mental capacity.

Defense counsel sought to exclude the victim from testifying at trial on the grounds that the testimony would be irrelevant. The court agreed that allowing the victim to testify would likely be prejudicial to the case. The court did however, disagree with defense counsel’s motion to exclude the Grand Jury testimony.

Facing trial for a sex offense can be a frightening experience and one that you should not undertake without the advice and help of an experienced New York criminal defense attorney. Whether you have been charged with a sex offense, or burglary or grand larceny, the aid of a qualified attorney is key to protecting your rights and proving your innocence.

The law firm of Stephen Bilkis and Associates is committed to aggressively defending individuals who’ve been charged criminal offenses. Call 1-800-NY-NY-LAW to speak with a member of our criminal defense team or visit one of our New York area offices to discuss your case in person. Don’t face the judge and jury alone. Call Stephen Bilkis and Associates today to get the experienced legal representation you need to fight a sex crimes charge in the New York area.

On December 6, 2007, Pasqual Reyes was convicted of one count each of second degree burglary and endangering the welfare of a child as well as four counts of third degree sexual abuse. At trial, the jury sent the judge a note questioning how the age of the victim impacted intent with regard to the burglary charge. The court essentially stated that it would advise the jury that the age of the victim was irrelevant. Mr. Reyes’ criminal defense attorney objected and asked the court to reread its original instruction. Defense argued that age of the victim was a factor in determining intent to commit burglary. The court reaffirmed its stance and delivered a more specific instruction to the jury. The jury found Mr. Reyes guilty of the above-mentioned charges and his defense attorney appealed to the Supreme Court Appellate Division, First Department.

According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, the appellate court was asked to consider whether the court should have reread the original instruction as requested by defense counsel. Defense claimed that the revised instruction the trial judge provided was incorrect and prejudicially misleading. With regard to the defense’s argument, the court held that it was appropriate for the trial judge to have delivered more specific instructions to the jury, rather than the readback of the charge that was originally requested since the jury clearly did not understand the information given to them initially.
Defense counsel also argued that the third degree sexual abuse charge did not satisfy the intent element of the burglary charge. The appellate court again reiterated that the trial judge charged the jury correctly in stating that if they believed that Mr. Reyes intentionally entered the building in order to have sexual contact with a minor then the victim’s actual age is irrelevant. The court also cited New York law, which holds that a person is responsible for the age of any individual with whom they have sexual contact, whether they know the other person’s age or the person represents their age as being different from what it actually is.

A Westchester County Criminal Lawyer explained that in New York, a person is guilty of third degree sexual abuse when he or she has sexual contact with another person without their consent. A sexual abuse victim is legally incapable of consenting if they are less than 17 years of age. A person is guilty of endangering the welfare of a child if he or she knowingly acts in a way that is likely to cause physical, mental or moral harm to someone under 17 years of age. The prosecutor established that the victim was 14 years old at the time of the alleged sexual acts and Mr. Reyes was 32 years old.

With regards to the burglary charge, under New York law someone is guilty of second degree burglary if he or she knowingly enters a building with the intent to commit a crime.

The appellate court held that the trial court was correct in charging the jury that all the prosecution had to prove was that Mr. Reyes entered the building with the intent to have sexual contact with his victim, not that the victim was under 17 or that he knew her actual age. The court likened their reasoning to that used in cases where a defendant is charged with an attempted crime, rather than the completed act. As such, the appellate panel concurred in their opinion to uphold Mr. Reyes’ conviction on all counts.

Although Mr. Reyes’ criminal defense attorney attempted to challenge the court’s ruling, he was unsuccessful in proving his claims. The issues raised by the defense on appeal were contradictory in nature to the objections originally brought at trial, which lead the appellate court to uphold the jury’s verdict.

Hiring an experienced New York criminal defense lawyer is the first step in defending your rights when you have been charged with sex crimes. If you or someone you love has been arrested for rape, sexual abuse, sodomy or other sex acts involving a minor, you shouldn’t hesitate to retain experienced legal counsel immediately. The law firm of Stephen Bilkis and Associates is available to assist criminal defendants in fighting sex crimes charges. Call 1-800-NY-NY-LAW today to speak with a member of our expert legal team or visit one of our New York area offices to discuss your case in person. Don’t face the judge and jury alone. Call Stephen Bilkis and Associates today to get the help you need to protect your rights.

On September 4, 2009, Jelan Miller was convicted of one count each of first degree rape, third degree rape, attempted criminal sexual act in the first degree and attempted criminal sexual act in the third degree. Mr. Miller appealed his conviction to the New York State Supreme Court Appellate, Second Division based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

According to trial records, Mr. Miller was charged with raping a 16-year-old girl who frequently baby sat for him and his girlfriend in their home. The girl claimed that Mr. Miller raped her one evening when she stayed overnight at the residence.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that in reviewing Mr. Miller’s case, the appellate court found that his criminal defense attorney failed to prevent prejudicial evidence from being admitted at trial. Specifically, the girl’s mother testified that two of Mr. Miller’s girlfriend’s nieces were often present in the home and that their personalities and behavior changed seemingly overnight. One girl, she stated, became mean and angry while the other became very promiscuous. These statements had the effect of implying that Mr. Miller had inappropriate sexual contact with the two girls, suggesting to the jury that he had a predisposition for committing sexual acts with minors. Mr. Miller’s attorney objected to the statements on the grounds that they were hearsay but never raised any objection regarding their prejudicial nature. The defense also never requested the judge to instruct the jury to consider the information within a limited scope.

A New York Criminal Lawyer stated that Mr. Miller’s girlfriend stated on cross-examination that her daughter had dreamt that he was sexually abusing her. The prosecutor asked her if she believed that it was a coincidence that her daughter had had such a dream and that another girl was now accusing Mr. Miller of rape. Defense counsel again objected but said nothing about the testimony being prejudicial. This objection was overruled and the testimony was allowed. The statements offered by Mr. Miller’s girlfriend implied to the jury that he had potentially raped her daughter and that he had a prior history of sex crimes involving young children. Defense counsel again failed to file a request for a limiting instruction to the jury regarding the girlfriend’s statements.

The appellate court found that there could be no legitimate reason or trial strategy which would excuse or explain defense counsel’s failure to object to the prejudicial testimony. Furthermore, the court held that the admission of the testimony deprived Mr. Miller of his right to a fair trial since the statements admitted into evidence may have caused the jury to believe that he had a previous history of inappropriate sexual contact with young children, which may have caused them to unfairly evaluate the evidence in the case at hand. As such, the appellate court opted to reverse Mr. Miller’s conviction and remand the case for a new trial.

As evidenced by this case, choosing the right criminal defense attorney can make all the difference when attempting to prove your innocence in the face of sex crimes charges, theft allegations or drug possession charges. Mr. Miller’s defense counsel effectively circumvented his own case by not objecting to testimony which case his client as a sexual predator.

If you or a loved one has been charged with sexual abuse, rape or other inappropriate sex crimes involving minors, you need to contact an experienced attorney right away. The law firm of Stephen Bilkis and Associates is committed to aggressively defending the rights of individuals charged with sex offenses. Call 1-800-NY-NY-LAW today to speak with a member of our criminal defense team. You may also visit one of our many New York area offices to discuss your case in person. Don’t let a conviction for a sexual offense ruin your life. Call Stephen Bilkis and Associates today to get the professional legal representation you need to prove your innocence.

Francis McCann was charged with one count each of first degree sodomy, first degree robbery, first degree sexual abuse and two counts of criminal weapon possession in the fourth degree. The crimes allegedly occurred on June 13, 1976 but Mr. McCann was not indicted until January 24, 1980.

A New York Sex Crime Lawyer explained that Mr. McCann’s criminal trial for the robbery and sex crimes charges began in September 1980. The proceeding ended in a mistrial due to a hung jury. The primary piece of evidence presented by the prosecution was the victim’s identification of Mr. McCann.

At the second trial, Mr. McCann hired a new criminal defense lawyer. His attorney filed a request with the prosecution to produce certain evidence based on a police reported prepared by Detective Stanley E. Carpenter, who worked in the Queens Sex Crimes Unit at the time. According to the detective’s report, the person who committed the robbery and sex offenses cut his hand during a struggle. The report stated that there were blood stains around the area where the attack occurred as well as on the victim’s pants.

A New York Sex Crime Lawyer said that based on this report, defense counsel sought out the police lab report for the blood samples taken at the scene and from the victim’s pants. The District Attorney’s Office later notified Mr. McCann’s attorney that they could not locate the lab report, blood samples or the victim’s pants. Following this admission, defense counsel moved for a dismissal of the indictment on the grounds that Mr. McCann’s rights had been violated with regard to due process. It was his contention that the evidence would prove his client’s innocence. The prosecution argued that there was no explicit duty to preserve evidence that might exclude a potential suspect if there was no suspect or perpetrator identified at the time.

A hearing was held in the Queens County Supreme Court, Criminal Term to determine the merit of the motion. The prosecution was asked to explain how the evidence was lost and the defense also had an opportunity to prevent expert testimony regarding the value of the evidence had it not been misplaced. Dr. Robert Charles Shaler of the New York City Chief Medical Examiner’s Office testified for the defense. The prosecution called the detective who prepared the report and a representative from the District Attorney’s Office.

A Nassau County Criminal Lawyer said that based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Supreme Court determined that the detective who prepared the report had intentionally discarded the blood samples taken from the walls and ground where the attack occurred. The detective also stated that he had allowed the victim to wear her bloodstained pants home and never made any effort to retrieve them. The District Attorney’s Office assigned two other detectives to obtain the slacks but no serious effort was effort made to do so.

Dr. Shaler testified that if a blood sample were properly preserved, its age would have no impact on one’s ability to determine who it came from. Specifically, the blood on the victim’s pants would have been usable for testing, even after the passage of six years between the attack and trial.

The Supreme Court held that the detective’s failure to preserve the evidence collected at the scene violated Mr. McCann’s rights to due process, regardless of the fact that he had not actually been named as a suspect yet. A Queens Criminal Lawyer said that the court called the police negligent and irresponsible in their actions regarding the disposal of crime scene evidence and their blatant failure to retrieve the victim’s pants. The court also argued that based on Dr. Shaler’s testimony, the blood evidence was material to establishing guilt or innocence.

After determining the value of the discarded evidence, the court also had to decide whether the prosecution should be sanctioned for the police’s failure to preserve the blood samples. The court found that the prosecution’s arguments had no grounding and that the lack of suspect was irrelevant when determining whether or not to preserve evidence. Both the prosecution and the police impeded Mr. McCann in his ability to establish an alibi or to prove his innocence based on the physical evidence.

As such, the court found that the prosecution should be sanctioned for the police’s failure to preserve evidence that was elemental to establishing Mr. McCann’s guilt or innocence. The court deemed the only appropriate sanction would be to dismiss the charges and accordingly, granted defense counsel’s motion.

While the police and prosecution committed serious errors in this case, Mr. McCann still required the assistance of an experienced attorney in protecting his rights. Had he been convicted of robbery, sodomy or the sexual abuse charges, he may have faced a lengthy prison term.

If you’ve been charged with sexual abuse, sodomy or another serious sex offense, the law firm of Stephen Bilkis and Associates is available to help with your defense. Call 1-800-NY-NY-LAW to speak with a member of our sex crimes criminal defense team. You can also stop by any of our New York area office locations to speak with one of our attorneys in person. Don’t face the judge and jury alone. Contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates today to get the expert criminal defense you need to protect your rights.

On May 24, 2011, a Kings County, New York man was arrested during the execution of a search warrant. According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, the search warrant was the result of an undercover investigation that covered more than four months. On 13 separate occasions, undercover police officer’s observed the man in possession of heroin and in possession of cocaine. They also observed him sell heroin and cocaine on these occasions.

The case was referred to the Brooklyn Treatment Court on August 16, 2011. The man had requested to be considered for Judicial Diversion of his case. Judicial Diversion is a program that was designed for certain felony offenders spelled out in Criminal Procedure Law Article 216. It grants the judges authority to decide which nonviolent offenders have committed their offenses as a result of substance abuse or dependence. They are then given the opportunity to avoid a jail sentence by contracting with the state to complete a court monitored treatment program.

Criminal Procedure Law Article 216 defines the eligible offenders for Judicial Diversion as those “charged with certain Class B, C, D, and E felony drug offenses, or those charged with specified nonviolent offenses listed in CPL § 410.91(4), so long as they do not have a disqualifying condition listed in CPL § 216.00(1).” The District Attorney then decides who among these offenders is eligible. There are to be no violent or Class A felony offenders allowed into the program. The statute does not speak to the inclusion of misdemeanor crimes which are lessor included offenses to the felony charges that an offender has committed.

In this case, the subject was charged with several Class B,C, D and E felonies. He was also charged with several lessor included misdemeanors. The court evaluated this situation and determined the following. They decided that since the statute does not specifically reject the concept that misdemeanor crimes can be committed as the result of an addiction that the addition of a misdemeanor offense does not automatically disqualify an offender from being in the program. In this situation, since the offender was not guilty of any prior violent offenses, he does qualify under the letter of the law.

The Judge, however, determined that he is not a good candidate for the program. The determination was made in part, because the judge felt that the crimes in which he was charged were not appropriate to the essence of the program. The offender in this situation was selling drugs in concert with another party. The court ruled that these are not the acts of a dependent drug user, but rather a businessman making a sale.

Issues of law are constantly changing. A person who is not specifically trained in the law cannot begin to know what all of their rights are without the assistance of a professional. Whether you have been charged a gun crime, forgery or a drug crime, we provide skilled legal counsel. Our lawyers will stand by you and ensure that your rights are protected. Our legal counsel can argue your side and make sure that you and your loved ones are considered. We make sure that you are defended to protect your rights.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates has convenient offices throughout the New York Metropolitan area including other areas of New York.

A 44-year old man was convicted, following a jury trial, of various crimes stemming from a shootout during which two innocent bystanders were injured. The defendant thereafter was sentenced as a second felony offender to an aggregate term of 30 years in prison with five years of post-release supervision. The defendant appealed his conviction.

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer explained that prior to trial, evidence was introduced showing that the defendant has been convicted with drug crimes, based on guilty pleas, and the other man involved in the shoot-out has been convicted with crack cocaine possession, with the intent to sell. Following the shootout, the other man involved in the shootout was again found in possession of crack cocaine, leading to several drug-related crimes.

The prosecution argued that the prior conviction was probative of the defendant's intent to act in concert with the other man to constructively possess and sell the cocaine; the State also sought to introduce evidence of the defendant's alleged gang affiliation and other prior drug dealing and gun possession charges as additional evidence of intent and motive.

A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said that the appellate court, after review of the record, found that the trial court balanced the prejudice to defendant against the probative value of the proffered evidence, and ultimately permitted the introduction of the prior drug-related conviction as relevant to the prosecution's theory of the case that defendant and the other man involved in the shootout were accomplices in the newly charged drug-related crimes, but denied the prosecution's request to introduce evidence of gang affiliation and the other prior charges.

The defendant also argued that the jury's finding that he possessed and fired a weapon was against the weight of the evidence because none of the prosecution's witnesses testified to actually seeing him hold and fire a weapon during the shootout. The appellate court disagreed, based on the strong circumstantial evidence supporting the jury's findings. Testimony from witnesses established that the defendant was in possession of a handgun the day prior to the incident, and that the defendant and the other man involved in the crime had each armed themselves with handguns shortly before the shooting.

The appellate court also rejected the defendant's remaining contentions, mentioned a Nassau County Criminal Lawyer, finding that he was not prejudiced by the prosecutor's reference during summation to defendant in the context of the other man's statement to police. The prosecutor, according to the appellate court, properly referred only to the other man's redacted statement, and his use of the statement to draw inferences about defendant's participation in the crime by linking it to other trial evidence was permissible. Nor did the appellate court find any basis to justify a reduction in the defendant's sentence, which was within the statutory guidelines under relevant penal laws, given the brazen nature of defendant's crimes and his lengthy criminal history. Accordingly, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's conviction.

A Queens Criminal Lawyer mentioned that drug addiction is a rampant problem in society and affects everyone. Suffering personal injuries and being involved in a lawsuit arising from such is difficult. There are skilled attorneys will stand by you and help see you through your case. These attorneys can argue your side and make sure that you and your loved ones are compensated.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates has offices throughout the New York Metropolitan area. Our attorneys can provide you with advice to guide you through your difficult situations.

A husband was convicted after a jury trial, of attempted murder, assault in the first degree and assault in the second degree. His terms were to run concurrently.

The husband repeatedly stabbed his wife, causing her serious and permanent injuries, and forced her seven year old step-daughter to fall out of a window. A New York DWI Lawyer explained that the principal question is whether the husband was entitled to the requested charge of reckless criminal assault, as a lesser included offense of intentional assault. The husband contends that the court should have granted his request, arguing that it was inherently inconsistent for the court to charge intoxication but not the lesser included offense of reckless assault arising out of that intoxication.

To establish entitlement to a lesser included offense charge, the defendant must show that the additional offense he seeks to have charged is a lesser included offense, an offense of a lesser degree. He must also show that it is theoretically impossible to commit the greater crime without also committing the lesser one and there is a reasonable view of the evidence that would support a finding that he committed the lesser offense but not the greater. A New York Criminal Lawyer contends that with the circumstances presented, it was impossible to commit intentional assault without also committing reckless assault. While the evidence of intoxication may be considered as negating the element of intent, there was insufficient evidence of intoxication for a reasonable person to entertain a doubt as to the husband’s. Thus, as the court argued in opposing the husband's request for a charge on intoxication, no reasonable view of the evidence show that he was intoxicated. The issue of his intoxication should not have been submitted to the jury, and the court's failure to charge reckless assault under the theory he was intoxicated was not an error and does not warrant reversal.

A social worker who had interviewed the wife at the hospital ten days after the stabbing noted in her report that she had described her husband’s condition at the time of the attack as a drunken, jealous rage. According to a Nassau County DWI Lawyer, he husband sought to introduce the wife’s characterization as a prior inconsistent statement to impeach her testimony that he was not intoxicated at the time of the attack and that she did not recall stating that he was in a drunken, jealous rage. Over the defense counsel's objection, the court admitted in evidence the entire report of the interview--in which the wife had expressed her feelings about the attack--not merely the one statement her husband sought to have admitted. The court instructed the jury that the social worker's statement is received in evidence not for its truth, but to show the statement was made.

In charging intoxication the court contrasted the testimony of the social worker that the wife had told her that her husband had stabbed her in a drunken, jealous rage with her in-court testimony that she did not recall whether or not she had made such a statement. The social worker's testimony, however, did not furnish direct evidence of intoxication, since the defense counsel sought to introduce the testimony solely as a prior inconsistent statement to impeach the wife and since the court clearly admitted it for that limited purpose. The defendant's brother testified that he observed the defendant drinking six or seven hours before the crimes. However, drinking the night before the incident is not a sufficient basis for an intoxication charge, especially since the brother of the defendant merely stated his brother was drinking; he did not state that the defendant exhibited any signs of intoxication. The trial court did not refer to the brother’s testimony in its intoxication charge.

