New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

On September 30, 1974, three men wearing bandanas on their faces entered the house of a man and rounded up all the people in his house. The three men threatened the man of the house at gunpoint and told him that they will kill his children if he did not open his safe and give them all the valuables he had.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the man complied and opened his safe. As he was opening his safe, the bandana on the face of one of the three armed men came loose and fell off. The man of the house got a good look at his face. But just the same the man of the house gave the armed men all the cash in his safe, a diamond ring and his coin collection which was worth around $40,000.00. The armed man whose face he saw was the same man who pointed a gun to his head all the while that he was opening the safe.

A month later, the man of the house was summoned by the Nassau police. They asked him to identify one of the armed men, the one whose face he saw, from a line up they had. The man of the house positively identified the armed man whose bandana fell from his face.
The man was indicted for robbery and larceny. During his arraignment his counsel was able to obtain bail for him. After he posted bail, the man left Nassau County for New York City. While there, he contacted a fence he knew so that he could sell the man of the house’s coin collection.

The fence he knew turned out to be an undercover police officer from New York City. They at first spoke on the phone and the fence seemed interested in the coin collection. They agreed to meet at a restaurant. The armed man told the fence that he would call him to make the final arrangements. When the armed man called the fence, the fence, who was an undercover police officer, recorded their conversation.

In that recorded conversation, the armed man described to the undercover cop the entire coin collection. A Nassau Criminal Lawyer said that the undercover police officer was investigating a crime being committed in his jurisdiction in the city of New York not knowing that the evidence he was gathering to prosecute the crime in New York City was also evidence for another crime committed in Nassau County.

During the trial in Nassau County for armed robbery, the tape recording of the conversation between the undercover New York City police officer who was posing as a fence was played for the jury. The armed man objected to the playing of the entire recorded conversation as it was recorded without his knowledge or consent as and it amounted to making a statement without being apprised of his Miranda rights and without the presence of his counsel.
The trial judge denied his motion to suppress the recorded telephone conversation. The armed man was convicted of armed robbery and larceny. He appealed his conviction on constitutional grounds. The only question before the Supreme Court was whether or not the recorded conversation should be suppressed.

The Court held that the rule is well-established in New York that incriminating statements obtained from an accused after he has asked for a lawyer are inadmissible if obtained through a custodial interrogation without his counsel and without a waiver of his rights.

Here, however, the Court ruled that the rule cannot be applied absolutely. The armed man’s statements to the undercover police officer were spontaneous declarations. At the time that the armed man made those statements, he was not under custodial investigation and the undercover New York City officer was not investigating the armed robbery in Nassau County. There was no deliberate attempt to inveigle the armed man to make incriminatory statements, no threats were made and no pressure was brought to bear upon him to make those statements.

The armed man also questions his indictment for armed robbery when no evidence of a gun was ever proffered by the People. And even if evidence was procured that a gun was used in the commission of the armed robbery, there is no proof that the gun was used to forcibly take property of the man of the house for the brandishing of the gun could have been done in the heat of passion.

The Court ruled that possession of a gun while committing a robbery, brandishing it, using it to threaten the man of the house and aiming the gun to the head of the man of the house to make him open his safe and give the armed man the contents of the safe are all evidence from which the reasonable mind of the jury was able to make the inference that the intent of the armed man was to forcibly take the property of the man of the house.

The Court upheld and affirmed the conviction of the armed man.

Are you under indictment for robbery, sex crimes or drug possession? Is the use and possession of a gun during the alleged robbery one of the elements of the crime you are charged with? You need the services of a New York City Gun Crime Lawyer. You need a NYC Gun Crime attorney who can raise a defense for you. You need to call the offices of Stephen Bilkis and Associates and speak to any of their New York Gun Crime Attorneys who can advice you and represent you. Call Stephen Bilkis and Associates today. Meet with any of their NY Gun Crime Lawyers and start building your defense.

On 23 January 1997 at approximately 3:30 A.M., an investigator from the Albany County Sheriff's Department boarded a bus which had arrived from New York City. The investigator, wearing civilian clothing with his police badge prominently displayed on his coat, was accompanied by two other officers. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the investigator announced that they were conducting a drug interdiction and asked everyone on board, approximately fifteen passengers, to produce bus tickets and identification. He then proceeded to the back of the bus to begin examining those items from each passenger.