The only evidence regarding the defendant's condition at the time of the incident was the wife’s testimony that her husband was not intoxicated or under the influence of drugs. Moreover, she testified that at the time of the stabbing her husband told her she is going to die. The stepdaughter testified that when her father caught up with her on the stairwell, he told her that if she did not jump out of the window he would stab her and that he pulled her hands from the window's safety bars, causing her to fall to the ledge on the second floor. It showed that the defendant was acting, not recklessly, but with the intent to cause, at a minimum, serious physical injury.

When a family member is the one who caused you harm, you might be blinded by the intention of protecting that person over your own right to justice. At Stephen Bilkis and Associates, our legal team will make sure that committing justice in your favor is their top priority.

Ronald Pawley was indicted on September 19, 1978 for two counts of first degree sodomy, two counts of third degree sodomy and four counts of endangering the welfare of a child. The Monroe County Court dismissed all of the charges with the exception of two counts of endangering the welfare of a child. The prosecutor subsequently appealed the court’s decision.
The Supreme Court Appellate Division, Fourth Department was charged with determining whether the prosecution’s motion had any merit. Specifically, the court looked at the legal requirements pertaining to corroboration in cases involving sex crimes.

Under Section 130.16 of the New York Penal Law code, no person can be convicted of consensual sodomy or any other sex crime which includes lack of consent as an element if the victim cannot consent because of age, mental capacity or mental defect if there is no other corroborating evidence. The requirement for corroboration of a victim’s testimony does not apply in cases involving sex offenses, excluding cases involving consensual sodomy and sex offenses where lack of consent is presumed due to age or mental state.

The court was asked to consider whether a grand jury indictment that was based on uncorroborated evidence for one or more of the charged crimes could be sustained. In Mr. Pawley’s case, the only evidence presented to suggest he had engaged in unlawful sexual contact was the testimony of the victims, two 15-year-old boys.

According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, the appellate division held that corroborated evidence at the grand jury stage is a requirement for an indictment for any crime included under Section 130.16. Specifically, the appellate court found that the trial court acted correctly in dismissing the two counts of third degree sodomy.

In regards to the first two counts of the indictment, sodomy in the first degree, the appellate court held that the trial court acted in error in dismissing these charges. Under New York law, first degree sodomy is defined as unlawfully engaging in sexual contact with someone who is incapable of consenting by reason of physical helplessness. The court held that the testimony the victims presented to the grand jury was sufficient to support the charges. Specifically, the court noted that in order to dismiss a charge based on insufficient evidence, the evidence presented must not support the crime or any lesser included offense. In Mr. Pawley’s case, third degree sexual abuse was a lesser included offense of first degree sodomy and the evidence presented to the grand jury did support the sexual abuse charge.

Under New York Penal law, someone is guilty of third degree sexual abuse when he or she engages in sexual contact with another person without their consent. In Mr. Pawley’s case, the evidence suggested that he had offered drugs and alcohol to the 15-year-old victims, presumably in an effort to weaken their defenses and make them less likely to resist his sexual advances.

The appellate division also held that the first two counts of endangering the welfare of a child were improperly dismissed. The court again pointed to Mr. Pawley’s actions in providing drugs and alcohol to the victims so that he could engage in unlawful sexual contact with them. Accordingly, the court unanimously voted to reinstate the first, second, fifth and sixth counts of the indictment, according to a Bronx Criminal Lawyer.

While Mr. Pawley’s New York criminal defense lawyer presented an interesting argument, ultimately the court was not persuaded to deny the prosecution’s motion. If you or someone you love has been charged with sodomy, sexual abuse, sexual assault or another sex offense, you need to contact an experienced defense attorney right away.

The law firm of Stephen Bilkis and Associates offers expert legal defense to individuals facing charges for sex crimes in the New York area. Help is available by calling 1-800-NY-NY-LAW or by visiting one of our multiple office locations.

Our team of experienced criminal defense attorneys is committed to aggressively defending your rights to produce the best outcome possible. Don’t let a conviction for a sex crime ruin your life. Contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates today to get the professional legal help you need to mount the strongest defense possible against a sex offense charge.

David Felix was charged with robbery in the second degree as an armed and violent Class C felony, according to a New York Criminal Lawyer. He pled guilty to a Class D violent felony offense in exchange for a prison sentence of one to three years. At that time, the court agreed to consider an application for a less sentence based on mitigating circumstances. The court later found that there was insufficient mitigating evidence to support a shorter term than he had already received. Mr. Felix then challenged the court’s decision, alleging a violation of his due process rights. The court rejected his claim. At the sentencing hearing, Mr. Felix’s criminal defense attorney filed another application for a shorter sentence, which was also denied.

The case was then referred to the Supreme Court Appellate Division to address Mr. Felix’s constitutional claim. After reviewing New York Penal Law, the court determined that the prison term he received was appropriate and that the lower acted within the boundaries of its discretion in handing down the sentence. Accordingly, his plea arrangement and sentence were affirmed.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Lupiano noted that the statute in question, Penal Law Section 70.02., was in fact constitutional. Furthermore, the judge noted that in pleading guilty to the second degree attempted robbery charge, Mr. Felix was fully aware of the sentencing restrictions imposed by law.

The judge went on to cite a Colorado case, Specht v. Patterson, in which a defendant was convicted for indecent liberties with a minor. Instead of being sentenced under the statutory guidelines, Mr. Specht was sentenced under the Colorado Sex Offenders Act, which allows an indeterminate sentence ranging from one day to life in prison. In that case, the use of the Sex Offenders Act entailed the creation of a new charge which would have required Mr. Specht’s due process rights to be observed.

In Mr. Felix’s case, a new charge was not the issue, commented a New York Criminal Lawyer. The question centered on the plea bargain arrangement and the statutory sentencing guidelines that govern it. Under Statute 70.02, the sentencing court was permitted to impose the same sentence on an individual who pleads guilty to a class D violent felony as it would for someone who was convicted by a jury of the same offense. Accordingly, Justice Lupiano concluded that Mr. Felix’s conviction for second degree robbery and his sentence should be affirmed.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Sullivan held that the sentencing court made no attempt to justify the sentence it imposed and that the sentence was outside the scope of its discretion. The judge found that in sentencing Mr. Felix, the court did not take into account mitigating circumstances surrounding his background and lifestyle since committing the crimes. The judge also argued that Penal Law Section 70.02 was unconstitutional because it allowed defendants to be sentenced to an enhanced punishment for an unproven charge without requiring the prosecution to show evidence of the crimes. This effectively equates to a violation of a defendant’s due process rights. Accordingly, Justice Sullivan held that Mr. Felix’s sentence should be reversed and the case remanded for a new sentencing hearing.

While the majority determined that Mr. Felix’s sentence should be upheld, his New York criminal defense attorney was able to persuade at least one member of the appellate panel that the sentencing was unfairly imposed. Mr. Felix was fortunate to have such a dedicated legal advocate fighting for his rights.

Hiring an experienced criminal defense lawyer should be your top priority if you or a loved one has been charged with robbery, sex crimes or other serious offenses. The law office of Stephen Bilkis and Associates specializes in providing legal representation for criminal defendants involved in robbery and sex offense cases in the New York area. Help is available by calling 1-800-NY-NY-LAW or by visiting one of the firm’s numerous office locations. A conviction for robbery, burglary, sex crime or drug possession can have life-altering consequences. Contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates today to get the assistance you need to navigate the complexities of the new York legal system.

Brian Thomas was charged with two counts of first degree rape, two counts of first degree sodomy, two counts of first degree sexual abuse and one count of second degree burglary. Specifically, Mr. Thomas was accused of unlawfully entering a dwelling with the intent to commit rape and sodomy and subsequently compelling a female victim to engage in sexual intercourse by force. On April 21, 1988, Mr. Thomas plead guilty to one count of attempted rape in the first degree and received a sentence of 7 ½ to 15 years.

The prosecution filed a motion with the Schoharie County Court to obtain a sample of Mr. Thomas’s blood in order to test it for the AIDS virus. Mr. Thomas’ criminal defense attorney opposed the motion on the grounds that it effectively constituted an unlawful search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

On August 14, 1978, Mr. Thomas was convicted in Nassau County Court of first degree attempted rape. He received a maximum sentence of ten years and was released on April 7, 1987.

In the current case, evidence was presented to the Grand Jury which established that Mr. Thomas had repeated sexual contact with the victim and exposed her to his bodily fluids. The victim was subsequently concerned about the possibility that she may have been exposed to the AIDS virus following the forcible rape and sodomy committed by Mr. Thomas.

Section 240.40 of New York Criminal Procedure allows that the court may order a defendant to provide non-testimonial evidence when an indictment is pending, including the taking samples of blood, hair or other bodily fluids or tissue in such a manner that does not involve substantial intrusion or serious risk of physical injury.

The Schoharie County Court noted that the AIDS virus is spread through the transfer of bodily fluids and that a blood analysis can determine whether someone is infected with the virus or not. The court also noted that the instance of AIDS was higher among the state prison population versus the general population.

Under the Fourth Amendment, individuals are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures. However, in Mr. Thomas’ case, the court held that the prosecution’s request for a blood sample was reasonable and allowable within the framework of constitutional law.

On April 18, 1988, the U.S. Senate approved mandatory AIDS testing for individuals convicted of drug and sex crimes. The measure allowed for results to be confidential but for records to be closed to prison wardens and/or the victims of sex crimes, including rape, sodomy and sexual abuse.

Based on the Senate’s decision, the court argued that the victim had a right to know whether Mr. Thomas may have exposed her to the AIDS virus through unlawful sexual contact. Furthermore, the intrusion to Mr. Thomas in collecting a blood sample was viewed as minimal compared to the mental trauma and anxiety suffered by the victim.
The court also noted that if Mr. Thomas tested positive for the AIDS virus, he could be charged with a count of depraved indifference murder.

Subsequently, the court granted the prosecution’s motion to obtain a blood sample from Mr. Thomas and noted that the results should be disclosed to the victim and the New York State Department of Correctional Services, if he tested positive.

Mr. Thomas’ criminal defense attorney acted correctly in objecting to the prosecution’s request in an attempt to protect his client’s rights. While his efforts were ultimately unsuccessful, he made every effort to act as an advocate for Mr. Thomas.

If you or someone you love has been charged with sexual abuse, a gun crime , or a theft crime you will need the help of skilled legal counsel. The law firm of Stephen Bilkis and Associates specializes in assisting individuals who are facing trial. We are committed to aggressively defending your rights and working hard to prove your innocence.

Call 1-800-NY-NY-LAW to speak with one of our criminal defense experts or visit one of our New York area offices to discuss your case in person. Don’t let a conviction for a sex crime ruin your life. Contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates today to get the legal representation you need to fight sexual offense charges.

In September 2000, Darrin Higgens was accused of sexually abusing his 16-year-old daughter and having sex with one of her 15-year-old friends. Police arrested Mr. Higgens and after reading him his Miranda rights, he signed a written statement attesting to the fact that he may have had sex with his daughter while drunk. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer reported that he was subsequently charged with 120 separate crimes, including multiple first degree sodomy charges, first degree rape charges and endangering the welfare of a child.

At the conclusion of Mr. Higgens’ trial, 88 of the 120 counts were submitted to the jury. He was convicted of two counts of third degree rape, incest, seven counts of endangering the welfare of a child and two counts of third degree sodomy. His criminal defense attorney filed a motion to set aside the verdict, which was denied. Mr. Higgens was sentenced to an aggregate term of 5 1/3 to 16 years. He subsequently appealed his conviction to the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division.

Mr. Higgens’ defense attorney argued that he was denied the right to confront his accuser and that counseling records indicated that the victim was disruptive and troubled. The defense also claimed that at the time the victim testified, she was taking medication which would lead her to appear more credible. The trial court refused to admit these records into evidence, arguing that the victim’s mental status was not at issue. The appellate court agreed with this decision.

A Queens Sex Crimes Lawyer explained that the court held that the testimony allowed at trial was sufficient to prove that the victim failed to report the abuse on prior occasions when she was receiving counseling. The trial court allowed the social workers who spoke with the girl to testify that they treated her, Mr. Higgens and the girl’s mother. Defense counsel took issue with the fact that the social workers never reported any crimes or suspected abuse. The appellate court held that the trial court did not err in preventing Mr. Higgens from confronting his accuser.

The appellate court also rejected Mr. Higgens’ claim that the trial court erroneously admitted evidence of prior crimes for which he was never charged involving his daughter and her friend as well as testimony concerning a history of suicide in Mr. Higgens’ family. Defense counsel claimed that the evidence essentially implied that Mr. Higgens was an out-of-control, manipulative individual who used drugs to commit inappropriate sex crimes against his own daughter and another minor. The appellate court argued that the evidence presented concerning eight prior uncharged sex crimes involving the victim and her underage friend was admissible as it was relevant to establishing the element of forcible compulsion and to shed light on the relationship between Mr. Higgens and his daughter. The evidence relating to a history of suicide in the family was also held to be relevant to the element of forcible compulsion since the victim testified that she complied with Mr. Higgens’ requests because he had threatened suicide if she did not. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in allowing this evidence to be introduced.

Finally, the appellate court also rejected Mr. Higgens’ claim that the trial court committed an error in allow the prosecution’s expert to testify as a rebuttal witness regarding child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome. The expert offered only general testimony about the syndrome and did not attempt to offer any proof or speculation that the charged crimes had occurred. Again, the appellate court found that no error was committed on the part of the trial court in allowing the testimony. According to a Nassau County Sex Crimes Lawyer, the court chose to affirm Mr. Higgens’ original conviction.

While Mr. Higgens’ appeal was ultimately unsuccessful, his attorney did offer some interesting arguments to the court regarding his case. Rape, sexual abuse and sodomy are all serious crimes and no one should attempt to stand trial for these charges without the aid of skilled legal counsel.

If you or someone you love has been charged with a sex offense in the New York area, you need to contact the law firm of Stephen Bilkis and Associates today. Our team of criminal defense attorneys is committed to aggressively defending individuals who are on trial for sex crimes and inappropriate sexual acts involving minors. Call 1-800-NY-NY-LAW today to speak with a member of our staff or visit one of our New York area offices to discuss your case in person. Don’t let a sex offense conviction ruin your life. Call Stephen Bilkis and Associates now to get the experienced legal representation you need to protect your rights.

On November 7, 1974, the Supreme Court of Monroe County, New York was called upon to hear the appeal of a drug possession conviction. According to a Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer, New York man was convicted after a jury trial of “Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance in the First Degree based on a $5000.00 sale of cocaine, Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Fifth Degree, and Criminally Using Drug Paraphernalia in the Second Degree.” The appeal of the offender’s cocaine possession and sale case was based on the contention by the offender that the state’s statute was written in violation of the United States Constitution.

According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, the offender claims that the punishment imposed on Class A drug felons is cruel and unusual in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The defendant argued that the sentences for drug offenses in New York are disproportionate to the offenses themselves. He sites in his behalf that other jurisdictions have lowered their mandated sentences when they were determined to be disproportionate. He contends that New York’s failure to do so makes them in violation of the United States Constitution.

Secondly, the defendant claims that the legislation is an arbitrary classification which denies equal protection of the laws because New York’s Class A drug offenses are punished more severely than Class A drug offenses in other jurisdictions.

The court finds that the severity of punishment for Class A drug felonies is fair and equitable in that to their minds, Class A drug felonies “represent a most serious and constant threat to our society.” They go on to cite that drug trafficking and its consequences are one of the foremost problems in the minds of all citizens. The contention that other more serious and violent crimes are dealt with less severely than Class A drug felonies is an argument that begs question before the Court. The court considers street level drug deals to be but one phase in a larger scale of criminal activity.

They contend that the nature of drug possession and trafficking is that it does not stop with the street sale of a drug but continues as new persons become addicted. The addicts then commit other crimes and victimize other people to supply their habits. The justices point out that there was substantial support prior to the current legislation to make the sale of any narcotics, hallucinogenics or amphetamines a life sentence without parole.

The conviction is upheld and the defendant’s motion is denied in its entirety.

Issues of law are constantly changing. A person who is not specifically trained in the law cannot begin to know what all of their rights are without the assistance of a professional. Here at Steven Bilkis and Associates, we provide skilled legal counsel who can help. Whether you have been charged with a drug crime, sex crimes, or a theft offense, we will ensure that your rights are protected. Criminal law Attorneys can argue your side and make sure that you and your loved ones are considered. We make sure that you are defended to protect your rights.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates has convenient offices throughout the New York Metropolitan area including other areas of New York. We can provide you with advice to guide you through difficult situations. You and your loved ones will need advice following such a frightening experience. Let us help you to recover from the devastation that has befallen your family. If you are ever arrested for a drug related crime, we are here to help.

On April 20, 2007, an undercover police officer in a bar in Westhampton Beach in Suffolk County observed a suspect hand a knotted clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance to another person and in return he was given cash money. They then separated and left the bar. Since the officer had witnessed the sale of the suspected narcotic, he had other officers stop the truck of the buyer and they recovered the drugs which proved under testing to be cocaine. The buyer was arrested for cocaine possession, according to a New York Drug Crime Lawyer.

The buyer then agreed to testify against the seller. Around two hours later, the seller was arrested. At the time of his arrest, he was not in possession of cocaine or any other drugs. The seller was arrested and charged with criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. In return for his testimony against the seller, the buyer’s criminal charges were dismissed.

Prior to court, the prosecutor asked the judge if he could get permission to ask the buyer on the stand in court if he had purchased drugs from that seller in the past. He argued that since he had been a regular customer of the seller that it would clear up any questions as to the “absence of mistake.” In other words, it would ensure that the defense could not say that the buyer was mistaken about the identity of the person who had sold him the drugs, explained a Queens Drug Possession Lawyer. If the buyer knew the seller, there is no “absence of mistake.” The defense counsel opposed the motion. He claimed that the seller was not going to claim that the buyer had made a mistake about naming him, but that the buyer was simply lying and that he had never sold the man drugs in the first place.

A New York Criminal Lawyer explained that the judge originally told the prosecutor that he would not be allowed to ask the buyer any questions about previous sales. However, he told both lawyers that it was possible that additional testimony could change that ruling. In court the following date, the defense attorney questioned the buyer about his knowledge of the severity of the charges. The prosecutor again made the motion to bring in the prior sales stating that the defense attorney had opened the door to that line of questioning. Consequently, the buyer admitted to purchasing drugs from the seller on at least ten prior occasions.

The court found him guilty and he appealed. On appeal the Supreme Court reversed the decision on a matter of law since the prior transaction testimony served no purpose and was prejudicial. A new trial was ordered.

A Nassau County Drug Possession Lawyer can explain that issues of law are constantly changing. A person who is not specifically trained in the law cannot begin to know what all of their rights are without the assistance of a professional. Here at Steven Bilkis and Associates, we have a complete legal team to serve you. Our legal counsel will stand by you and ensure that your rights are protected. Our legal team can argue your side and make sure that you and your loved ones are considered. We make sure that you are defended to protect your rights.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates with its Criminal law Lawyers has convenient offices throughout the New York Metropolitan area including other areas of New York. Our Drug Crime Attorneys can provide you with advice to guide you through difficult situations. Without skilled counsel you could lose precious compensation to help with your defense. You and your loved ones will need advice following such a frightening experience. This is true even if the attorney for the other side has not adequately made their case. Let us help you to recover from the devastation that has befallen your family. If you are ever arrested for a drug related crime, we are here to help.

Rape cases are very sensitive and contain intricate in details. It requires a lot of evidence and consistency in the chain of events involved in the case. This goes the same for this case against Santos Quinto who was accused of raping a 19 year old who eventually got pregnant. The victim said that she first had sex with her full consent with her high school classmate in November 8, 2002. But after five years, when she was 19 years old already, she filed another police report that her step grandfather who is the accused mentioned was the one who raped her.

She explained to a New York Criminal Lawyer that it happened three times way back in 2002 but the problem arises with her decision to have not reported it when the crime was still fresh then. Even if this delay was questioned, such extension is still permitted in some circumstances especially for some sex crimes that are made to innocent children. A medical report that the victim went through revealed that she was pregnant.

According to the police and Suffolk County Criminal Lawyer who questioned her, her first statement stated that she had sex with her classmate and that she just said she was raped because she was afraid that her parents might get angry. At that time, the case came to a close. But by 2007, when she turned 19, she reported that it was her stepgrandfather who raped her for three consecutive times on different dates within the year of 2002. She recalled the story that it happened when she used to live with her grandma and cousins. She was abused three times inside of their own home.

She also confessed that she told her grandmother but she refused to believe her. She did not say anything about the incident when she learned that she was pregnant because the old man threatened her. In such cases of sex crimes extension of time frame is allowed considering that the child is not yet on the mature state of mind if she is younger than 18. Hence, the court can wait up until five years which is applicable with this particular case.

It can be really sad that sex crimes of today revolve around incest. It is devastating to find out that the more responsible family members are the ones who actually abuse the little ones in the family. So the court fully understands how threatened such victims are especially when their abusers are coming from their own familial relations. And if the consensual sex between her and the classmate was really true, it still cannot be deemed as a criminal offense under the Penal Law. One thing is true with this case report. It is important that the one accused should be punished accordingly.

It is not good news to hear that there are families who suffer from such troubles. But in case your very own is going through the same ordeal or you know someone else’s family who does, then do not hesitate to seek the complete assistance of Stephen Bilkis & Associates. You can be assured that your rights will be protected and your case will receive the attention it deserves.

James Taylor was 21 when he broke into a New Rochelle home on May 2, 1975. Assisted by three other men, Taylor entered the home of a suspected drug dealer with the intention of stealing money from the residents. Asleep in the home were the alleged drug dealer’s wife and three daughters, who were aged two, five and seven. According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, the four men, who were armed and wearing masks, demanded money from the wife and threatened to kill the children when she stated she had none. After she repeated her claim that there was no money to steal, the men threatened to kidnap the youngest daughter and hold her for ransom.

One of the men took the girls’ mother into a bathroom just off the master bedroom and closed the door. While holding a gun to her head he told her he would kill her if she didn’t reveal where they hid their money. She was then tied, bound and locked in a closet. When she escaped, the men were gone, along with her two-year-old daughter. She called police, who arrived on the scene. An officer noticed a blue Datsun in the area, which was occupied by Taylor, another man and a little girl. Police attempted to stop the vehicle, which lead to a high-speed chase. Finally, the car collided with a light pole, allowing police to rescue the child and apprehend Mr. Taylor and the other man.

At a non-jury trial, Mr. Taylor was convicted of first degree kidnapping, first degree robbery, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and first degree burglary. He was sentenced to 20 years to life. In November 1995, Mr. Taylor was paroled and as a condition of his release, required to register as a Level Three sex offender. At a redetermination hearing held in 2005, a Westchester County Court found that the Sex Offender Registration Act was unconstitutional in Mr. Taylor’s case and that he was not subject to its requirements. In April 2007, the court’s decision was reversed on appeal and a new hearing requested. The case was then forwarded to the Westchester County Supreme Court.

On April 22, 2008, Mr. Taylor was served with a new risk assessment document by the prosecution. In May 2008, Mr. Taylor filed a motion to dismiss the proceeding on the grounds that the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) was unconstitutional and that being forced to register as a sex offender would be a violation of his rights. The court denied the motion in August 2008 and a new classification hearing was held in February 2009. At that time, the prosecution recommended a Level Three classification and Mr. Taylor’s criminal defense attorney again objected on the grounds that he never committed any sexual abuse or other sex crimes.
In considering his argument, the courted noted that in People v. Knox, the Court of Appeals found that requiring someone to register as a sex offender for committing a crime requiring registration is not a constitutional violation even when there is no evidence to suggest that a sex crime occurred. The Westchester County Supreme Court then considered the risk assessment used to classify sex offenders, which is based on a points system. In Mr. Taylor’s case, he received 30 points based on the victim’s age and 20 points for the fact that he was previously unknown to her. The court noted that 50 points was more than sufficient to classify Mr. Taylor as a Level One sex offender.

The court then determined that 30 points should be assessed because Mr. Taylor and the other robbers were armed at the time the kidnapping occurred. Mr. Taylor’s defense attorney then questioned the mother’s testimony, arguing that it was unclear to her whether his client actually had a gun in his possession. Upon reviewing the grand jury minutes, the court found that this claim was without merit and that the additional 30 points were justified.

Next, the court was asked to consider whether 15 points should be awarded for Mr. Taylor’s prior criminal history. In November 1971, he was adjudicated as a youthful offender after pleading guilty to a non-violent felony. The court held that under state guidelines, juvenile crimes and youthful offender adjudications held equal weight in determining risk. Accordingly, another 15 points was assessed against Mr. Taylor.

The court then had to determine whether 15 points should be added for Mr. Taylor’s prior history of drug and alcohol abuse. In the early 1970s, he attended multiple drug and alcohol treatment programs, including a methadone maintenance program. In 1974, drug treatment was lifted as a condition of his probation. Mr. Taylor claimed that no points should be awarded since he was not using drugs or alcohol at the time the robbery occurred. After considering Mr. Taylor’s prior treatment record and his statements regarding his current lack of drug or alcohol use, the court found that no points were merited in this category.

According to a Westchester County Criminal Lawyer, the prosecution also requested that 10 points should be given based on evidence that Mr. Taylor did not accept full responsibility for his criminal actions. Mr. Taylor challenged this claim, stating that he never denied committing the robbery or kidnapping. He also asserted that he acknowledged his guilt before a judge in March 2005. The court found that the prosecution’s arguments were unmerited and that Mr. Taylor had made sufficient efforts to accept responsibility for his crimes.

Finally, the court had to consider whether 10 points should be added based on Mr. Taylor’s behavior while incarcerated and after his release. The prosecution provided evidence of multiple violations that occurred while he was in prison, including five Tier II violations. Mr. Taylor argued that he never had any Tier III violations and that the infractions that occurred did not involve violence or sexual acts. He also argued that since the Parole Board granted his release at his first parole hearing, this should serve as evidence of a lack of any behavioral problems. The court agreed with Mr. Taylor’s arguments and found no evidence which would merit the awarding of additional points in this category.

In total, Mr. Taylor received 95 points, which would qualify him as a Level Two offender. The prosecution sought to increase this to Level Three while Mr. Taylor sought to reduce it to Level One. Specifically, he argues that he never committed any crime that involved inappropriate sexual contact with a minor and that since his release he has made every attempt to live within the confines of the law. In sum, Mr. Taylor claims that he is no longer a threat to anyone and that a lower classification is appropriate.

After reviewing the claims of both parties, the court held that Mr. Taylor’s classification should be downgraded to a Level One offender. The court based its decision on the facts of the case and on the fact that his behavior since being paroled did not demonstrate any potential risk to society.

Mr. Taylor’s New York legal counsel continued to work diligently on his behalf long after his sentence was complete. Without his help, Mr. Taylor’s classification as a sex offender may not have been downgraded to a more appropriate level.

In cases involving sex offenses, it’s important to have an experienced criminal defense lawyer on your side. The law firm of Stephen Bilkis and Associates is committed to aggressively defending the rights of clients who’ve been charged with rape, sodomy, sexual abuse and other sex offenses.

If you or a loved one has been arrested for a sex crime, you need to call 1-800-NY-NY-LAW to discuss your case. Help is also available by visiting one of our New York area offices. Don’t let a conviction for a sex crime ruin your life. Get the experienced legal representation you need to protect your rights by calling Stephen Bilkis and Associates today.

According to a New York Criminal Lawyer,Jason Garren plead guilty to numerous counts involving possession of child pornography. Specifically, his plea agreement included five counts of possessing a sexual performance by a child and four counts of promoting a sexual performance by a child. The Broome County Court sentenced him to six months in jail and a probationary term of ten years. He was also required to register as a sex offender upon his release.

After leaving jail, Mr. Garren failed to register as required by the Sex Offender Registration Act. He was then charged probation violation for failing to comply with this requirement. Mr. Garren plead guilty to the charge and as such his probation was revoked. He was then sentenced to a prison term of 1 1/3 to 4 years for each count of the original indictment, with the sentences ordered to run concurrently.

Mr. Garren appealed the conviction but his criminal defense attorney made an application to withdraw from the case. Specifically, he argued that no new issues existed to be raised on appeal. The appellate court, however, disagreed and found that Mr. Garren’s arguments had merit on at least one point in regard to the severity of the sentence he received. The appellate court granted the defense attorney’s request to withdraw and required new counsel to be assigned to the case.

Despite the fact that Mr. Garren’s New York Criminal Lawyer chose to withdraw from the case, the appellate court found some legal basis for his claims. Hopefully, his new defense counsel will work aggressively on his behalf to defend his rights.

If you or someone you love has been charged with possession of child pornography or other inappropriate sex offenses, finding the right criminal defense attorney should be your top priority. The law firm of Stephen Bilkis and Associates specializes in representing criminal defendants in the New York area who are facing sex crime charges. Their experienced criminal defense team is available by phone at 1-800-NY-NY-LAW or in person at one of the firm’s numerous New York area offices. Don’t hesitate to contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates today to get the legal representation you need to get the best resolution possible in your case.

Brian Fielding was charged with and convicted of multiple counts of sodomy, sexual abuse and endangering the welfare of a child. His criminal defense attorney challenged his conviction with the New York Court of Appeals, on the grounds that the testimony of his victims was insufficient to prove his guilt in connection with the sex crimes.
Specifically, Mr. Fielding argued that the testimony did not meet the corroboration requirement as set forth under New York law. Section 60.22 of the CPL and Section 130.16 of the Penal Law preclude a conviction for sex crimes based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice or victim.

The court of appeals noted that the corroboration requirement for consensual sodomy is the same as that needed for accomplice testimony. The court held that since Mr. Fielding’s victims were minor children no older than 14, the sex offenses could not be considered consensual within the scope of the statutory requirements.

Under Section 60.22, an accomplice is defined as any witness to a criminal act who also participated in the crime as demonstrated by the evidence. This rule was created to expand on older laws, which classified an accomplice as a principal actor in the crime or an accessory before the fact. Under the new law, a person could be charged as an accomplice, regardless of whether he or she had a substantial role in the crime or acted as an accessory. The person would, however, have to face some type of legal penalty for their participation in the crime to qualify as an accomplice.

In Mr. Fielding’s case, the sexual abuse victims were children under the age of 17 and were therefore considered incapable of offering consent under New York law. As such, the appeals court held that they could not have been subject to any type of criminal charge for their participation in the sodomy or other sex acts that occurred. Therefore, the court found that no complicity was present on the part of the children.

Under Section 130.15 of the Penal Law, a sex offender could not be convicted solely upon a victim’s uncorroborated testimony. The court found that this rule did not apply in Mr. Fielding’s case since no less than seven boys testified that he had committed inappropriate sexual acts with them on different occasions. In summary, the court of appeals held that since the victims did not qualify as accomplices under the statutory definition, there was no reason to discredit their testimony as uncorroborated. Furthermore, the testimony itself connected the sex crimes to one another and to Mr. Fielding. As such, the court chose to affirm his conviction.

In Mr. Fielding’s case, his New York criminal defense lawyer attempted to appeal his conviction for sodomy and sexual abuse, albeit unsuccessfully. Navigating the legal system can be a complex and intimidating process and one that should not be undertaken alone.

The law firm of Stephen Bilkis and Associates offers criminal defense services to individuals in the New York area who’ve been charged with sex crimes, including statutory rape, and stalking. If you or someone you love has been arrested for committing an inappropriate sex act, you need to call 1-800-NY-NY-LAW today to discuss your case. You can also visit one of our New York area offices to speak with one of our criminal defense experts in person.

A sex crime conviction can have devastating consequences but you don’t have to face the judge and jury alone. Call Stephen Bilkis and Associates today to get the experienced legal representation you need to protect your rights.

A 25-year old mother was indicted and convicted of a drug crime after trial of the sale of cocaine, which is considered a class A-I felony to an undercover police officer. According to sources, in a location known for rampant cocaine possession, the mother sold the undercover officer 214 vials of cocaine for $2,000 and promised to "take care of" him "the next time" he came. At the time of the sale she was 17 years old.

According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, under criminal laws, conviction of a class A-I felony carries a mandatory indeterminate prison sentence, the minimum of which is not less than 15 years and not more than 25 years, the maximum of which is life imprisonment. The trial court, however, determined that in this drug case, imposing even the minimum mandatory sentence of 15 years to life would constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Accordingly, the trial court imposed an indeterminate sentence of eight years to life imprisonment. A divided appellate court affirmed. The judges who the dissented voted to reverse the sentence and remand the case to Supreme Court for resentencing in compliance with the Penal Law's mandatory sentencing provisions for an A-I felony conviction. The State appealed.

On further appeal, the court pointed out that courts have upheld the facial and validity of the mandatory maximum life imprisonment sentence and various mandatory minimum prison sentences as against challenges under the cruel and unusual punishment prohibitions of the State and Federal Constitutions. The court, in many cases, adopted the principle that a sentence may constitute cruel and unusual punishment by being " 'cruelly' excessive, that is, grossly disproportionate to the crime for which it is exacted."

In assessing the proportionality of the mandatory sentences, the courts take into consideration the following factors: (1) the gravity of the offense, primarily in terms of the harm it causes society, but also in comparison with punishments imposed for other crimes in the State of New York as well as with punishments for the same or similar crimes in other jurisdictions; and (2) the character of the offender and the gravity of the threat he or she poses to society.

In this case, the court held that the constitutional prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishments were not transgressed on the record and facts of the case.

The court also examined the extent of the mother's culpability and the threat she poses to society and determined that the accused cannot be considered an "accidental" offender of marijuana posession. The trial court noted that the accused understood well what she was involved in." Here, the sale of 214 vials of cocaine for $2,000 was, at the very least, at a high level of culpability and risk to society. The court further noted that the accused has elected to personally sell a requested significant quantity of drugs at the wholesale level.

Drug addiction is a rampant problem in society and affects everyone. Being involved in a lawsuit arising from this crime is difficult. But whether you are charged with a drug crime, criminal tresspass, domestic violence, or a DWI, it is important to ensure that your rights are protected. Qualified legal counsel from Stephen Bilkis and Associates will stand by you and help see you through your case. Our team can argue your side and make sure that you and your loved ones are compensated.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates has offices throughout the New York Metropolitan. Our team can provide you with advice to guide you through your difficult situations. Without the assistance of an attorney, you may lose your rights which may cost you a significant amount of money.

Stephen Bilkis and Associates will also recommend Substance Abuse Lawyers who will help you.

In 1985, Juan Santos was convicted of one count of first degree rape, one count of second degree rape, four counts of first degree sodomy and four counts of second degree sodomy. The charges stemmed from claims brought by Mr. Santos’ two stepdaughters, who claimed that he forcibly raped and sodomized them on multiple occasions. Following his conviction, he was sentenced to a combined term of 25 to 50 years.

Mr. Santos’ criminal defense attorney filed a motion to set aside the verdict and this request was granted in 1991. The New York County Supreme Court was unable to determine why the conviction was overturned but the prosecutor in the case claimed they had arranged a plea agreement in which Mr. Santos would plead guilty to one count of first degree rape. In exchange, he received a sentence of 5 to 15 years, according to a New York Criminal Lawyer.

In September 2008, the court received a letter from the New York Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders concerning Mr. Santos’ risk level. The person who drafted the letter, Board Examiner Floyd Epps, stated that Mr. Santos had raped, sodomized, sexually abused and threatened the two victims over a period of several years. The letter also indicated that Mr. Santos claimed the charges were false and that his wife had encouraged the two girls to make up the story because she was angry that he was having an affair. In addition, Mr. Santos has denied committed the sex crimes he was charged with.

According to a Nassau County Criminal Lawyer, Mr. Santos was released on parole in May 1994 and in January 1997, returned to prison because of a violation. He was released again in April 1997 and incarcerated again in 2003 because of another violation. In 2004, he was released again and his supervision period ended. At the time of his initial parole, he was classified as a Level Three sex offender. Following his last release from prison, he earned both a bachelors and master’s degree and refrained from engaging in criminal activities. Based on these facts, Mr. Santos filed a motion to have his sex offender status downgraded to a level two classification.

The court ordered the prosecution to prepare a new risk assessment evaluation to detemine Mr. Santos’ threat level. This document assigns a specific number of points to certain factors which when combined, provide a score which is used to assess the potential for future reoffense. After completing the new assessment, Mr. Santos’ score was determined to be 115, which was five points over the minimum score required for a Level Three classification. Based on this result, he then filed a motion to have his risk level downgraded to Level Two, citing the positive changes in his lifestyle following his release from prison. Both the prosecutor and the Board of Examiners opposed this motion.

The New York County Supreme Court was charged with determining whether to grant Mr. Santos’ request. Specifically, the court looked at the guidelines created by the Sex Offender Registration Act and the factors incorporated as part of the risk assessment document. Individuals with a score of 0 to 70 are classified as Level One offenders; a score of 75 to 105 points leads to a Level Two classification; and Level 3 offenders have a score of 110 to 300 points. The higher the score, the greater the perceived risk that a sex offender will commit subsequent sex crimes. Mr. Santos’ criminal defense attorney did not challenge the validity of the risk assessment toll but merely questioned whether the scoring system had certain limitations that should be considered in determining whether to upgrade or downgrade an offender.

The court acknowledged that Mr. Santos’ score was based on both objective and subjective determinations, rather than a psychiatric evaluation. The court also noted that the points designated for each factor, including the use of violence, the age of the victim and the type of contact involved, did not appear to have any actuarial basis. Furthermore, the court found that the factors used to calculate risk level were seemingly arbitrary in some circumstances and that the timing of an offense could cause the score to increase dramatically. Finally, the court held that the risk assessment tool was outdated and failed to account for new scientific research findings regarding sex offender recidivism rates and risk factors. However, the court is generally not allowed to depart from the findings of the risk assessment tool unless certain aggravating or mitigating circumstances are present.