As the investigator was walking to the rear of the bus, he observed defendant and a female companion, sitting in the last row of seats, push a black object between them. He approached the two individuals and asked for their identification and bus tickets. The investigator then obtained consent to search defendant's bag which led to the discovery of a digital scale; asked defendant and his companion to stand at which time he saw a black jacket on defendant's seat. The officer found more than two ounces of cocaine in the jacket pocket (drug possession).

Defendant was indicted on one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree and one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, drug crimes.

The defendant moved to suppress the physical evidence seized by the police but the County Court denied it.

Subsequently, defendant pleaded guilty to both charges and was sentenced as a second felony offender to concurrent prison sentences of 8½ years to life and 8½ to 17 years.
The Appellate Division affirmed the decision.

Hence, the herein appeal.

The issue here is the admissibility of evidence seized as the result of an encounter between defendant and the police on a commercial passenger bus during a stopover in Albany, New York.

Defendant asserts that police conduct in this case violated the rules regulating police-initiated encounters with civilians.

At the outset, the court notes that whether police conduct in any particular case conforms to the rules is a mixed question of law and fact. Therefore, the court’s review is limited to whether there is evidence in the record supporting the lower courts' determinations. Here, the court concludes in the negative.

Where police acting in their criminal law enforcement capacity initiate an encounter with private citizens, the propriety of the encounter must be assessed under the four-tiered analytical framework: "If a police officer seeks simply to request information from an individual, that request must be supported by an objective, credible reason, not necessarily indicative of criminality. The common-law right of inquiry, a wholly separate level of contact, is activated by a founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot and permits a somewhat greater intrusion. Where a police officer has reasonable suspicion that a particular person was involved in a felony or misdemeanor, the officer is authorized to forcibly stop and detain that person.

Finally, where the officer has probable cause to believe that a person has committed a crime, an arrest is authorized.

It is well settled that when an officer asks an individual to provide identification or destination information during a police-initiated encounter, the request for information implicates the initial tier of De Bour analysis. A Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer said that although police officers have fairly broad authority to approach and pose questions, they may not do so on mere whim or caprice; the request must be based on an articulable reason not necessarily related to criminality.

The resolution of this case depends on when De Bour scrutiny was triggered and if, at that time, the police had an objective, credible reason to justify the request that all passengers produce tickets and identification.

The People contend that the police did not approach any particular passenger until the investigator observed defendant and his companion secret a black object, which provided the investigator with an articulable reason to request information from defendant and his companion.

However, starting De Bour analysis at this juncture overlooks the fact, as found by County Court and the Appellate Division, that the investigator initially asked every one of the passengers to present documentation prior to any observations of passenger conduct. De Bour was triggered at that point. The Appellate Division held that this inceptive request was satisfied by the articulable reason that the officers were conducting drug interdiction on a commercial passenger bus traveling from New York City, a known source city for narcotic drugs.

Defendant then argues that law enforcement knowledge regarding the origination of the bus was inadequate to establish a legal basis to ask everyone traveling on the bus to produce identification and a bus ticket.

The court agrees with defendant.

Courts have never held that a police encounter was justified by anything so general such as the knowledge that an entire city is a known source of drugs. Even a discrete area of a city identified as a high crime area has not, by itself, been sufficient justification for informational requests of the type involved here.

In determining the legality of an encounter, it has been crucial whether a nexus to conduct existed, that is, whether the police were aware of or observed conduct which provided a particularized reason to request information. A Nassau County Criminal Lawyer said the fact that an encounter occurred in a high crime area, without more, has not passed De Bour scrutiny.

Meanwhile, a request for information might be justified, for instance, if the officers had a tip" or information that drugs were being transported from New York City by bus that evening, or if the police had observed defendant engage in certain activity prior to boarding the bus and then questioned him on the bus. Similarly, if the police had information that a fugitive was in the terminal, that could warrant the questioning of passengers. De Bour, in short, does not prevent police officers from following up on leads or from requesting information in countless situations where there is an objective, credible reason to question a person.