In Mr. Santos’ case, the court held that downgrading his classification to a Level Two offender was justified based on his actions after his final stay in prison in 2004. The court argued that there was clear and convincing evidence of his reduced threat level which support the change in status, despite the score determined by the risk assessment tool. The court did agree that Mr. Santos’ failure to acknowledge guilt for his crimes should be counted against him in calculating his risk score but that that fact alone did not support the Level Three classification. The court also acknowledged that Mr. Santos had not been a model citizen after his 1994 release and that the fact that there was no evidence of unlawful sexual contact with a minor did not mean that these types of offenses had not occurred during that period. However, based on the perceived recidivism risk, the court supported his status being downgraded to Level Two.

Being labeled a sex offender can have serious and long-lasting repercussions and make it difficult to become a productive member of society. Fortunately, Mr. Santos was able to move in a more positive direction after his release from prison, which merited the change in his sex offender status.

If you or a loved one is battling a sex crimes charge, you need the aid of an experienced legal counsel to protect your rights. The law office Stephen Bilkis and Associates is available to assist criminal defendants in the New York area who are charged with rape, sodomy, sexual abuse and other types of unlawful sexual contact. Call 1-800-NY-NY-LAW today to get the legal help you need. You can also discuss your case in person by visiting one of the firm’s New York are offices. Don’t hesitate to contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates today to get the help you need to fight a sex crime charge.

In August 2002, Justin Palmer was accused of sexually molesting a 15-year-old girl in Florida. Five months later, he participated in an armed robbery of another Florida home. He pled guilty to both crimes and was sentenced to five years in prison. According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, after being released, he moved to Green County, New York. The Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders completed a risk assessment which classified Mr. Palmer as a Level One offender.

The prosecutor later argued that the Board failed to assign an additional 30 points based on Mr. Palmer’s conviction for the home 2003 home invasion. County Court determined that the robbery, while not a prior crime, should still be considered as an aggravating factor which would justify upgrading Mr. Palmer’s classification to a Level Two offender. Mr. Palmer subsequently appealed this decision to the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, Third Department.

Specifically, Mr. Palmer argued that the prosecution failed to provide him and the County Court with the required 10-day written notice of their intent to seek a new offender classification. The court noted that this issue was never raised in County Court and therefore not subject to review. The appellate court also held that Mr. Palmer’s argument was without merit since the court record demonstrated that the he was well aware of what the prosecution was attempting to do with regard to upgrading his classification status. Therefore, his claim that his due process rights were violated was unfounded.

Furthermore, the court found that the County Court’s decision to upgrade his classification to level two was within its scope of discretion. The decision was based on Mr. Palmer’s home invasion conviction, which occurred after the alleged sexual abuse of the minor girl. The circumstances of the home invasion, including the use of violence, were aggravating factors which would support an upgraded classification. Accordingly, the appellate court chose to affirm the Mr. Palmer’s Level Two offender status.

Unfortunately, Mr. Palmer’s New York criminal defense attorney was unable to persuade the court that the upgraded classification was unwarranted. His new status could potentially make it difficult to find employment and become a productive member of the community.

If you or a loved one has been charged with sex crimes, you need to hire an experienced criminal defense lawyer to act as your advocate. The law firm of Stephen Bilkis and Associates specializes in defending individuals charged with sexual abuse, rape and other sex crimes in the New York area. Help is available by calling 1-800-NY-NY-LAW or by visiting one of the firm’s many office locations. A sex crime conviction can have life-altering consequences and severely damage your reputation. Contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates today to get the legal help you need to protect your rights.

Avery Maggio was charged with eight counts involving different sex crimes. According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, the charges were based on claims that he had sexually abused another child who rode the school bus with him on different occasions in 2005, 2006 and 2007. Mr. Maggio was convicted of three counts of committing a criminal sexual act in the first degree and two counts of first degree sexual abuse. He was sentenced to 15 years in prison and subsequently appealed his case to the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division, Third Department.

The appellate court was charged with determining whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to warrant a conviction. Mr. Maggio’s criminal defense attorney argued that while his client admitted engaging in inappropriate sexual contact with a minor child, the evidence did not prove that he ever compelled the victim to participate through verbal or physical force. Under New York Penal Law, forcible compulsion must be considered from the victim’s perspective and weighed against their age, the size and strength of the person perpetrating the sex crimes and their relationship to the victim.

The court noted that Mr. Maggio was four years older than the victim at the time the sex offenses occurred and that the sexual contact began when the victim was only nine. The victim testified that when he was 12, Mr. Maggio had threatened him with physical harm if he did not agree to the sex acts. The victim also said that on another occasion, Mr. Maggio had forced his head down and ordered him to perform oral sex. Mr. Maggio also allegedly grabbed the victim’s testicles, arms, legs and knees on other occasions and threatened to kill both him and his mother if he did not comply.

A New York Criminal Lawyer commented that with regard to Mr. Maggio’s appeal, the court argued that his ability to actually carry out the alleged threats was immaterial. What mattered factually was the victim’s perception of his ability to do so. The court also noted that the jury apparently did not believe Mr. Maggio’s theory that his victim had consented to the forcible sex acts, hence his conviction. Subsequently, the court held that the jury’s determination in finding him guilty of the sex crimes was supported by the evidence. Furthermore, the appellate court found that no error had been committed in allowing evidence to be admitted of Mr. Maggio’s prior uncharged sex crimes or in allowing the testimony of an expert witness knowledgeable about child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome. Accordingly, the court chose to affirm the original conviction and found no grounds for supporting a reduction in the sentence.

While Mr. Maggio’s New York criminal defense attorney worked hard to defend his rights, ultimately, the court could not find sufficient reason to reverse his conviction based on the evidence.

Being charged with sexual abuse, a drug crime, or theft crime can be an unsettling experience . If you or someone you love has been arrested for rape, sexual assault or any other sex offense, you need to contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates today to protect your rights. The firm’s team of experienced criminal defense lawyers can be reached at 1-800-NY-NY-LAW or by visiting one of their numerous New York area office locations. If convicted of a sex offense, you may face fines, imprisonment and have to register as a sex offender. Stephen Bilkis and Associates can provide you with the legal help you need to achieve the best resolution possible for your case.

A 40-year old man was arrested and charged with several drug crimes and violations, including criminal drug possession of a controlled substance, criminal use of drug paraphernalia, unlawful marijuana possession, and unlawful possession of fire works.

The accused, despite the absence of the district attorney, was permitted to enter a plea of the crime of possession of a controlled substance, which is classified as a misdemeanor. A New York Criminal Lawyer reported that the DA argued that he is authorized to exercise his right to proceed for forfeiture asserting that such proceeding can be brought against a person not even charged or convicted of any crime. Thus, the DA said, forfeiture against one convicted of a misdemeanor crime is appropriate.

A review of relevant criminal laws discloses that a forfeiture proceeding may be brought for a "pre-conviction forfeiture crime." The court deduced that the only crime for which a forfeiture may be sought and ordered in advance of a conviction are the felony of criminal marijuana possession in the first degree and the crime of criminal sale of marijuana in the first degree. While the law authorizes the commencement of a forfeiture action before conviction for what are clumsily called "post conviction" forfeiture crimes, which are crimes other than the denominated drug related charges called "pre-conviction forfeiture crimes," the statute nonetheless expressly provides that a court may not grant forfeiture until the conviction has occurred, the court noted.

A New York Criminal Lawyer explained that the court clarified that relevant laws do not authorize even the commencement, much less the conclusion, of a forfeiture proceeding in advance of a conviction for a misdemeanor, not even a drug-related misdemeanor. The court concluded that the DA could not have proceeded against the accused by way of any type of proceeding for the misdemeanor crime to which the accused pleaded guilty: criminal possession of a controlled substance.

If the remedy of forfeiture is a criminal penalty, the court pointed out two serious constitutional questions arising. First, where there has been a conviction for a crime subsequent attempts to seek forfeiture based upon that crime may be barred by the double jeopardy clause of the United States Constitution. Second, as to that part of the statute which permits forfeiture actions based upon drug offenses, the Due Process Clause may be violated because forfeiture can be based upon only a showing of clear and convincing evidence, as opposed to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that the drug related crime in question was committed.

The court said it supports the ends which forfeiture proceedings seek to accomplish. However, the court said it does not support it with such zeal that time proven constitutional safeguards can be abrogated. Because there exists constitutional deficiences to the forfeiture proceedings, the court said the issue of whether the provisions governing the forfeiture fail to pass muster under tests established in a catena of similar cases must first be determined.

Drug addiction is a rampant problem in society and affects everyone. Being involved in a lawsuit arising from this crime is difficult. Whether you have been charged with a drug related offense, sex crimes, or a theft crime, contact us. Our legal counsel will stand by you and help see you through your case.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates with its NY Criminal Law Lawyers, has offices throughout the New York Metropolitan area. Our attorneys can provide you with advice to guide you through your difficult situations. Without skilled legal counsel, you may lose your rights which may cost you a significant amount of money.

Stephen Bilkis and Associates will also recommend Substance Abuse Lawyers who will help you.

Almost every New York Criminal Lawyer is aware of the fact that for various sex crimes, sex offenders are set to register for them to be treated properly and also as a way to protect the rest of the citizens of the society. In this particular case to be discussed, there are three accused sex offenders who refuse to register under this legal act. All of them were involved with having committed kidnapping. They insist that their rights have been violated since there were no proofs that they really did it.

The first one accused is defendant #1. She was seen approaching a group of little children in the park and allegedly grabbed an eight year old kid. Her motive was to have a replacement of one of her own kids whom she has lost due to custody. The next one was defendant #2 who allegedly locked his girlfriend who has two little kids in her own apartment. The reason is that he did not want his girlfriend to break up with him. The last one is defendant #3 who employed a prostitute. When his employee decided to quit, he was accused of kidnapping the woman's son so the woman would go back to working for him.

As per the Supreme Court’s judgment, all three should be assisted by a Bronx Criminal Lawyer under the Sex Offender Registration Act. But as already mentioned, they all protested and did not want to succumb to it. The main reason of the three is that they may be guilty of kidnapping but they were never found guilty of sexually abusing the minors they have abducted. But if SORA will be reviewed, it includes unlawful imprisonment and kidnapping in the list of crimes committed.

Once offenders agree to register, they will still be categorized to be of high or moderate level according to the intensity of crimes they have committed. All their information is included upon registration like their photos, addresses, previous employment, and a lot more. However, all of them consistently fight it off that there are no proof to any sexual misconduct for them to be ordered to register under SORA. Yes, such may not be ruled out as per the analysis of a credible New York sex with minor defense lawyer but it does not mean that the court violated their acts and rights.

All three believe that the State did not let them fight for their own rights and that they should not be labeled of committing a crime that they did not really do. They said that they do not want to be known in the society for being child predators when they have not really done any sexual act on the kids they have kidnapped. But the only interest that the Court has is to protect the community from such offenders who can potentially cause harm or danger to such minors even if it did not include sex crimes. Besides, a lot of cases prove that kidnapping most of the time lead to sexually abusing the abductees.

If you want to know more about the details of the SORA, then there is no better professional to approach than legal counsel from the office of Stephen Bilkis & Associates. Their offices in New York has teams of legal counsel who can help you out if you or any of your loved ones happen to be involved in such sensitive cases. With their help, you do not just get to be assured of winning the case but also learning more about your rights.

A jury convicted David L. Perkins of numerous crimes arising out of his conduct in providing alcohol to and engaging in sex acts with his daughter’s teenage friends. County Court had imposed the maximum sentence, an entire sum of 36 years in prison.

According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, Perkins asserted that there was legally insufficient evidence to convict him of sexual abuse because the court had failed to establish that the victim was physically helpless but the court asserted that the victim’s testimony that she blacked out and “was so drunk that she didn’t know what was going on,” was sufficient to establish the presence of physical helplessness.

A Booklyn Criminal Lawyer who witnessed the trial said that each victim testified consistently and with particularity about the sexual acts committed against them by Perkins and to being provided with alcohol at Perkin’s house. The court said that contrary to Perkin’s testimony, the record clearly revealed that the victims were under the age of 17 at the time of the crimes. The court also stressed that although some of the victims could not recall the precise dates or times of the incidents, “any consistencies regarding date and time did not render all of their testimony incredible as a matter of law, and we find no basis upon which to disturb the jury’s resolution of this credibility issues”.

A friend of one of the victims, Nicole Garrison, testified that the victim complained that Perkins had sexually assaulted her the day after the incident occurred and at the victim’s first opportunity. While such out-of-court statements are generally inadmissible to bolster a witness testimony, evidence that a victim of sexual assault promptly complained about the incident is admissible to corroborate the allegation that an assault took place.

Perkins also asserted that his statement to the police, in which he admitted to providing alcohol to his daughter’s friends but denied, having sexual contact with the girls, was involuntarily made and should have been suppressed. The court replied that after Perkins voluntarily went to the police station for questioning, he was advised of his Miranda rights, offered food and drink, and did not request any lawyer or state that he wished to remain silent. He then discussed, without incident of any kind, various allegations of underage drinking in his home and signed the statement.

Upon appeal to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, Perkins lawyers find that the County Court erred in imposing consecutive terms upon certain of his convictions. They said that Penal Law provides that concurrent sentences must be imposed “for two or more offenses committed through a single act or omission, or through an act or omission which in itself constituted one of the offenses and also was a material element of the other”. With respect to the first victim, Perkins was convicted of two counts of sexual misconduct, sodomy in the third degree and rape in the third degree based upon an act of oral sex and sexual intercourse, as well as unlawfully dealing with a child in the first degree (for providing alcohol to the victim) and endangering the welfare of a child (for providing alcohol and subjecting the victim to oral sex and sexual intercourse). The higher court said that these convictions were based on only one act of deviate sexual intercourse, one act of sexual intercourse and one instance of providing alcohol. It stated that the remaining convictions “comprise separate, distinct and independently punishable offenses” and thus, according to a New York Sex Crimes Lawyer, consecutive sentences were warranted.

Encountering cases like this one needs you to be with an experienced and loyal lawyer by your side when you are in a trial room. Skilled legal counsel will be there always at your side and fight you through in every obstacle in the courtroom.

An established law firm, Stephen Bilkis and Associate is situated around the New York Metropolitan area.

In late 2002 and 2003, Phillip Riback, a pediatric neurologist, was charged with two indictments, later consolidated, with 39 criminal counts alleging that he had sex crimes with numerous male patients during medical examinations between 1997 and 2002. After pretrial proceedings in which some counts were dismissed, Phillip Riback went to trial on 30 counts. He was ultimately convicted of 28 counts, 12 felonies and 16 misdemeanors.

A New York Criminal Lawyer who followed the case, said that the convictions stem from the testimony of 14 boys, none of whom knew one another (except two were brothers), whose families consulted defendants for their sons’ various neurological problems. The boys described a variety of conduct that occurred for the most part after their parents complied with Riback’s request that they leave the boys alone with him in the examining room, at which time defendant encouraged them to play a “controlled spitting” game with him, tickled, hugged or kissed them or play-wrestled with them, pushed his erect penis against their bodies, held them upside down by their ankles or had the boys sit or lay on him, during which time Riback’s hands or face came into contact with the boys’ genitals, mostly over clothing (several described defendant’s direct –underneath clothing- contact with their penis), or the boys’ faces were pushed to Riback’s genital area over clothing. The lawyer said that all of the contact occurred in the subterfuge of a medical exam by Riback, often accompanied by warnings not to tell anyone.

Philip Riback’s conduct was first partially revealed in 2002, according to a New York Crimnal Lawyer, when one of the patient made revelations first to his mother and then to the Town of Colonie Police Department and the Department of Health’s Office of Professional Medical Conduct (OPMC), later providing a signed statement to the police recounting the extent of Riback’s sexual contact with him in December 2001, when he was nine years old. After another complaint by another family to OPMC of Riback’s conduct to his patients and came other allegations, Riback was arrested. The arrest was covered by the media and over 100 people contacted the police and 50 were interviewed, which leads to the subject indictment.

Riback did not testify during trial, but pursued the defense theory that any unusual behavior by him during patients’ exam was to create a rapport with-and put at ease-his young patients. Reports gathered stated Riback’s lawyer argued that, only after suggestive and coercive questioning by police and parents were the boys persuaded to interpret his innocent and benign behaviors as having a sexual component, leading to false mistaken accusations. Riback’s lawyers repeatedly emphasized the boys’ lengthy delays in disclosing Ribacks’ conduct and the fact that most of the boys’ disclosures of sexual contact did not occur until after Riback’s initial arrest, in support of its theory that all of the boys’ sexual contact allegations were the product of publicity and suggestive questioning.

Based on the data gathered, Phillip Riback was convicted and was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 48 years, with five years of postrelease supervision. Riback’s postrial motion to vacate the judgment of conviction was denied without a hearing.

Upon appeal to the Third Department of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, where a New York Sex with Minor Defense Lawyer was able to relate, said that Riback’s defense lawyers questions the validity of the judgment rendered and by permission, from an order of the lower court which denied his motion to vacate the judgment of conviction without a hearing of which the Supreme Court replied that the accusations made were supported by the weight of credible evidence by the minors he had molested and the overwhelming evidence of Riback’s culpability. The Supreme Court also held that the “Country Court may have placed undue weight upon Riback’s ill-advised decision to reject the very favorable plea bargain and proceed to trial” and found that the 48 years aggregate was “too extreme a penalty for Riback’s exercise of his constitutional right to jury trial” thus lowering it to 20 years aggregate prison.

Sometimes life can be so cruel and mean, we all make mistakes but when we choose to suffer for those mistakes and find that the penalty is more than what we deserved, there is legal counsel to help you. Whether you have been convicted of a sex crime, drug possession or a theft crime, legal counsel can ensure that your rights are protected throughout your legal process.

A 37-year old man has been indicted for the drug possession, sale of a controlled substance and other drug related charges. Under the revised criminal laws relating to drug crimes, each of the crime charged is classified as an A--III felony, punishable by an indeterminate term of imprisonment, the minimum period of which, for a first offender, is from one to eight and one-third years, and the maximum of which is life imprisonment.

The accused demanded for the dismissal of his indictment based on constitutional grounds. The accused specifically assailed the validity of certain criminal laws on the ground that these provisions do violence to his due process and equal protection rights and that they are inconsistent with the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment under the Federal and New York Constitutions.

According to the court, the gist of the accused's cruel and unusual punishment claim is that the penalty which has been legislatively imposed and must be judicially imposed, if there is a conviction, is too harsh for the alleged drug crimes. The accused argued that the quantities of heroin involved here are minute and that the entire amount of his gain from each of the transactions with which he is charged was $60.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said, the court, applying several tests, concluded that the maximum sentence of life imprisonment which the accused will be confronted with, if convicted, is neither so inherently severe nor excessive as to violate the Eighth Amendment. The sentence affords an offender the opportunity to minimize his term of imprisonment by rehabilitating himself to the point that the parole board, in the exercise of discretion, permits him to serve a part of that term outside of the prison walls. In this regard, the fact that an offender sentenced under the penalty provisions attacked by the accused must serve the minimum term imposed, before release on parole becomes a possibility, does not give rise to a valid Eighth Amendment claim.

Secondly, the court said the indeterminate sentence of imprisonment prescribed by statute for the A--III felonies of which the accused stands accused may not be said to have been imposed arbitrarily by the Legislature within the meaning of the constitutional prohibition which comes into play here. For years, the evils of drug abuse and narcotics traffic have occasioned the grave concern of government.

A New York Criminal Lawyer commented that the very drug crime classification and sentencing provisions which the accused so stridently objects to reflect no more than a legislative awareness that earlier and less stringment measures had failed to deter illicit drug traffic and the heinous crimes that it spawns.

The mere fact that, in beefing up the penalties for violation of the narcotics laws, the Legislature allowed more lenient sentences for offenses deemed by some to represent a greater evil, does not convert the penalties under fire in this case into cruel and inhuman punishments, the court concluded.

Drug addiction is a rampant problem in society and affects everyone. Being involved in a lawsuit arising from this crime is difficult. There are New York Drug Crime Attorneys will stand by you and help see you through your case. These Attorneys can argue your side and make sure that you and your loved ones are compensated.

Whether you are been charged with sex crimes, a drug offense or theft crime, speak to Stephen Bilkis & Associates. Our legal team can provide you with advice to guide you through your difficult situations.
Stephen Bilkis and Associates will also recommend Substance Abuse Lawyers who will help you.

These days, it is very hard to trust others especially when it comes to leaving our kids with people who you can truly rely on. There are many cases these days where nannies and even babysitters are accused of committing sex crimes that involve the children of their own employers according to a New York Criminal Lawyer. This goes the same for this case that is considered as an example here in this report for you to understand better the legal proceedings for such cases. The one involved here as the accused is James Watt.

Watt was convicted of rape, sodomy and for putting into danger the welfare of a little child. The crimes involved in his case are considered very heinous since it was committed against innocent and helpless tiny girls who are under 11 years old. These kids according to their parents were entrusted to him since he operates a basement based daycare center in the community. The problem that made everything worse because the daycare center was not registered.

All of the kids involved as victims gave their testimonies in detail even if it was really heinously specific in detail. A Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer backed this all up with formal medical evidence from experts done through proper medical examinations of the children. Many of them already showed suffering from diseases which are sexually transmitted. It was actually very sensitive to discuss but this could be a true learning experience for many and how they would be able to protect their children. The total number of crimes that was perpetrated against him includes twelve kids. This of course means that this case should be well investigated and be well prepared.

To add more formality and technicality on the investigation of this particular sex crime, the court got the service of a master psychologist by the name of Eileen Treacy. She is an expert in handling the sex crimes with kids. She interviewed seven of the kid victims and the result of her analysis led to the conviction of Watt being guilty of the crime. According to a New York sex with minor defense lawyer the reports were all asked to be gathered and presented to the court.

In the end, what was most important for the court is to offer utmost protection to the innocent victims of Watt. All of them have gone through so much trauma and abuse that this could bring negative effects to how they will handle the future ahead of them. And it is important that such a crime should not just go unpunished. It is also such a weak reason to use that he should not be convicted just because no one can say the exact dates of the sex crime and abuse that were committed. And hence, the Court made the right decision to convict and punish such a person as James Watt for pretending to love and care for kids just so he can take advantage of sexually abusing them.

It is very important these days that you get to know or be in touch with the credible legal counsel who can offer complete assistance to you especially if it is your own child who has fallen victim to such a heinous crime as this of Watt. The best place to start off your search for the right New York sex with minor defense lawyer is the office of Stephen Bilkis & Associates.

There are many sex crimes these days that are discovered by a New York Criminal Lawyer to have been caused by mental health or abnormality. Aside from SORA there is also the SOMTA or what is called as the Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act which deals with sex crimes that involve the Mental Hygiene Law. In this particular case, the defendant is convicted of promoting prostitution, kidnapping and also bail jumping. He was given the charge of 9 to 18 years for kidnapping, 4 to 8 years for the kidnapping, and 3 to 6 years for the bail jumping.

Nelson forced his victim and raped her over and over again. He even forced her to be a prostitute and even physically beat her including the involvement of drugs. He was a detained sex offender who was found out to have been suffering from some kind of mental abnormality. According to a New York law as discussed by a Bronx Criminal Lawyer describes SOMTA as crimes that are sexually motivated.

Hence, it is the court’s decision to find out if the previous sex crimes committed by an accused person are motivated by a mental abnormality that is driven with the need for sex. All these should go through the proper criminal proceeding to make it very fair and carry out justice pretty well. Such acts like SOMTA are meant to protect the society from the danger of these free roaming sex offenders. It is only through the programs for treatment and proper management to help the accused to recover and have a bright future and at the same time to protect the citizens of the society.

The goals of the court to let such sex offenders like Nelson to go through such programs include proper management of their unstable behavior. But one must expect that such treatment will surely come as strict and well supervised. It may even go as worst as leading to a lifetime confinement. In Nelson’s case, it has been well proven that his crimes were sexually motivated. What Nelson fights for is that he does not deserve the stigma that registering to such SOMTA would cause his own credibility.

Such mental health treatment should not be considered as a punishment but instead as a treatment process so as to help the sex offender suffering from a mental abnormality to still get to recover as fast as they can. What Nelson did to his victim was too heinous that he took advantage of the rights of another and even abused it extremely. The mechanism used was truly excessive and up to the extreme. It is just logical that the court would capture offenders like Nelson so that the number of such crimes committed would surely be lessened.

To know more about the aspects of SORA or SOMTA, it is best to seek the assistance and guidance of a reliable legal counsel. One of the best ones that you can find especially in New York would begin within the office of Stephen Bilkis & Associates. They handle all sorts of sex crimes and its intricate details to make sure that you get the justice and freedom you deserve. Such expert assistance will help you understand best such legal proceedings that can help protect others as well.

According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, in July of 1974, a man who pleaded guilty for sale prohibited drugs was charged of life imprisonment with no possibility of probation and lifetime parole. According to reports, this rule was first given the highest force of law in United States in 1910 which during that time was considered to be fair and just, but does it follow that what was fair and just 70 or more years ago applies now.

Based on reports, of all the class A felonies such as arson, kidnapping, murder, only the narcotics possession and sale offenses are prohibited from being reduced by plea bargaining. Thus, a person who kills intentionally, who causes serious physical injury in the course of a robbery, who rapes a child, who blows up an occupied building, faces a maximum term of 25 years, or a maximum of 30 years for a series of such acts before being imprisoned on any one of them. Although imprisonment is mandatory, no minimum term may be imposed unless the court gives reasons for concluding that the best interest of the public requires it because of the nature and circumstances of the crime and of the history and character of the defendant.

A New York Criminal Lawyer revealed that a man charged of cocaine possession will not remain on parole for the rest of his life, nor will he be denied the opportunity to engage in plea bargaining. Crack possession is considered to be worse than a person who kills intentionally, who causes serious physical injury in the course of a robbery, who rapes a child, who blows up an occupied building,whether he sells a bag of heroin for profit or to support his own addiction or whether he gives away a 'fix' to a desperately sick friend suffering from withdrawal pains (where the consequences to the 'victim' and to society are minimal, by any scale of values), the mandatory maximum penalty of life remains the same.

The NY Law dictates that drug posession crimes must be punished much more severely than the armed robber who shoots his victim and the multiple rapists. He must be punished as severely as the most heinous murderers, kidnappers, and arsonists, and more severely than many of them. He is even denied the privileges accorded to all other criminal defendants, including multiple and persistent felony offenders, of plea bargaining and of judicial discretion in setting the maximum term in accordance with the nature and circumstances of the particular criminal conduct involved and with the history and character of the defendant.The Court is not allowed to consider the status of the buyer, whether addict or non-addict. Nor may it consider the qualities of the offender, whether young or old, family man or not high or low rehabilitative potential, value or potential value to society. In all cases there is a mandatory maximum of life imprisonment.

In the opinion of the Court, no view of the dangerousness of narcotics to persons or society can justify such disproportionate punishment. It seems incomprehensible to the Court that a man involved in the sale of narcotics at the four corners in Rochester, may be prosecuted in Federal Court one block to the north, and may under Federal Law receive a probationary sentence but if he is prosecuted in this Court, one block to the south, he must receive a mandatory maximum of life imprisonment.

Therefore, what constitutional punishment should be imposed? The present law was enacted and became effective September 1, 1973. By reason of this decision the Court reinstitutes the law prior to that time and reclassifies the crime as a Class C felony. The defendant, following completion of his presentence investigation, will be sentenced thereunder but didn’t the court matured?

Stephen Bilkis & Associates has convenient offices throughout the New York Metropolitan area. Our legal team can provide you with advice to guide you through situations where an injury resulted because of another's negligence. Whether you have been charged with a drug crime, sex crimes, or weapons possession, it is important to speak to legal counsel to ensure that your rights are protected.

On October 16, 1974, the Albany County Court in People v. Hollingsworth had an occasion to rule on the constitutionality of the penalty imposed by the Drug Law of 1973. The said law imposes a mandatory penalty of life imprisonment on certain drug crimes, making the penalty equivalent to that of heinous crimes, such as kidnapping or murder.

In the said case, the defendant was charged with the criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. Prior to trial, the defendant sought the dismissal of the case because, according to him, the law infringes on his constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, among others. He anchored his claim on the decision of the Monroe County Court in People v. Mosley, where it was held that certain provisions of the Drug Law is unconstitutional for being a cruel and unusual punishment.

In drug possession cases, it must be noted that the standard by which the court must determine whether a particular punishment is cruel and unusual, and hence violative of the Constitutions, is the modern concept of cruelty and unusualness prevailing in society at the time the question is raised.

In People v. Mosley, the Court held that the sale of a drug is not a violent act and the sale itself does not present a danger to the user or to the society. However, in this case of People v. Hollingsworth, the Court gave a different opinion. It was stated that one does not have to look very far to find the broken lives caused by drug abuse nor does one have to possess the logical ability of an Einstein to perceive the causal connection between rampant drug abuse in this State and Country and a major percentage of the number of crimes of violence, causing destruction to life and property. All of this is precipitated by the drug dealer. The sale of illicit drugs is potentially as dangerous as any crime of violence to person or property or, even more so, since the seller not only ruins the life of the purchaser but also the many innocent people whose property and lives are taken and victimized by the addict.

Moreover, a State statute cannot be deemed unconstitutional simply because there is a disagreement between the Courts and the State Legislature as to the best way to deal with convicted drug sellers. The principle well entrenched in our law is that the judiciary may not substitute its judgment and discretion for the judgment of the Legislature. It is the Legislature which has the power to fix the penalty for crimes, and just because the penalty imposed for certain drug crimes is severe, does not mean that there is a violation of the Constitutions.

While the Court in People v. Hollingsworth upheld the constitutionality of the Drug Law, it nevertheless expressed its disapproval on the method of dealing with drug crimes because the law removes the flexibility which is necessary for imposing just sentences. To reconcile the problem, the Court called upon the Legislature to re-evaluate its position and maintain the present maximum sentence for such crimes, while at the same time remove the mandatory provisions of the statute. This method would allow the individual sentencing Judge to duly function as a Judge and to make the determination as to what is best for society and the individual, based upon the facts of the particular case.

Whether you have been charged with sex crimes, drug possession or a weapns charge, call Stephen Bilkis and Associates for advice. Our legal team can argue your side of the case and make sure that your rights are protected.

Please know that In addition to solving your drug related concerns, Stephen Bilkis and Associates will recommend other Drug Crime Lawyers who will help you

Sexual abuse can be everywhere, it might be occurring in our own home. According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, on September 5, 1995, the defendant was convicted by the County Court of crimes of sexual abuse and endangering the welfare of a child. During trial, the 13-year-old victim testified that prior to the commission of the crimes, the defendant, a 31-year-old live in companion of the victim’s aunt, told her that he wanted to rape her and have a baby with her. She further testified that he threatened to kill her whole family if she revealed his feelings about her to anyone. The victim indicated that she believed these threats and, for that reason, did not immediately report the crimes.

Based on the New York Sex Crime Lawyer, the defendant' initial argument on his appeal was that the jury’s verdict finding him guilty of two counts of the crime of sexual abuse is not supported by legally sufficient evidence in that there is no proof of forcible compulsion. As relevant here, ‘Forcible Compulsion’ means to compel by either use of physical force; or a threat, express or implied, which places a person in fear of immediate death or physical injury to herself or another person. The higher court held that given the victim’s young age and the defendant's dominance over her by reason of his age and relationship with her aunt, the jury could have reasonably inferred that he accomplished the sexual contact through the use of threats that placed the victim in fear of immediate death or physical injury to herself or members of her family.

Another argument that Archer had pointed out was that he was discriminated by the admission of evidence regarding prior bad acts of sexual nature that he purportedly perpetrated upon the victim. Generally, a Long Island Criminal Lawyer said, such evidence may not be offered to show the defendant's bad character or his inclination toward crime but may be admitted if the acts help establish some element of the crime under investigation. This exception was said to be applicable in this case since the challenged testimony was admitted to establish that he engaged in a course of conduct that was likely to be injurious to the physical or moral of the victim, an essential element of the crime of endangering the welfare of a child that was charged in two counts of indictment.

The trial panel produced a psychotherapist who presented testimony pertaining to child sex abuse syndrome. He said that the Supreme Court have held such testimony admissible provided it is limited to explaining behavior that might appear unusual to a lay juror and is not used to show that the alleged victim’s behavior was consistent with patterns of behavior exhibited by victims of proven sexual abuse. The Court held that, the prosecutor posed a hypothetical question to the expert that subsumed the evidence in this case and asked if the hypothetical victim’s behavior was unusual with respect to child sex abuse syndrome. Further, the lower court gave limiting instructions in its charge that the expert could not render an opinion on the issue of whether the victim was sexually abused.

Upon the defendant's conviction of two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree, he was sentenced to consecutive indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 2 to 7 years. Taking into account his previous conviction of a sex-related crime involving this victim and the predatory nature of the crimes that carry a high risk of recidivism, the higher court did not consider the sentence harsh or excessive.

Getting involved in a lawsuit carries a lot of problems. Skilled legal counsel will see to it that you will see through it with ease. Stephen Bilkis and Associates are here to provide legal counsel and ensure your rights are protected. With offices located throughout the New York Metropolitan Area.

On September 8, 11 and 12, 1972, an undercover police officer bought cocaine from a man at the Franz Segal Park. The police officer’ back-up team in the area did not actually see the exchange of money for the cocaine. The police officer just showed his back-up team the evidence of the cocaine he bought from the man in the park which was confirmed to be cocaine.

On September 13 and 18, 1972, the defendant again sold cocaine to another undercover police officer at the same area of Franz Segal Park. When the police arrested the defendant in his apartment they discovered marijuana in a bookcase and cocaine hidden inside the inner door of a refrigerator.

The man was charged with selling cocaine on September 8, 11 and 12, 1972. He was charged also for cocaine possession and selling on September 13 and 18, 1972. And he was charged for marijuana possession and cocaine possession for the drugs found in his apartment during his arrest.

During the trial for selling cocaine on September 8, 11 and 12, 1972, the defendant pleaded guilty to the other charges of selling and possession of cocaine and marijuana discovered in his apartment during his arrest on September 22, 1972.

The defendant testified in his own defense. During his cross-examination, the prosecutor asked detailed questions regarding his guilty pleas in the two other cases for criminal selling and possession of cocaine. The questions extensively probed the similarity of the areas; the similarity of the time of day of the sales; and the variety and amount of the cocaine. He was also asked regarding the separate charges for the September 13 and 18, 1972 cocaine possession. The defense counsel objected that the questions were prejudicial to the defendant but the trial judge overruled the objections.

According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, he defendant was convicted by a jury on all three counts of cocaine selling on September 8, 11 and 12, 1972. The defendant appealed on the ground that the cross-examination was improper and prejudicial. The manner of the questioning tended to prove his tendency or propensity to sell drugs.

The Supreme Court of Bronx County agreed: under criminal law, the extensive cross-examination about the other drug cases were improper and highly prejudicial as the questions showed defendant’s propensity of possessing and selling drugs. Cross-examining the defendant on prior criminal acts is permitted but solely to impeach his credibility as a witness. It cannot be used to lead the jury to believe that the prior criminal acts are proof of the commission of the present charges of cocaine and marijuana possession and selling. It cannot be used to show that defendant was a regular trafficker in dangerous drugs.

The defendant’s conviction was overturned and he was granted a new trial.
Losing a loved one and being involved in a lawsuit for their wrongful death is difficult for all. ANew York Drug crime Attorneys will stand by you and help see you through your case. A New York Criminal Lawyer can argue your side and make sure that you and your loved ones are compensated.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates and their skilled legal team has convenient offices throughout the New York Metropolitan area. Whether you have been charged with sex crimes, drug possession or a weapons possession charge, our can provide you with advice to guide you through situations where an injury resulted because of another’s negligence. Without a New York Drug crime Attorney you may lose your rights which may cost you a significant amount of money.
Please know that in addition to Criminal Law Stephen Bilkis and Associates will recommend New York Criminal Lawyers who will help you.

In an undercover operation, federal agents busted a man trying to sell them eight ounces of cocaine in Rochester, New York. According to the primary witness of the drug crime, he knew the defendant for seven years and they were introduced by a mutual friend. The witness called the defendant and informed him that some interested buyers were willing to make a drug deal. The defendant, who was residing in Florida, flew to New York to meet the buyers.

In exchange for the cocaine, the primary witness received $9000 in $100 bills then went home. The defendant then came over to the house of the witness to count the bills and check for any markings left by the authorities. According to the witness, the defendant left his home with $8000 in cash as part of his profit from the sale then boarded a flight back to Florida.

The testimony of the witness was corroborated by his fiancée who also had knowledge of the drug deal. Evidence against the defendant consisted of nine surveillance tapes and recordings of phone conversations. Prior to the cocaine sale, police already obtained a court order to monitor the conversations between the witness and the defendant.

The case went on trial and the jury found the defendant guilty for his drug possession. The trial is over but the defendant has appealed his case. The defendant objects to the evidence presented to the court. According to him, there were errors in handling evidence and believes the recordings are tampered. In addition to his appeal, the defendant has asserted that the tapes were not sealed properly and in the absence of a judge as witness.
The defendant’s appeal invoked the Criminal Procedure Law 700.50 (2), “Immediately upon the expiration of the period of an eavesdropping warrant, the recordings of communications made pursuant to subdivision three of section 700.35 must be made available to the issuing justice and sealed under his directions.”

The defendant contested the interpretation of the criminal law phrase ‘under his directions’. According to the defendant’s interpretation, the tapes should be sealed in the presence of a justice. However, this conclusion was not supported.

Similar court cases that are relevant to the statute have a different interpretation of the statute being questioned. Based on court decision, there was no clear provision that recordings are to be sealed in the presence of a judge. The statute only directs that the tape recordings be sealed under the direction of the judge and not necessarily requires his presence. In the defendant’s case, the tape recordings were presented before the court and sealed according to the directions of the judge. There was proper sealing of evidence as mandated by the statute.
Aside from citing the statute violation for his appeal, the defendant also claimed that the tape recordings were tampered. He further implied that the Sheriff’s deputy had something to do with it. The box of evidence contained seven tapes but upon opening it during presentation of court evidence, the box had eight tapes. The deputy explained this issue by saying that he miscalculated the number of tapes inside the box.