Here, the record does not reflect any reason for the request of all passengers to produce their tickets and identification, other than the fact the bus had departed from a place described by the investigator known as a source city for narcotics. In the absence of any conduct by a passenger or other basis giving rise to a particularized reason for the encounter, the request of 15 passengers to produce documentation did not meet the De Bour standard. Neither does the investigator's observation of defendant pushing a black object legitimize his earlier request of all passengers. Since a police encounter cannot be validated by a later-acquired suspicion, the investigator's subsequent observations of defendant do not cleanse the initial request of its shortcomings.

Accordingly, the court concludes that the procedure employed by the three police officers in boarding the bus and requesting that all of the passengers produce tickets and identification was conducted without an objective, credible reason. It follows that the ensuing search of defendant's bag and jacket was unlawful. In light of the determination, the court need not consider defendant's remaining constitutional challenges.

The order of the Appellate Division is reversed; defendant's guilty plea vacated; his motion to suppress granted; and, the indictment dismissed.

For more information regarding defense strategies in criminal cases, if you are in one, contact Stephen Bilkis & Associates and have a free consultation. Be advised by the best criminal defense lawyers. Talk to a New York Criminal Lawyer, a New York Drug Lawyer, or a New York Arrest Lawyer, among others, from our firm and plan your defenses in court.

The plaintiff and appellee in the case is Lynda L. Watt. The defendant and appellant of the case is the Police Department of the City of Richardson.

Appeal

A New York Criminal Lawyer the City of Richardson is appealing the finding of the district court that states that the strip search that was performed was constitutionally invalid.

Case Background

Lynda Watt was with her five year old son on the third of March in 1985. She was pulled over by a police officer because the vehicle that she was driving had an inspection sticker that was expired. She told the officer that she was borrowing the car from her mother’s estate and he issued a warning. However, when the officer conducted a routine computer check on Watt, he discovered a warrant that was outstanding for failing to license her dog. While this offense is only punishable by a fine, the police officer was required to arrest Watt.

Watt fully cooperated with the officer during her short custody. It was not apparent that she was under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The search of Watt’s purse revealed nothing out of the ordinary. Additionally, a Nassau County Criminal Lawyer said she volunteered information about a previous arrest for a minor drug offense in 1974. This conviction had not shown up in the computer search done by the police until she gave her surname. The police conducted a pat down search.

During this time Watt was told that she would need to post bail of $160. She did not have the cash with her so she called a neighbor to bring the money and to pick up her son. The police were aware that she would be released shortly.

The police then told Watt that because she had a criminal history record that she would be required to submit to a visual strip search. This is in regard to a policy of the city that states that any individual who is detained on a drug charge, shoplifting (petit larceny) charge, or weapons charge, or has a history of any of these offenses, must be strip searched.

Watts protested the strip search, but finally submitted. This included a visual body cavity inspection performed by a female communications officer. The strip complied with the policy of city and took place in a cell that had no windows or television cameras. The strip search was negative as were the other searches.

Case Discussion and Verdict

Analysis of the policy of the city in regards to a strip search begins with the decision made by the Supreme Court in the case of Bell versus Wolfish, which approved a policy that allowed strip searches of detainees after they had contact with an outside visitor. The reasoning was that it would deter the smuggling of weapons and contraband being brought into the facilities.

In this particular case, it is not the city’s policy on strip searches that is in question. It is the question of whether or not the strip search was valid in this particular case. The police would not have known of the prior drug conviction of Ms. Watt had she not been forthcoming with the information. In addition, she was cooperative, obviously sober, and rational throughout the process. This behavior should have been considered before the strip search was conducted. For these reasons this court is affirming the prior courts judgment in the case.

At Stephen Bilkis & Associates we offer free consultations to anyone that is in need of legal advice, whether you have been charged with sex crimes, theft or a drug crime. We have several office locations throughout the metropolitan area of Manhattan for your convenience. You may call and talk to one of our expert lawyers at any time and set up an appointment to get the legal advice that you need.

The responsibility of the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) is to protect children in the state of New York from emotional or physical harm. This is the agency charged with stepping in to ensure that the home lives of children in the state of New York are safe. There are several laws that give authority to the ACS to conduct home examinations, require drug and alcohol testing, and even authorize the removal of children from their natural parents if it is necessary. However, because people are only human, the fact remains that sometimes mistakes happen. Unfortunately, when an employee of social services or children’s services makes a mistake, there are dire consequences. A New York Criminal Lawyer said in one case from August 2007, an infant girl child was killed at the hands of her mother’s companion. The case alleges that ACS employees were aware of the danger that the infant was in and did not take action to protect her.

The case states that because Brooklyn Family court had charged ACS with supervising the child’s home; and because ACS was familiar with many incidents of domestic violence in the home, the estate of the deceased child is due compensation for her death. The attorneys for ACS claim that since the child was killed by her mother’s companion, who is an outside party, that they are not responsible. The issue involved is whether the infant’s death was due to the gross negligence of ACS or was an unforeseeable event caused by an outsider.

In order to determine who is at fault for the infant’s murder, one must understand the laws that apply in this case. There are two arguments that affect the decision in this case. The first argument is that the representative for the little girl’s estate wants to serve interrogatories to determine who the estate will depose in this action. Under CPLR 3130, a party in a negligence action is not allowed to serve interrogatories and conduct depositions of the same party.

The estate for the little girl, claims that because his claim is based on a wrongful death action under 42 USC§ 1983, he should be permitted to conduct depositions. Interrogatories provide the identities of witnesses to be able to narrow down the list of people who need to be deposed. ACS claims that because the infant was murdered by someone who was not in the employ of ACS, and that she was not physically in ACS custody, that the claim based on a violation of her constitutional rights cannot be valid. ACS further claims the immunity that is promised to government agencies absent a special relationship that would constitute a predicate for liability.

A Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer representing the estate of the child maintains that a special relationship did exist because ACS voluntarily created an assumption of duty when they accepted the supervision order issued by the Family Court. Under these circumstances, the estate attorney says that a viable claim exists for negligent supervision and wrongful death. The estate attorney further contends that ACS is not entitled to the judicial immunity that they claim because the obligations involved were not an integral part of the judicial process. The estate recognizes that it is not reasonable to expect the Bronx court to recognize the federal rights violation of due process at that court level. Therefore, the third cause of action under 42 USC § 1983, the absence of due process rights under the 14th Amendment of the US, is dismissed.

Under the governmental immunity doctrine, a municipality and its agents cannot be held liable for any act of negligence that occurs in the exercise of a governmental function unless a special relationship exists or is established between the governmental agency and the person filing the complaint. Under this doctrine, there are three ways to establish a special relationship. A Nassau County Criminal Lawyer said the first is that the municipality violates a statutory duty enacted for the benefit of a particular class of persons. The second is when a municipality voluntarily assumes a duty that generates justifiable reliance by the person who would benefit from the duty. The third is when the municipality assumes positive direction and control in the face of a known, blatant, and dangerous safety violation.

In this case, the elements to create a special relationship existed because the Family Court’s supervision order triggered specific, mandatory duties on the part of ACS which the employees neglected to perform. It is alleged that the ACS employees were well aware of the dysfunctional and potentially dangerous environment of the home where the infant lived. The court ruled that because ACS had contact with the infant and the family situation in which the infant lived, it is reasonable to imply that a special relationship existed under the law.

The court also found that the doctrine of judicial immunity is not applicable in this case. The court cited Mosher-Simons v County of Allegany (99 NY2d 214, 2002) in which the social services employee was not given judicial immunity because of a lack of appropriate action taken. In this case, the supervision of the infant’s environment was not a judicial function. It was a prerogative of the Family Court Act that enabled it to direct ACS to protect the child from harm, ACS (not the Family Court) was bound by the obligations that were presented to supervise the home environment. In this case, there was no immunity affordable to ACS or it’s representatives because discretionary municipal acts are not a basis for tort liability, but ministerial acts are libelous when a special duty is found. ACS was required to perform very specific actions to make sure that the child would be safe. These actions were not discretionary by nature. That is why immunity does not attach to them.