However, the court did not find the deputy guilty of any intentional tampering but concluded that it was just a simple error on the part of the primary witness. The court ruled out the possibility of tampering. The defendant could also not prove his final claim of an alleged break in chain of custody. The court did not find any basis for the defendant’s claim that he was prejudiced by the district attorney or discriminated against by the justice system. Despite the defendant’s contention, the court upholds the judgment of conviction and is affirmed unanimously.

Getting involved in a lawsuit can be stressful for everyone. Whether you have been charged with cocaine possession, marijuana possession, or other criminal offense, skilled legal counsel is always ready to help your case. Competent legal advice is what you need to get you through a lawsuit. If you are in need of a New York Criminal Lawyer, Stephen Bilkis & Associates have offices located in the metropolitan area to accommodate you and your legal needs.

If you know someone who needs an expert New York Criminal Lawyer, consult Stephen Bilkis & Associates for immediate action.

A Suffolk County man is facing felony charges for abandoning his 2 year old Doberman pinscher in an empty house without food or water. The dog was found in a closed bedroom dehydrated and almost dying. A New York Criminal Lawyer says the 20 year old man faces up to 2 years in prison along with numerous fines for aggravated animal cruelty. He is out on $1,500 bail. According to the SPCA the man has admitted that the dog was his. The 19 pound dog is now being treated at a local animal hospital in Plainview. Once he has fully recovered he will be available for adoption. The defenant is due back in court to determine the outcome of his case and will need a qualified legal counsel to help him in his quest for freedom.

If you or someone you know is facing criminal charges of any kind you may need assistance from Stephen Bilkis and Associates. One who can help you defend your case in the appropriate manner and help you obtain the best results possible.

Come in to our office for answers to the many questions you likely have, and a free consultation. We have offices located in both Nassau County and Suffolk County on Long Island, as well as Westchester County. In New York City, we have locations in Manhattan, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island.

A New York City Criminal Lawyer is not overwhelmed or even shocked that a popular pop star has had his sentence lightened after such a short period of time. The famous R&B singer who at 21 years old has been sentenced to five years probation, a one year domestic violence course, and community service.

The star was originally sentenced after pleading guilty to assaulting another celebrity, his ex-girlfriend, prior to the 2009 Grammy Awards. Even with the modified sentence, he is prevented from harassing or annoying girlfriend, but can speak to her if necessary. The girlfriend's lawyer stated to a Long Island Criminal Lawyer that she was fine with the modified order. It has not yet been determined whether the man has completed the domestic violence course or the community service; however he is still on probation for the remainder of the five year sentence. The public is not outraged, but also not looking forward to the fallout if the star and his girlfriend get back together. Most fans feel that both artists are better off apart.

The question has been raised by fans of why the star did not receive jail time or at least a harsher punishment, but sources show that girlfriend, her lawyer, and the star's lawyer came to an agreement for the lesser punishment. The girlfriend did not push the issue of trial, maybe for fear of losing or the man receiving no punishment. Public comments also reflect the thought that though the pop star is allowed to contact his ex-girlfriend, which he simply wanted the extended freedom to be able to attend awards shows. Fans and the public in general feel this break up, whether enforced by the law or not will enhance the careers of both artists for the better.

Whether star wishes to contact his girlfriend or not, he now has the freedom to attend public events at the same time as her without fear of being in violation of a restraining order. So whether the star's goal is to boost the number of public appearances or to apologize to his ex-girlfriend in person does not really matter as he is allowed to do either without fear. The only provision of the modified judgment is that the star, if speaking to his ex, does so in a respectful manner. He may not harass or annoy his girlfriend in any way, which should be common sense, but had to be placed in judicial writing.

Though the star was not punished as severely as he could have been for a charge involving domestic violence, his chances to remain completely free may have been enhanced by using a skilled legal counsel. If taken to court his lawyer may have been able to get probation without community service or domestic violence classes. No one will ever know what a difference a skilled lawyer could have made in this situation.

A debate ensued in Palm City, Florida, where people gathered to voice their opinions on the potential likelihood that an Arizona styled immigration enforcement law in the state, a New York Criminal Lawyer was told. Emotions ran high at the Library where over 300 people arrived for the summoning. There was standing room only.

State Representative Bill Snyder, R-Stuart, called a town meeting to get the citizens’ opinion on the proposed law. Snyder has prospered the immigration law. Supporters of both sides of the issue were allowed to voice the pros and cons of the law.

Many times throughout the meeting, Snyder asked the crowd to remain civil to each other. “It is rare that in Florida that we have an issue that engenders so much passion,” said Snyder at the meeting to the crowd.

Snyder’s proposed immigration bill would allow state, county, and local law enforcement officials to ask and seek legal status from people, claims a New York Criminal Lawyer. It would give them the ability to get the federal authorities involved. Employers hiring illegal immigrants would also be punished if the bill were passed.

The crowd raised their concerns of how Florida’s tourism and agriculture would be affected by the law if the bill were passed. Some of the crowd was concerned that the law would give law enforcement the right to be racist toward a color of skin. A woman said at the meeting the proposed law “will make it legal to harass, profile and disrespect innocent citizens for one purpose and one purpose only: to appease the racists in this country.”

If you are afraid of being deported, speak to legal counsel immediately. Are you being charged with hiring undocumented workers? Contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates to defend you today.

A 31 year old man was brought to America at the age of ten, after his father had been shot. He has made his life here, formed a family and graduated from Harvard University. He has proven himself to be a valuable member of our society. Now he faces deportation back to the Philippines, but according to a New York Criminal Lawyer, he has been granted a delay of one year to get his citizenship instated and to allow him to remain in the country indefinitely as a U.S. citizen.

This does not happen often, but when it does, deferred action is usually the result of some kind of humanitarian effort made by the deportee, or some level of superior achievement that spurs the ICE toward a favorable action in that regard. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement was established because so many people come to this country and fail to go through the legal channels to become a citizen, but it also has a stake in those people, after all, they live here and many of them have lived here their entire lives.

It would be difficult to imagine being forced from the place you have called home for 21 years and required to move back to a country that is unfamiliar and even politically volatile, said the New York Criminal Lawyer, and it is refreshing to see that the laws that have been established here to keep illegal aliens from entering also serve to support those people who know no other way of life, having been brought here as children, through no fault or choice of their own.

No one wants to be labeled a criminal. Sometimes, mistakes happen that could have been prevented but weren’t and the consequences can be severe. If you find yourself in such a situation, call Stephen Bilkis and Associates and let them support you in your fight for freedom. Our legal team will bring their highly valuable skills to the table on your behalf.

A 27 year old man was extradited to Long Island from California to face murder charges on a 2009 fatal shooting that took place in a local nightclub. He is facing a charge of 2nd degree murder on the shooting of a victim Valley Stream. The victim was pronounced dead at a local hospital in Manhasset. A New York Criminal Lawyer has been called to defend the suspect. No date has been set for a trial but because of the serious charges, one will be set soon.

The laws that govern homicide in New York are governed by Section 125.00 of the New York Criminal Proceedure Law. There are many different factors that come into play when a charge of murder is involved. Courts will look at the intent of the party. What is planned, or an act of recklessness? Determining the defendant's intent will be very important to assess their guilt or innocence, and what particular charge of murder they may receive.

If you or someone you know is facing criminal charges you may need the assistance experienced legal counsel. Depending on your charges, you could be facing prison time, community service, monetary fines and probation. Speak to Stephen Bilkis and Associates for advice and guidance.We will provide you with sound legal advice and a free consultation. We have offices located throughout the New York area for your convenience, including locations in Manhattan, Staten Island, Queens, the Bronx and Brooklyn. On Long Island, we have locations in Nassau County and Suffolk County on Long Island, as well as Westchester County.

The sooner you contact us, the better. We will provide you with an aggressive defense, and ensure that your rights are protected throughout the legal process. Call us today to schedule a free consultation at 1-800-NY-NY-LAW.

A New York Criminal Lawyer has learned that Akhilesh was arrested at Amausi international airport on Thursday. The local police chief commented that the arrest was a preventative measure as Wednesday was the last day of the Samajwadi Party’s (SP) protest against the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) government.

When Akhilesh arrived at the airport, he was greeted by a multitude of police that immediately surrounded him and led him away, reports a New York Criminal Lawyer. He was being held at the Lucknow district jail after initially being taken to an undisclosed location.

Although he was whisked away rather abruptly before being allowed to speak with the media, as he was being escorted away he commented that, “This is dictatorship. We are not even being allowed a democratic protest."

Many of the protestors were angered by Akhilesh’s arrest. They then went onto protest against the BSP for what they call corruption and lawlessness. However, the police were prepared and outnumbered the protestors. This led to many protestors being arrested and taken away. There were also many protestors who not only burned BSP flags, but also became aggressive in their attempts to confront the current administration no matter the outcome.

One local area, Amethi, saw the SP workers arrive at the protests by horseback. Of course, this took the local authorities by surprise, as they had no horses of their own at the scene in order to counter this move. The authorities could also not ascertain which to attack first, the horse, or the rider.

The protests have been ongoing since Monday when SP leader publicly announced that he was being held under house arrest so as not to be able to attend the protests that were planned for this week.

After the arrest of Akhilesh, more SP protestors arrived to the area by bus, and many women were seen leading the protests as part of their observance of International Women’s Day. While the estimated number of arrests depend on who one is asking, one estimate the number to be as high as about 30,000.

Whenever you or a loved one has an encounter with the criminal justice system, whether is is a drug possession crime, theft crime, or weapons charge, you do not have to go it alone. A New York Criminal Attorney is available to take your case and work with you to achieve the result you seek.

At a muscle-energy supplement store, a female was doing her best to explain to the would-be thief about the various supplements. The attempted robbery occurred at the GNC store on 18th Avenue near 71st Street at 5:50 P.M. last June. A New York Criminal Lawyer are usually called in situations like this, as theft of property is definitely a reason to need someone like Steve Bilkis and Associates.

The eighteen-year-old suspect started out by asking questions about a product and then forced the manager into a back room and demanded the combination to the safe. The manager gave him the wrong number and at that point he obviously realized at that point that he didn’t have much time so he ran.

The manager was obviously thinking quickly on her feet, as she was able to direct the police to the supplement bottle that the suspect had been holding. At that point, the authorities were able to lift his prints from the bottle and make an identification of the suspect. Stephen Bilkis and Associats can be reached at 1-800-NY-NY-Law for a free, no-obligation initial consultation.

A man indicted for providing steroids to professional athletes received a sentence of one year and a day in prison. The Alabama pharmacy was part of the investigation of a Phoenix naturopath who supposedly treated the athletes. A New York Criminal Lawyer reports that the accused man fled to Costa Rica.

The man had originally been interviewed on radio stations praising the therapeutic benefits of steroids. However, once he was in front of a judge, he admitted that he wished he had not made the statements. According to sources, the judge indicated that the man be allowed to serve his sentence in a halfway house.

The naturopath admitted to prescribing steroids, human growth hormone and other drugs to patients who didn’t need them for a medical reason. In 2006 the Mobile Alabama pharmacy was raided and became known as Operation Which Doctor.The drugs were distributed via an illegal Internet ring.

If you have been charged with a crime, including drug possession, a theft charge or gun possession, speak with Stephen Bilkis and Associates for advice and guidance. We will provide you with the answers you need, and a free consultation. We have offices to serve you throughout New York City, including locations in Manhattan, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Staten Island and Queens. We also have locations in Westchester County, and Nassau County and Suffolk County on Long Island.

A New York Criminal Lawyer reports that one man was dead and a ten-year-old girl was wounded in the arm in a shooting at a local grocery store in Brooklyn. The police were called to the scene at approximately 7:40 Pm and emergency medical services were called to transport the girl to the hospital where is she is listed in stable condition.

The victim who lost his life apparently made it to Woodhull Medical and Mental Health Center and police say he was pronounced dead about 8:00 PM from numerous gunshot wounds. The firm of Steve Bilkis and Associates are available at 1-800-NY-NY-LAW for an initial, free, no-obligation consultation when injuries such as this occur. The authorities did not release the name of either victim and have not arrested anyone as of yet.

If you have been charged with a criminal matter, speak to Stephen Bilkis and Associates for guidane. We have offices throughout New York City, including locations in Manhattan, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island. We also have locations in Westchester County and Nassau County and Suffolk County on Long Island.

It has been reported that this years Memorial Day holiday weekend DWI arrest have increased from the previous years. A total of 130 arrests were made in Nassau County and Suffolk County combined. Nassau County arrested 73 people between 9pm Friday and 9am Tuesday morning. In Suffolk County there were 57 arrests between 4pm Friday and 7am Tuesday said a New York Criminal Lawyer. Last years reports indicate there were 106 arrests made and more than half of these arrests resulted in conviction especially when the suspects were not represented.

If you or someone you know is facing charges in New York due to a charge of Driving While Intoxicated or Driving While Ability Impaired it is important to ensure that your rights are protected. Speak to Stephen Bilkis and Associates for guidance and a free consultation. We have locations available throughout New York City for your convenience, including offices in Manhattan, Staten Island, Queens, the Bronx, and Brooklyn. We also have locations in Westchester County as well as Nassau County and Suffolk County on Long Island. Call us today for a free consultation.

Two police officers spotted a 26 year old suspect smoking marijuana at 6:15 PM at a street corner, a New York Criminal Lawyer said. The officers approached the suspect and attempted to place him under arrest when the suspect became unruly and decided to resist arrest. The officers were attempting to handcuff him at the time he opposed them. The suspect then somehow managed to gain access to the gun of one of the officers and tried to fire a bullet. A struggle then ensued with both suspect and officer attempting to gain possession of the weapon. The officer did manage to keep one hand on the barrel of the gun before the gun was fired.

The suspect discharged the gun once and although firing at point blank range, the bullet did not strike anyone or cause any damage. The suspect was attempting to fire a second time but was unable to do so because the shell casing was jammed inside the gun.

The officer was then able to regain full possession of his weapon after a major struggle and the suspect was handcuffed and placed under arrest without further incident. Charges against the suspect and further information is still pending at this time.

Both officers, however, had to be taken to the hospitall for injuries sustained in the altercation. One of the officers suffered an injured elbow. The other officer was treated for injuries to both his back and shoulder.

Anyone facing criminal charges should not be without adequate representation. Whether you have been charged with drug possession, a theft crime, or a DWI, speak to Stephen Bilkis and Associates for advice and guidance. We have offices to serve you throughout New York, incuding locations in Manhattan, Queens, Staten Island, the Bronx and Brooklyn. We also have locations in Nassau County and Suffolk County on Long Island, and Westchester County.

In July 2010, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) launched a new program for government and corporate sector employees that allowed them to safely provide information about possible fraud and other illegal activities they have witnessed or heard about. This program is part of the financial reform bill passed last year. So far, the new program has received only 168 complaints and tips. This number represents complaints and tips through February 2011, reports a New York Criminal Lawyer. But this number much lower than expected considering other whistleblower groups such as the National Whistleblowers Center and the whistleblower program run by the Department of Justice which receive hundreds of tips and complaints each year.

The National Whistleblowers Center provides informants with legal representation while the Department of Justice offers financial compensation to those that come forward. The SEC also offers financial compensation to those who choose to provide investigators with tips and other information. Informants may earn up to 30% of all monies collected in penalties or lawsuits that total more than 1 million dollars.

Specific rules governing how government and corporate sector employees file a complaint with the SEC may explain why many are hesitant to do so. Many government agencies and companies require employees to first file a complaint or provide tips through internal whistleblower programs first before filing their complaint with the SEC, says a Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer. Employees may be hesitant to file complaints with the SEC if they have to go through several agencies to do so. Filing multiple complaints may jeopardize their careers or create unwanted tension in the workplace.

The SEC will release its final rules governing the whistleblower program in April. It is expected that these rules will be met with some opposition as the SEC strives to relax the rules concerning the procedures for filing complaints or providing tips.

In addition to the SEC whistleblower program, the Department of Justice whistleblower program and the National Whistleblowers Center, other programs aimed at providing a safe place for informants to report possible fraud and other illegal activities are being formed by lawyers and others. Some offer financial compensation while others offer legal representation. Increasing the number of tips and complaints is the goal of the SEC whistleblower program as government funding is needed to keep the program running.

If you have been charged with fraud or white collar crime, speak with Stephen Bilkis and Associates for guidance and a free consultation. We have offices located throughout New York including locations in Manhattan, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, and State Island. We also have locations in Nassau County and Suffolk County on Long Island, as well as Westchester County.

The suspect in the failed Times Square bombing is in a state of foreclosure on his home and may be losing his home in the near future.

Faisal Shahzad stopped his mortgage payments on his Connecticut home in June of 2009. This coincided with a trip he took to Pakistan. Federal authorities believe that Shahzad took the Pakistan trip at that time to visit a terrorist training camp to help him prepare for his alleged terrorist activity here in the United States.Shahzad is a suspect in the failed Times Square bombing on May 1st. He is still in Federal custody on terrorist charges for attempting to set off a car bomb in Times Square. His attempt failed. He was arrested and is being held in Federal custody while awaiting trial on charges of terrorist crimes, says a New York Criminal Lawyer.

Now, a notice of judgment has been filed in Milford Superior Court ordering Shahzad to pay his mortgage company on his Connecticut home $213,000 or lose the home to foreclosure. He must pay the money to Chase Home Finance LLC by the end of July if he is going to stop the foreclosure procedures.

The home owner does have family, including a wife but his family is thought to be living outside of the United States at this time. He does have the option of attempting legal actions to stop the foreclosure but with Shahzad in Federal custody, it is doubtful he will be able to comply with the notice of judgment.

Federal officials take terror crimes very seriously, and those facing such charges will need
an experienced New York Criminal Lawyer. You donít want to come against the Federal Government without adequate representation.

Whether you have been charged with a felony or misdemeanor, it is important to ensure that your rights are protected. Speak to Stephe Bilkis and Associates for guidance and a free consultation.

An intoxicated New York City police officer was killed after causing a deadly car crash that also injured four others, according to a New York Criminal Lawyer. He had attended a surprise party for a fellow officer before the incident, and the guests at the event had seen the cop drinking. Two of the injured stated that they were just not aware of how intoxicated the driver was.

The 35 year old officer was driving his vehicle when he left the party just after 6AM on May 16th, reported a New York Criminal Lawyer. Another New York City police officer was one of the victims, as he had been riding in the car. The other cop, only 25, had also consumed alcohol at the party and had a blood alcohol level of .21. Both officers had been riding in the front seat of the car.

The driver had offered to drive the four victims home, despite his blood alcohol level of .16, which is twice the state ís legal driving limit of 0.08. All four victims were women, two of whom currently remain in critical condition. Two sisters were also seriously injured as a result of the automobile accident. The sisterís mother was angry that the police officersí reckless actions had landed her daughters in the hospital and caused their critical injuries such as a shattered pelvis, a spinal cord injury, and fractured legs.