As far as the CPLR 3130(1) which states the earlier mentioned requirements that a party is not permitted to serve interrogatories on and conduct a deposition of the same party pursuant to rule 3107 without leave of the court. In a personal injury or wrongful death action to recover damages, the court was concerned that wealthy litigants might use their greater resources to bury poorer adversaries in interrogatories and other paperwork in order to avoid responsibility for monetary damages. In this case, the court determined that there is no intent to misuse the court and leave given by the court to authorize this type of investigation under CPLR 3130 would be reasonable. Basically the court determined that although the estate has the right to conduct all of the interrogatories that it wants, the ACS management has the right to determine which of its representatives are the most knowledgeable about the incident. Those employees are the one who will appear in court, so they are the ones who need to be deposed.

Domestic violence can certainly affect everyone in the home. Many women, who think that they cannot escape, find the strength to get out when the fight is for the lives of their children. This mother let her child die rather than get away from her abuser. At Stephen Bilkis & Associates our Domestic Violence Lawyers, have convenient offices throughout New York and Metropolitan area. Do not risk the life of your child! Our Family lawyers will help you protect your family from domestic violence.

There are many issues involved in any driving under the influence case that goes to court. Among them is the importance of delivering the refusal warnings correctly. If the refusal warnings are not given correctly, the evidence of the refusal cannot be used in court. This can create a situation that prevents the officers from being able to make an adequate case for DUI. In New York, the officers often use a videotaped warning for persons who are suspected of DUI who speak Spanish. Normally, this is an effective way to ensure that people who do not speak English are able to understand the warnings as well as the repercussions of a refusal.

A New York DWI Lawyer said however, problems can arise when a suspect does not behave in a predictable manner. In one case, which occurred in New York on January 14, 1998, Vice-officers were engaged in a prostitution sting. It was set up near East 242nd Street and White Plains Road in the Bronx. The defendant, who only spoke Spanish, was arrested when he drove up to an undercover police officer and offered her $20 for a sexual act. She notified her back up officers. When the arresting officer stopped the defendant, he approached the driver, who was the defendant. He noticed that the defendant exuded a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage from about his person, his eyes were blood-shot and glassy, and his speech was slurred. The arresting officer asked the defendant to exit the vehicle. When he attempted to exit the vehicle, he fell out of it face first. He was transported to the precinct where he was shown the Spanish language implied consent warnings. After the first section that ends with the question of whether the defendant would submit to the test, the tape was stopped. The defendant responded in a non-committal manner. He was rambling and uttering nonsense. After several attempts to get a sensible answer out of the defendant, the officer gave up and turned off the video tape of both the Spanish warnings, and the entire arrest.

When the refusal case was taken to court, one of the first problems was that the warnings were not completed. A New York DWI Lawyer said the second part of the tape that explains the repercussions of refusal was never played for the defendant. his failure effectively established that he had not been given the warnings correctly. That meant that the jury, in court, could not view any portion of the video of his arrest that concerned his refusal to take the test.

The state countered this by making a request to redact the tape to remove any portion that reflected his refusal and only use section that would show the jury what his demeanor was at the time of his arrest. The judge ordered a review of this redacted tape, before presentation in court. The state prepared it, and the judge accepted it. The defendant also requested that this tape be kept from the jury because he was not given his Miranda rights. However, the requirement for Miranda warnings is that the person be under arrest and being questioned.

After reviewing the tape, the judge found that after being arrested, the officer did ask the defendant a question. A Nassau County Criminal Lawyer said that since he did not Mirandize the subject at any time, it raised the question about the admissibility of the tape itself. However, the court determined that the partial refusal warning that the defendant was given did not at any time constitute an interrogation. The question that was asked, if the subject understood his rights, is not considered questioning under the law. That means that although the defendant was in custody, he was not entitled to Miranda warnings because he was not being questioned about his crimes. The tape was allowed in court.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates has NY Criminal Lawyers, in convenient offices throughout New York and the Metropolitan area. Do not lose your driving privileges. Our New York DUI Lawyers can defend anyone charged with DUI. Without an NY DUI Lawyer, you could lose your driver’s license or your freedom.

A couple married in 1982. The husband was a surgical resident while the woman stayed home. Their marriage was marked by frequent fights and quarrels. Both of them argued and threatened each other.