If you have been accused of driving while intoxicated or impaired, contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates for your defense. Prosecutors take these cases very seriously, and therefore you should only be represented by the skilled legal counsel. Contact us today for a free consultation. We have offices to serve you throughout the New York City area, including locations in Manhattan, Staten Island, the Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens. We also have locations in Westchester County as well as Nassau County and Suffolk County on Long Island.

An eighty-one year old man has been convicted of misdemeaner animal abuse and will be spending 30 Days in jail for the killing of a squirrel, says a New York Criminal Lawyer. Last February, the man was reported for abuse using a pellet gun to shoot the animal at his home. He has been arrested 12 times in the past for misdemeanor violations including criminal contempt, for violating orders of the court, but most of the arrests have been due to wildlife violations.

Upon his release from his 30 day jail sentence, the man will face 15 other charges all related to his use of a BB gun. The octagenarian, who lives in East Northport, has had many disputes in the past involving his neighbors.

He is an 81 year old Army Veteran who served in the army air corps for 3 years after World War II. Following his military career, he ran an aerial photography business. He spent many years flying out of the Fleshing Airport and the Bayport Aerodrome.

He has a daughter who is very concerned about the time her father must spend in jail mostly due to his multiple medical problems. She revealed to a New York Criminal Lawyer that she is overly concerned that he will not receive his many medications while he is incarcerated. He must also use a cane or walker to ambulate, and his multiple medical problems include ailments such as hypothyroidism and frequent confusion.

The man was supposed to start his jail sentence but two weeks previous to that he developed shortness of breath and was hospitalized. He may be eligible for special housing as an inmate in the jail, and with good conduct he may only have to serve 20 of the 30 day jail sentence before facing the further charges.

Even those facing misdemeanor charges need a qualified legal counsel for their defense. Contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates today for the best representation you can receive.

A 25 year old cab driver noticed two men were following him as he drove on Franklin Street in Hempstead. The cabbie stopped his cab and pursued the two men bearing a knife. The two men also left their car with bats. It has been reported that the two men took cash from the cab driver along with a cell phone after they beat him with the bats. The cabbie was able to stab one of the perpetrators. The cabbie was arrested and treated at Nassau University Medical Center in East Meadow. Police found the other two men who were later identified. One of the men was charged with robbery and possession of a dangerous weapon. He was also arrested and held at the hospital in a guarded location. According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, the cabbie was charged with assault and possession of a dangerous weapon.

If you are being charged with a crime you need skilled legal counsel by your side. Speak to Stephen Bilkis today for advice and a free consultation.

Just weeks after a January earthquake killed more than 300,000 people, devastating the country of Haiti, officials there will soon be faced with yet another task; caring for and housing immigrants with criminal backgrounds who have been deported from the United States, claims an officer . According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, the decision to no longer suspend deportation of Haitian immigrants has some people up in arms, saying that there is no way the country of Haiti can provide adequate housing and care for those deported at this time due to the disastrous effects of the earthquake upon its population.

More than one hundred detainees in Florida had their deportations placed on hold for six months after the earthquake, because of the extreme damage, mass homelessness and disease that has spreading through Haiti since the devastating quake hit. Now, reports the story, the United States is no longer willing to allow these detainees to remain here in the states, and is rounding them up and preparing to send them back, despite unsanitary living conditions and a precarious future in the country of their birth.

Cleanup has been excruciatingly slow since the earthquake, explains the official. Homelessness is rampant, crime has escalated and disease is overtaking the population. Thousands of people are being wiped out by Cholera, including a massive prison outbreak that has left more than two dozen prisoners dead. Despite these questionable conditions, a spokesperson for the ICE has maintained that the US government is doing what they can to insure that the deported prisoners will be returning under safe and humane conditions.

If you have found yourself charged with a criminal matter, such as drug possession, a theft crime or a DWI, contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates for advice. We will ensure that your rights are protected, and will provide you with a free consultation.

John Mark Karr, who became semi-famous in 2006 for associating himself with the death of JonBenet Ramsey, is living here in the United States as a woman, according to a New York Criminal Lawyer. Karr falsely confessed to the murder of Benet Ramsey in Boulder, Colorado but it was later proven that he did not perform the murder nor did he help commit the crime. JonBenet Ramsey was a 6 year old beauty queen found murdered in her home in Boulder, Colorado
in 2006. The crime has never been solved and Karr was ruled out as the perpetrator.

Karr was a Thai teacher previously and he is now living in Washington state as a woman. There is no evidence that Karr has had any surgical procedures to officially become a woman. Karr is using the alias Alexis Valoran Reich and recent photographs of him show a much more feminine appearance then in the past. The pictures suggest to New York Criminal Lawyers that he is attempting to portray himself as a woman and further evidence to this attempt is that he is
using a female name.

A woman has come forth and reported Karr as living in Washington impersonating a woman. She also accuses him of allegedly attempting to form a cult of young girls. The woman appeared on the NBC's Today Show to publicize the new life of Karr and she has also placed a restraining order against the female impersonator.

At this time it is not known if there will be any legal actions taken against Karr other then the restraining order that has been filed with the local court.

Those facing criminal charges require the best defense. Speak to Stephen Bilkis and Associates today for advice, we will provide you with a free consultation and solid legal guidance.

A 40 year-old immigration attorney faces charges for 28 counts of fraud, conspiracy activity, and 42 counts of alien harboring with the intent of personal financial gain, so reports a New York Criminal Lawyer. The accused attorney held a great understanding of the US visa program, and used his inside knowledge to manipulate the system by intentionally overlooking his clients eligibility for three consecutive years.

The accused also charged his clients unreasonably high fees, claiming that he would help them obtain faulty 'green-cards'. This kind of behavior would lead many to believe that they would be receiving resident alien status, something that would dramatically change their lives. Not only has this man taken advantage of many clients financially, but also emotionally, by holding out unrealistic promises—based on lies.

A Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer explains, that the charged, after being presented before the court was released on a $50,000 secure bond, under the pretenses that he would be forced to surrender US & UK passports. The future doesn't looks so bright for the accused, as with each count he will have to deal with a quarter of a million dollars in fines. In addition, with each count, he will also face a decade in prison, with exception of the conspiracy charge, that stipulates a maximum of five years in prison. Whatever personal gain, this man thought he had coming, it will pale in comparison to the years he will spend in prison, and the lives he ruined along the way.

In difficult situations, where you need direction and hope, Stephen Bilkis and Associates can help you navigate through the legal maze. Our legal team will act as your advocate, providing you with support, and an additional peace of mind.

The role of emerging technology and how the government, in particular those branches of the government charged with public protection and order, deal with it is one of the great challenges of the twenty first century, said a New York Criminal Lawyer the other day.

In particular, the issue of how to treat Electronic Mail, or E-Mail, has been a thorny issue for the courts to deal with. On the one side are privacy advocates, who believe that the Fourth Amendment protections against warrant less searches of one's person, house, papers, and effects should include E-Mail. They believe it is a logical extension that the founding fathers would have supported had E-Mail been in existence at the formation of the Republic.. On the other side of the issue are those arguing that individuals have no expectation of privacy to their E-Mails and that as a result they are not afforded protection form warrantless searches. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals heard the case just recently and has agreed with the former: E-Mail searches require a warrant prior to being conducted. The decision is considered a victory for privacy advocates.

The court believed that since E-Mail mimics the form and function of traditional mail that it would be illogical to not extend the protections. The case now sets a precedent to be followed by all courts within the Sixth Circuit. An appeal to the United States Supreme Court is expected and no doubt the nation's highest court will eventually decide on this issue.

If you have been the victim of a warrant-less search, or have been convicted of a white collar crime, or fraud, contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates to ensure your constitutional rights are protected.

We have offices available throughout the New York City area, including locations in Manhattan, Staten Island, the Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens. We also have locations in Nassau County and Suffolk County on Long Island, as well as Westchester County. Call us today and schedule an appointment. We will provide you with sound legal guidance and a free consultation.

A New York Criminal Lawyer says that a federal judge in Manhattan rejected a Guantanamo detainee’s request to drop his guilty verdict. The detainee claims that he should be tried as a civilian in the court and that his first trial was not legal or just. The judge ruled he would not drop the earlier guilty verdict and that there was enough evidence to continue with his keeping his charge of conspiracy. The detainee will probably appeal this ruling as well.

Last year, the detainee was convicted on one act of conspiracy to destroy a government building. The New York Criminal Lawyer was informed that the man was convicted of conspiring to blow up the US embassy in East Africa. There were 224 people who were killed in that attack and many more were injured. The attack also killed one dozen Americans.

The detainee was held on the conspiracy charge, but he was exonerated on 280 different counts in the same incident. The attack on the US embassy took place in 1998 and he has been in US custody ever since. He faces life in prison when he sees the judge for the sentencing portion of his trial, which will happen in the next few weeks. The detainee’s lawyer tried to dismiss the guilty charge by saying the verdict was inconsistent with other verdicts in the US since then. The judge dismissed the lawyer’s arguments and held the detainee on the guilty charge.

A Stephen Bilkis and Associates will aid you or a family member on any criminal case you face. Our legal team is trained to handle any matter in a court of law that requires representation. Consult our office before you step in to any court room.

The Senate Appropriations Committee of the Arizona State Senate passed a new bill with tougher rules concerning illegal immigrants. SB 1611 allows law enforcement to arrest illegal immigrants for driving a vehicle, requires employers to run more thorough background checks on potential employees and prohibits illegal immigrants to take advantage of certain public services such as staying in homeless or domestic violence shelters, attending state colleges or even getting a library card. While the bill passed 7-6 in the committee, it will have opposition in the State Senate, reports a New York Criminal Lawyer.

Two republican senators on the committee voted down the bill expressing worry over some of the details included in the bill. One republican senator said that the bill was written too hastily. One democratic senator said the bill does not take into consideration the children of illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. who were unaware they were not supposed to be in the country. Many of these children now attend state colleges. Senate President Russell Pearce R-Mesa said that while he had met with some of these children and was impressed by them, at some point they had to have known they were in the country illegally and should take responsibility for that.

Pearce went on to say that SB 1611 is no more than an addition to a bill passed in 2004. That bill also denied illegal immigrants the use of public services, but was limited to certain services. SB 1611 would define additional services and give law enforcement additional rights such as imprisoning an illegal immigrant for a minimum 180 days if they used another person's identity to secure a job, explains a Bronx Criminal Lawyer . SB 1611 would also prohibit illegal immigrants from securing public housing. Immigrants must also show proof of citizenship when enrolling children in public school.

While the fate of this bill remains unclear, many in the Arizona State Senate agree that the federal government had done little to help secure the border between Mexico and Arizona. Government leaders in Arizona have decided to enforce additional rules and regulations concerning illegal immigrants to prevent new immigrants from crossing those borders and sending back those who have been living in the United Stated illegally, even if they have been doing so for a long time.

If you are facing legal troubles, whether it is a white collar crime, fraud or a felony matter, speak with Stephen Bilkis and Associates for advice and a free consultation. We will help you face your legal battles head on. We have offices to serve you throughout the New York area, including locations in Manhattan, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island. We also have locations in Nassau County and Suffolk County on Long Island, as well as Westchester County.

A New York Criminal Lawyer has learned of the arraignment of an East Hills man in the hit-and-run death of an 81-year-old Roslyn Heights woman. According to his account, he saw the woman, but could not avoid hitting her. The driver, 26, is charged with felony, leaving the scene of an accident with a death, and with a traffic violation, leaving the scene of an incident without a report.

The prosecution said that the driver hit the 81-year-old woman with his Jeep Cherokee and just kept driving without alerting the authorities. She was thrown at least 75 feet by the impact and pronounced dead on the scene.

Nassau police sources said that the driver was found when he took his car to a Queens body shop and someone called the Nassau police department tip line. The driver says he was alone the night of the accident, according to a New York Criminal Lawyer.

Though he claimed to the judge to be unemployed, the driver’s attorney said he had been a teacher’s assistant and also worked for a start-up computer company. The driver’s parents plan to hire a private attorney. The judge ordered the driver to be held on $1 million bond or $500,000 bail.

A skilled legal counsel is the best hope for you or a loved when trouble with legal authorities arises. No matter what the circumstance, you will need representation to be certain your case is presented in the best possible way in court. Whether you have been charged with sex crimes, a theft charge or drug possession, it is important to speak with legal counsel as soon as possible to ensure that your rights are protected. Stephen Bilkis and Associates will provide you with sound legal guidance and a free consultation. Call us today at 1-800-NY-NY-LAW. We have offices in Manhattan, Staten Island, Queens, the Bronx and Brooklyn. We also have locations in Westchester County, as well as Suffolk County and Nassau County on Long Island.

A non-denominational community church was recently threatened with foreclosure following verification that it owed $11.3 million in principal, as well as substantial interest and moderate late charges, as reported by a New York Criminal Lawyer.

The non-profit community church in Palm Beach Gardens was cited for a possible foreclosure along with its fellow tenants, including a construction company and a real estate counseling firm. The principal amount owed by the church stemmed from a past loan from a local bank in 2006, and the case was heard in the Palm Beach County 15th Judicial Circuit. The non-profit community church originated in a former cinema complex in Palm Beach Gardens, and in 2008 upgraded to its current location, a retail/office/entertainment complex. A New York Criminal Lawyer notes the postulation of Palm Beach Gardens’ vice mayor that the church’s financial situation may be due, in part, to a struggling economy and the resulting decline in giving among members and guests. His insight is relevant due to his further involvement in commercial lending; the vice mayor serves as vice- president of commercial lending for another bank.

The community church houses a 50,000-square-foot cultural center oriented toward the local community, as well as a banquet hall that houses a commercial kitchen and features a capacity of 500 individuals. According to the aforementioned vice mayor of the city, it is likely that an agreement will be reached between the church and the bank- perhaps a payment plan- rather than pursuing a mortgage foreclosure. The vice mayor is quoted as saying, "Foreclosing on a church is not good public relations for a bank".

The expertise of legal counsel extends to such financial woes as those being faced by the community church mentioned above. As a non-profit organization serving the community, a certain level of leniency is sometimes offered. It is acknowledged that such investments as made by non-profits are not immune to economic setbacks, and are perhaps even more at risk of hardship to due the nature of the business. Our legal team is trained and accustomed to partnering with such non-profit organizations to seek financial resolution and restoration.

Whether you have a financial entanglement with an organization, or have been charged with a drug possession crime, or white collar crime, speak to your legal team right away. We will provide you with a free consultation and ensure that your rights are protected. We have offices throughout the New York area, including locations in Manhattan, Staten Island, Queens, the Bronx and Brooklyn. We also have locations in Nassau County and Suffolk County on Long Island and Westchester County. Call us today to schedule your free consultation at 1-800-NY-NY-LAW.

Consider the following phrase: Tax season. What thoughts come to mind? If you find yourself cringing, you are not alone. Several notable celebrities have failed to maintain their obligations to Uncle Sam, as observed by a New York Criminal Lawyer.

Did you ever consider that Batman might have tax trouble? A popular star of “Batman Forever” fame was issued a $498,165 IRS lien last November for failing to fully pay taxes in 2008, according to the Associated Press. However, the star righted this wrong in a responsible way in 2009 by paying up, according to an entertainment website called TMZ.

What about the "A-list" “National Treasure” star who faced several successive IRS tax liens in the past few years, which at one point amounted to a tab of $13.3 million owed. The details included a disagreement between the star and a financial advisor/manager as well as a legal action on the part of both men, against one another. Again, a Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer notes that the actor smoothed over his troubles responsibly: according to People.com he is “under new business management and am happy to say that I am current for 2009.”

But wait: A star of the “Blade” trilogy, has also found himself on the “watch list” of the IRS. In 2008, the star was found guilty of “willful failure to file” income tax. This originated in 1998, when he decided to claim himself “a non taxpayer” and subsequently racked up around $15 million in back taxes over the following decade. This actor's story does not end quite as well as the other men in this account, he began serving a 3-year sentence in December 2010.

A skilled lawyer recognizes the importance of paying taxes on time and in full. As clearly shown above, even those who enjoy celebrity status make errors in regards to tax payments and are investigated accordingly! Be assured that excellent legal counsel and viable solutions will be afforded you and those important to you, all you need to do is make the call.

Whether you have been charged with embezzlement, fraud, sex crimes or drug possession, quality legal counsel can make all the difference. Speak to Stephen Bilkis and Associates for advice and a free consultation. We will ensure that your rights are defended at every stage of the legal process.

Wherever you are in New York, we have an office hearby. In New York City, we have offices in Manhattan, Queens, the Bronx, Brooklyn and Staten Island. We also have locations in Nassau County and Suffolk County on Long Island, and Westchester County. Call us today to schedule a free consultation at 1-800-NY-NY-LAW.

Countries with dictatorial regimes in control are often filled with a population that has been abused, horrified, and terrorized, to the point of submission. The Libyan regime is no different, and with the world’s focus now turned toward it, many stories that have been hidden for so long are now making their way into the international spotlight, a New York Criminal Lawyer reports.

While each story told comes from an individual, there is a very common theme to each of them…A government-administrated campaign against its own people. Regardless of whether either passive or active submission techniques are employed, every totalitarian, authoritarian, and dictatorial government or ruler throughout history has used many of the same population control methods as has Gaddafi since he assumed power in 1969 as part of a military coup.

Some of the more recent reports from Libya reflect stories of those who were kidnapped, tortured, stored away, or even never heard from again. While many of their stories may seem far-fetched to many in the world who hear them, the stories are real and unfortunately, they are true.

One such story that has recently come to light involves a businessman and his family, who for as of yet unknown reasons were targeted by the Libyan secret police. The man was supposed to go into the local police station for unknown questioning, but never made it for the secret police kidnapped him on his way to the station. He was not seen or heard from for more than seven years. A New York Criminal Lawyer also discovered that during the time he was imprisoned, his family was constantly harassed. His son expelled from the university, and all were forbidden to make a living.

Unfortunately, tales such as the businessman’s are not uncommon, for there are countless other men and women who were taken away by the secret police that were never heard from again. Their fate can only be speculated, but like most Libyans, the worst is always expected.
The people of Libya are in the process of taking their country back from the regime that had them imprisoned for many years, and are paying a price for it. Freedom, as we are aware, is never free for it must be earned by the blood and sweat of a nation’s peoples.

If your family life has been interrupted by legal problems, whether it concerns a theft crime, drug possession or a white collar crime, our office is always available to assist. Call us today for a free consultation and to ensure that your rights are protected throughout your legal proceedings. We have offices located in New York City, including locations in Manhattan, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island. We also have locations in Nassau County and Suffolk County on Long Island, as well as Westchester County.

A former police officer was convicted of sex crimes and now faces many years in prison for his crimes. He abused his position of power and used that power to victimize two women. The now ex-cop offered jobs and child care programs to two women when he was not in authority to offer either to the women. He was convicted by a jury trial and one of the female jurors used the term "disgusting" when referring to the Defendant and his actions. He was also convicted of other charges at the trial including official misconduct and unlawful imprisonment.

Following his conviction, the ex-cop now faces up to seven years in prison for his illegal activities. He is due to be sentenced in July unless there is an extension of his sentencing date, according to a New York Criminal Lawyer.

His legal problems do not end with this sentencing. He was fired from the New York City Police Department last January for allegedly propositioning a teenager for sex. No further information is available at this time in regards to any further legal procedures involving this accusation. He also now faces a rape trial for charges related to two alleged assaults. He is accused again of abusing his position of power by luring two women to provide personal information to him while he was in uniform. He then took their personal contact information to get in touch with the two women at another time. Meeting up with the women he then allegedly attacked them sexually. The rape trial is pending.

If you or a loved one has been accused of rape or other sexual crime, please call Stephen Bilkis and Associates. Your future depends on the best representation, and only skilled legal counsel can provide that.

A lawyer for convicted murderer Sirhan Sirhan claims his client was brainwashed the day he shot then presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy in a hotel kitchen in 1968. After giving a speech at a Los Angeles hotel, Kennedy was escorted through the kitchen when he was fatally shot. Many witnesses identified Sirhan as the lone shooter. He even confessed to killing RFK during his trial. Today, 43 years after the shooting, Sirhan claims he does not remember shooting anyone, reports a New York Criminal Lawyer.

During his next parole hearing, Sirhan's lawyer plans to offer an alternate theory of the crime. His lawyer will try to convince the parole board that there was a second shooter. The lawyer even claims to know who the second shooter is. This shooter fired the bullet that actually killed RFK. Kennedy was shot at close range behind the ear. Sirhan's lawyer claims Sirhan was in front of RFK the entire time and in no position to shoot him at close range. There is evidence, however, that shows Sirhan fired randomly into the crowd emptying his gun. One of those shots could have ricocheted and hit Robert F. Kennedy behind the ear. Forensic evidence gathered after the murder suggests only one gun was used and that it was in the hands of Sirhan Sirhan and not anyone else.

Sirhan's lawyer will also suggest that Sirhan was brainwashed into firing shots at Kennedy to distract the crowd while the real shooter killed Kennedy, explains a New York Criminal Lawyer. It is uncommon for a convicted criminal to offer new theories about his case during a parole hearing. In most cases, parole boards are only interested in hearing how the person has changed or whether they are truly remorseful for their crimes. It is unlikely that Sirhan Sirhan will admit any remorse since he claims he doesn't remember shooting Kennedy.

Most people are convinced that Sirhan's lawyer will not be successful in getting his client released. A Kennedy bodyguard clearly remembers taking the gun out of Sirhan Sirhan's hand after he pulled the trigger several times. And even though some witnesses insist Sirhan was in front of Kennedy the entire time, there is little evidence to suggest another shooter was present at the time. It is likely that the parole board will deny parole to Sirhan given this was a high profile case.

Whether you have been charged with assault, a theft crime or even murder, it is imperative that you consult with legal counsel as soon as possible to ensure that your rights are protected. Depending on your charges, you could be facing very serious charges that could include prison, community service and probation. Call us today for a free consultation.

Testifying before a Connecticut State Legislature committee, a widower was finally allowed to tell his story about how his wife’s psychiatrist had contributed to her suicide more than seven years before, a New York Criminal Lawyer learned. This 46-year old man claims that after taking antidepressants the psychiatrist prescribed, his wife had suicidal thoughts. He went on to say that, her psychiatrist literally ignored his calls as he tried to get her help. His 46-year old wife eventually backed her car into the couple’s garage and left the engine running. Her death was a suicide by carbon monoxide poisoning.

While his wife’s former psychiatrist and his license remain in good standing in the state of Connecticut, and his attorney flatly denies the allegations, the husband of the dead woman has been on a quest ever since his wife passed away. He has had legal representation part of the time, most of his lawsuit attempts at the doctor have been pro se, which means he has been representing himself.

He has spent many hours at courthouses and legal libraries in order to prepare himself as to what he needed to do on his mission, as well as what would be expected of him. As part of his journey through the legal maze that he faced alone, he has filed numerous motions and legal briefs, and has most of them dismissed even without the judge allowing any arguments. Undaunted, he had his day to speak about his loss and his quest to a group of lawmakers who are looking to change the way the system treats those who represent themselves in malpractice lawsuits. During his testimony he was allowed to exceed his three-minute time to speak allocation because of his compelling story that lawmakers and attorneys alike had either already heard of, or were intrigued by.

At present, no one is for certain whether the bill the committee held the hearing over would ever make it to the floor of the Connecticut legislature for a vote, or if it had any chance of passage. The one thing that is clear in this story is that one man’s devotion to his family and to his cause can make a difference.

If you have been charged with an offense, such as fraud, drug possession or a theft crime, it is important to seek legal guidance as soon as possible. The penalties you could be facing could be severe, including prison time, community service and probation.

Contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates for advice and a free consultation today.

A Kane County judge found an Elgin, Illinois man guilty of aggravated DWI and unlawful use of a deadly weapon. He was also found guilty of violating an order of protection. The judge dropped the most severe charge of armed violence and harassing a witness charge, a New York Criminal Lawyer was told.

The police were called to the residence of the 32-year-old man’s former girlfriend’s residence. They found the man asleep in a Jeep with a butcher knife outside the apartment complex at 2:45 a.m. April 7, 2010. The woman called the police because the man had knocked several times throughout a four-hour period. She never answered the door. Instead, she hid in fear until he went away.

At the trial, the police officers, who responded to the 911 call, testified that the man appeared intoxicated. He threatened his former girlfriend, one of the police officers said in court. At the time of the incident, he had been released on bond for an arson charge where he set fire to a house where one of his children, who was two-years-old, was inside. The child was not injured. The home belonged to his parents.

The man could face two to 10-years in prison for the charges because of the guilty verdict. He was been in custody since the incident in April.

The insurance company responsible for his parent’s home has filed a civil lawsuit against him because of the damages caused by the arson. They are requesting $410,000 from the man.

Contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates for guidance, whether you have been charged with sex crimes, arson, drug or weapons possession. We will use our years of experience to keep the fines and sentencing low. When you come in, we will provide you with legal guidance and a free consultation. We have offices throughout New York, including offices in Manhattan, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island. We also have locations in Nassau County and Suffolk County on Long Island, as well as Westchester County. Call us today for an appointment at 1-800-NY-NY-LAW.

An Alexandria Police Department detective faces driving under the influence charges after he was involved in a single car accident. He crashed his city-issued vehicle into a concrete pole. The car was provided to the department with taxpayer money. The accident happened at the corner of Gibbon and South Patrick Streets in Alexandria, a New York Criminal Lawyer was told.

The detective, who was off-duty at the time of the accident, refused to take a breathalyzer test when the police arrived about 6:30 p.m. Saturday at the accident location. He is also facing charges of unreasonable refusal for rejecting the breathalyzer test.

The mayor of the city said the incident could not be tolerated. “It doesn’t represent the characteristics of the hundreds of outstanding men and women of our police department. Hopefully, this is just an isolated incident,” said the mayor.

He was taken to an area hospital to be treated for injuries related to the accident. The injuries were considered minor.

The detective’s court date has not been officially scheduled, but he is on paid administrative leave. The department is running an internal investigation into the DUI said the department’s spokesperson.

This is not the first DUI incident the department has faced. Back in 2009, the former police chief was arrested in Arlington after drinking drunk. The current police chief, who replaced the former one after he was arrested, and the city manager may be taking a closer look at the department’s policies to keep DUIs from occurring again, explained a New York Criminal Lawyer.

Do not let just any lawyer represent you in court; instead let Stephen Bilkis and Associates fight for you. Whether you have been charged with drug possession, a theft crime, or DWI, we will provide you with a free consultation and ensure that your rights are protected. Come in and see us in one of our many New York locations, such as Staten Island, Queens, the Bronx, or Brooklyn. We also have offices in Suffolk County and Nassau County on Long Island, as well as Westchester County.

A New York Criminal Lawyer has learned that three additional District of Columbia police officers have been arrested as part of an Internal Affairs corruption probe. These arrests happened just one day after another D.C. police officer was arrested as part of an unrelated investigation.

The three officers were arrested at the 4th District station following their purchase of electronic equipment that is believed to be worth several hundreds of thousands of dollars. The officers believed the equipment was stolen. Although the investigation is continuing, it does not appear that the officers were working together as part of a larger conspiracy.

D.C. officials report that the arrests are part of a two-month investigation that is part of an overall 18-month initiative, which has sought to rid the police department of any officers that are either corrupt or dishonest. The officials went on to say that, many of the hardworking men and women of the D.C. Police Dept. are devastated that there were those within their ranks that brought reproach to their department.

The internal investigation was prompted, in large part, by certain factors that were detected as a result of internal departmental checks and audits, supervisor reviews, internal and external tips, or as a result of other ongoing investigations, a New York Criminal Lawyer was told. The D.C. Police Dept has an ongoing policy of rooting out dishonesty and corruption within its ranks, and is willing to go to great lengths to maintain the integrity of its workforce. This ensures that any bad apple will be quickly taken out of the department before any bad seeds of corruption are sown and allowed to spread.

The three arrested officers have been charged with the attempted receipt of stolen property. While it is not clear exactly when the officers were suspended, all three officers were suspended from the department and are awaiting arraignment in D.C. court on Wednesday. It is also unclear as to whether any of the men have retained the services of an attorney.

The previous arrest, also involved an officer in the 4th District who was an active participant in a burglary. That arrest took place on Saturday.

If you or a loved one has ever had a negative experience with the law, then you may already know how much skilled legal counsel can help you sort through the legal quagmire that lies ahead of anyone who has been charged with a crime. If this is your first run-in with the law, then Stephen Bilkis and Associates can speak on your behalf and help you negotiate your way on the path to problem resolution. Whether you have been charged with a federal crime, a white collar crime, or fraud, we are here to help. We will provide you with a free consultation with your first appointment, so call us today.

A man was arrested for DWI after allegedly striking objects and vehicles in a trailer park.

The local 911 office received several calls from trailer park residents about a driver in a white Ford truck striking, fencing, an electrical box, power lines and other vehicles. When officials arrived on the scene, they observed the white truck driving southeast without headlights in a field. When the truck stopped, deputies discovered the driver had abandoned the vehicle.

After searching the area, deputies found the 41 year-old man 300 yards from the abandoned truck. He was hiding in a ditch. The man stumbled out of the ditch mumbling that someone had slipped something in his drink and it was making him act crazy. Officials observed that the man seemed extremely intoxicated and discovered a rifle the man had left behind in the ditch, stated a New York Criminal Lawyer.

The man admitted to having drinks earlier in the evening, but refused to perform field sobriety tests because he stated he would not pass them. According to officials, he had a blood alcohol concentration of 0.239, which is three times the legal limit.

The man, who was driving with a suspended license, was arrested and charged with aggravated DWI, reckless driving, criminal damage and leaving the scene of an accident. No other details regarding the incident or about the man's incarceration or bond are available at this time.

If you or a loved one is facing criminal charges, Stephen Bilkis and Associates can help. We can help you navigate through the complicated process of putting together an effective defense, ensuring the best possible legal outcome. We have offices located throughout New York for your convenience, including locations in Manhattan, Queens, The Bronx, Brooklyn, and Staten Island. We also have locations in Westchester County, and Nassau County and Suffolk County on Long Island. Call us today for a free consultation at 1-800-NY-NY-LAW.

Was a criminal attorney really necessary? A New York Criminal Lawyer reviews one case brought before the Supreme Court justices because a jilted wife was charged under a federal law for trying to poison her husband’s girlfriend.

The federal law in question was first written in order to implement a chemical weapons treaty. The treaty was designed against chemicals which were deadly and used during times of war. Unfortunately the federal law was written in very broad terms thus used against this scorned lover who is facing a severe penalty for trying to poison her husband’s lover, formerly her best friend.

The twist comes in the fact that the woman’s guilt or innocence is not in question. She admits to a Nassau County Criminal Lawyer for trying to poison the woman pregnant with her husband’s baby. She is questioning her sentencing under this federal law. This questioning of a federal law has raised eyebrows on the political front. The question has arisen of whether or not someone, a regular citizen, has a right to sue over a law that was written for a different purpose. Who truly has the right to challenge the government? Her lawyer is former Bush administration solicitor Paul D. Clement and he is quoted as saying his client should not be deprived the right to challenge the government. His exact words are that she should have the ability “to challenge the constitutionality of the federal statute under which her liberty is being deprived…” and this “should not be open to question”. Even the federal government agrees that she should have the right to challenge the federal law even though they also feel she would not win the challenge.

Justice Alito shared his skepticism of the original law and its broadness saying that the law could be applied even if something as simple as pouring vinegar into a fish tank had occurred because it may cause the death of the fish. The lawyer, Clement, states that he has a hard time applying a law about chemical warfare to ingredients that can be purchased on Amazon.com. It should be noted that the lover was only mildly affected by the ingredients used to poison her. The issue was once again broached by Ginsburg of whether the defendant had a right to challenge her conviction based on the law under which she was punished.

Should government be allowed to decide who can challenge a conviction and who cannot? Should the spirit of a law be taken into consideration? No matter how one feels about those questions, if trouble arises a Stephen Bilkis and Associates can help in criminal legal matters. Whether you have been charged with a felony matter, sex crimes, drug possession or theft, we can provide you with a strong defense, and ensure that your rights are protected. Come into any of our convenient New York locations for a free consultation today.

A driver, police believe was driving drunk, will face charges after her 17-year-old passenger suffered severe injuries from the crash. The 22-year-old woman driving crashed into a tree, a New York Criminal Lawyer was informed.

Police were called to the scene of the accident around 2:40 a.m. Sunday. The 17-year-old male passenger was unconscious when officials responded. He had visible facial injuries. The accident happened in Morgan Hill, California.

The driver is not the only person believed to have been drunk during the time of the crash, the minor was believed to have been under the influence too, as police officers reported to a New York Criminal Lawyer. A helicopter transported the 17-year-old male to a nearby hospital in California. At this time, the male is in critical condition, but the hospital was not able to go into any further detail about his health.

The driver also complained of pain in her ankles and wrists. It is unclear if they were wearing seat belts at the time of the crash. She has since been released from the hospital and booked by Morgan Hill Police. She was booked under the suspicion of DUI. She was taken to Santa Clara County Jail to await her day in court. It is unclear if she has a lawyer.

Do not be caught without a qualified legal counsel by your side. Do not let just any lawyer represent you; speak to Stephen Bilkis and Associates today. Whether you have been charged with a DUI, drug possession or a theft crime, it is important to speak obtain legal guidance right away. It is important to ensure that your rights are protected and that your case is presented to the court in the best possible light. Call us today for legal advice and a free consultation. We have offices located throughout New York City to serve you, including locations in Manhattan, Staten Island, the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Queens. We also have locations in Nassau County and Suffolk County on Long Island, as well as Westchester County. Call us today to schedule a free consultation at 1-800-NY-NY-LAW.

Currently in the state of New York, there is an interesting dynamic happening in the medical field regarding awards given to victims of medical malpractice.

Many representatives of hospitals are arguing in favor of “caps” for financial compensation awarded to victims of alleged medical malpractice, in response to malpractice lawsuits. A New York Criminal Lawyer notes that one of the main reasons for their argument is the correlation between high malpractice awards and high costs of medical care to the average patient. The hospitals and doctors that are fighting for these malpractice award caps are also directly correlated to the increased need for “defensive medicine”, which includes certain medical procedures and tests which might normally be deemed unnecessary, were it not for the extra care given to patients out of fear of malpractice accusations.

On the opposite side of the spectrum, as observed by a New York Criminal lawyer, are consumer advocacy groups and attorneys, who claim that award caps for medical malpractice are detrimental to the interests of patients. They continue with a positive reason for keeping caps off of malpractice award suits by stating that when it comes to long-term care, cap-less awards act as an important element for the well-being of the patients. Furthermore, they maintain that hospitals do not usually pay such malpractice awards out of their own pocket; in fact, the insurance provider usually takes care of such claims, although insurance premiums have steadily increased in recent years.

Another reason that hospitals and doctors are hoping for award caps is the claim that such caps would result in a substantial lowering in insurance costs for the hospitals. However, a representative of the New York State Bar Association comments, "We've looked at the states where this has been put into place, for example in Texas," he said. "Texas adopted caps. Have insurance rates gone down? No. They haven’t gone down one cent." Medicaid currently has a multi-billion dollar budget, yet they do not pay out damage claims in cases of medical malpractice. Although doctors and hospitals have stressed the necessity for “relief” from massive malpractice awards, it appears as though the majority of cases and costs are absorbed by the insurance provider.

This issue is important to society and it is hoped that a delicate balance is struck between proper medical care for patients and the avoidance of flippant malpractice lawsuits. As the State of New York battles through this issue, we are likely to see similar debate nationwide In the event that you or those you love find yourself in the midst of a scenario such as that described above, qualified legal counsel is available to assist you with individual care and concern, as well as beneficial legal counsel and representation.

Whether you have been charged with Medicaid fraud, insurance fraud, or other white collar crime, it is important to speak with our office as soon as possible. We will ensure that you receive an aggressive defense, and that your rights are protected.

A recent concern has been raised regarding side effects and unintended release times of over-the-counter cough and cold medicines that are not approved by the FDA.

As discerned by a New York Criminal Lawyer, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has deemed over 500 name-brand, over-the-counter drugs as sketchy at best, stating that they should not be on the market at all. One of the primary concerns is in regards to the claims of the drug’s reaction upon human consumption. On the one hand, some of the cough and cold products release the primary active ingredients much to quickly; it has been noted that one product in particular releases the active ingredient within 30 minutes of consumption, rather than the 8-12 hours advertised on the package. Other products err on the opposite side of the spectrum, releasing the main ingredients much slower than advertised.

A woman who serves the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research as director of compliance expresses her concern regarding these products by saying, "We don't know what's in them, whether they work properly, or how they are made.” The arbitrary nature of the OTC drugs has also raised concern among notable physicians. A professor of family medicine from the University of Michigan stated he's "quite certain that very few physicians are aware of them being unapproved, and would be as surprised as I was to hear that there were unapproved drugs on the market at all.” A Long Island Criminal Lawyer notes that some of the specifics of these unapproved and potentially dangerous drugs include the combining of two or more active ingredients such as antihistamines, which are sometimes known to over-sedate a patient.
The FDA further expressed its unease regarding the tendency of some products to promote use for children under 2 years of age; the administration has stressed in the past that children this age should not be consuming non-prescription cough and cold products under any circumstances.

Another detailed claim from the FDA regarding the side effects of such unapproved products includes irritability and drowsiness, though it is not stated if a specific age group is especially prone to these effects. A complete list of the drugs in question may be obtained from the Food and Drug Administration website.

Unintended consequences of drugs, whether prescription or over-the-counter, are often referred to as side- effects. Unfortunately, many times side-effects are not discerned until a product has already been in use. As stated above, there are currently hundreds of non-FDA approved cough and cold medicines circulating. Should you or a loved one experience harmful side-effects from these drugs produced and distributed dishonestly, a Stephen Bilkis and Associates is prepared to offer guidance, legal counsel and representation.

If you or a loved one has been charged with a felony, drug possession, white collar crime of theft crime, it is important to obtain legal assistance as soon as possible to ensure that your rights are protected. Come into to any of our conveniently located offices throughout New York. We will provide you with sound legal guidance and a free consultation.