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said that one year after they were married, the wife called her cousin who was a divorce lawyer. Her voice was hoarse and she was speaking very rapidly. She told her cousin that she and her husband had an argument and that he assaulted her. She told him that he ended up strangling her until she lost consciousness. He advised her to move out of the house. She called to tell him later that she left their house and was staying at their grandfather’s house for a while. She also went to see her psychiatrist who stated that she noticed finger marks on the wife’s neck. They talked about what happened and she revealed that she was strangled and assaulted by her husband.

In 1984, the wife consulted a divorce lawyer. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said she had adulterous relationships with other men and wanted a divorce from her husband. In 1985, she told her friends and relatives that she was asking her husband for a divorce. She informed them that she was going to coerce him to grant her a divorce by threatening to reveal a letter sent to her by his psychiatrist. In this letter, the psychiatrist told the wife that during her sessions with her husband, he disclosed that he was entertaining thoughts of murdering her. The psychiatrist asked for the consent of the husband to disclose this fact to her.

The wife threatened her husband that unless he gave her a divorce, she would not only disclose the contents of the letter of the psychiatrist to his colleagues in the medical profession but that she would also testify as to the Medicare fraud he perpetrated.

They argued on July 7, 1985 and after that the wife disappeared. The husband had been evasive with the police. He gave inconsistent statements and he did not disclose that on July 8, 1985, he chartered a small airplane and piloted it himself. A Queens Criminal Lawyer said he flew the airplane to New Jersey for two hours. Even during the months that followed his wife’s disappearance, he had affairs with women and had them move in with him at the apartment he shared with his wife.

After years of investigation, the police and the district attorney pieced together a case of murder against the husband. The husband was convicted by a jury and his conviction was upheld by the Appellate Division. A Queens Criminal Lawyer said he now appears before the Supreme Court asking that his conviction be overturned because the prosecution was unable to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt using legally admissible evidence.

The only question before the Supreme Court is whether or not the conviction should be upheld.
First the Court explained that the wife’s body was not found. There were also no witnesses to the murder. All that the prosecution has proffered were circumstantial evidence. The Court however ruled that while each of the circumstantial evidence taken in isolation may be consistent with the claim of innocence of the husband, when all the circumstantial evidence is taken together, the natural and reasonable inferences can only lead to the conclusion that the husband murdered his wife.

Second, the husband’s propensity for domestic violence was a matter of record. Their three-year marriage was punctuated with domestic violence and threats of domestic violence. The husband was highly emotional and harbored profound hostility. He had disclosed his murderous intent to his psychiatrist and his psychiatrist obtained the husband’s consent to warn the wife about his murderous intentions.

The Court ruled that the trial court did not err when it ordered that the contents of the letter not be divulged to the jury. The only fact divulged to the jury was the existence of the letter and that it contained a warning to the wife about her husband’s expressed desire to kill her.
The Court upheld the conviction of the husband and affirmed the sentence of 20 years imprisonment.

A New York Domestic Violence lawyer will advice you that domestic violence is a viable ground for divorce. A NYC Domestic Violence attorney will also advice you that domestic violence cannot be ignored for it often escalates as in this case, the domestic violence went beyond assault and resulted in the murder of the victim. Do not ignore Domestic Violence. Confer with any of the NY Domestic Violence lawyers at Stephen Bilkis and Associates. Ask for their advice and assistance. The NYC Domestic Violence attorneys at Stephen Bilkis and Associates are happy to entertain questions at any of their offices conveniently located in the New York Area.

A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said an accused man appealed from a summary judgment of the Supreme Court. He was convicted for violating criminal law through committing drug crimes. The accused man was sentenced for his alleged criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, crack possession in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said after hearing, the appeal brings up for review the denial of that branch of the accused man’s compilation of motion which was to suppress certain physical evidence.

The accused man was observed by the undercover police officers selling crack cocaine to the passengers of a BMW automobile during a drug crime surveillance operation. The BMW was stopped nearby and the passengers were arrested for a vial of crack cocaine possession that was recovered from the floor of the car. When the back-up officers arrived at the scene of the sale to make the arrests, they approached the accused man because he matched the description of the drug seller broadcast over the police radio. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said as the police officers approached, the accused man fled, dropping a plastic bag containing 100 vials of crack cocaine during the pursuit. On appeal, the accused man argues that the back-up officers did not possess a reasonable suspicion that he had committed a crime, allowing them to detain or pursue him and, therefore, the crack cocaine he discarded during the chase should have been suppressed as the fruit of an unlawful detention. A said the accused man makes the same argument as to the crack cocaine possession that was found on the floor of the BMW automobile.

A Nassau Criminal Lawyer said because the accused man did not move to suppress the crack cocaine found in the BMW automobile, the issue has not been preserved for appellate review. In any event, the accused man failed to articulate the requisite privacy interest to warrant a finding that he had standing to challenge the admission of the evidence and, as the discovery and seizure of the crack cocaine in the BMW occurred prior to the police's attempted detention of the accused man, it could not have been a fruit of that detention. With regard to the crack cocaine discarded during the flight, the court finds that the hearing court, which saw and heard the witnesses, correctly denied suppression.

A said the Court of Appeals noted that when a police officer entertains a reasonable suspicion that a particular person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a felony or misdemeanor, the criminal law authorizes a forcible stop and detention of that person. A reasonable suspicion is sufficient to permit a police officer to pursue a fleeing offender. A Suffolk County Criminal Lawyer said that reasonable suspicion is that quantum of knowledge sufficient to induce an ordinarily prudent and cautious person under the circumstances to believe that criminal law violation and activity is at hand. The facts reveal that the back-up officers, justifiably relying on the radio transmissions of their fellow officers describing the drug seller, possessed the requisite reasonable suspicion that the accused man had just committed a crime to both stop and forcibly detain him and to pursue him when he fled. Thus, the hearing court properly denied suppression of the crack cocaine abandoned by the accused man as he fled the police.

In addition, the accused man failed to preserve for appellate review his claim that the evidence was legally insufficient. In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the court finds that it was legally sufficient to establish the accused man’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of the court’s factual review power, the court is satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence.
Drug addiction always put us in the losing end. If you find yourself wrongfully charged of any legal action, feel free to contact the office of Stephen Bilkis and Associates to find a Queens Drug Attorney that can defend you suitably in court. When your drug-related lawsuit resulted to crime, hire a Queens Criminal Lawyer to acquaint you with the proper action to pursue.

In matters of law it is important to have an attorney. Most people who do not have a law degree are unfamiliar with all of the limitations that are placed in reference to legal actions. In New York, the state can seize any motor vehicle that is involved in the commission of a crime. That means that the state of New York can seize the vehicles of people who are charged with driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. However, there are certain limitations. A New York DWI Lawyer said the owner of the vehicle must be notified within 25 days of the date of a DUI arrest. The property clerk of the police department has fifteen days beyond the last day of the 25 day limitation to commence forfeiture action. If the property clerk does not meet these deadlines, then the defendant may move to dismiss the forfeiture action and reclaim his or her property.

DUI cases are loaded with intricacies of law that can make or break the case that the state attempts to make. The reason that there are time limits on the paperwork process for forfeiture of property is obvious. The problem here is that the state can initiate this process even before the driver has been determined guilty of a crime or not guilty.

In one case that occurred on June 17, 2007 when a man’s BMW B23i was impounded as an instrument of a crime. The officers seized the vehicle after the defendant was arrested and charged with several statutory offenses and traffic law violations. A New York DWI Lawyer said the defendant was charged with several offenses, one of which was DUI. On July 21, 2009, the man made a demand for his vehicle to be returned to him. The property clerk refused and advised the man that his request was invalid because he did not submit a release from the District Attorney. In September of 2009, the property clerk filed a summons and obtained a complaint number to begin the process of seizure of the vehicle. On December 3, 2009, the property clerk mailed a summons and proof of service with the court on December 7, 2009. On December 17, 2009 the service was deemed completed.

A Queens Criminal Lawyer said the defendant filed a motion to set aside the forfeiture because notice was not provided in a timely fashion. Because the property clerk had not sent notice of the intent to seize the vehicle until three months after the vehicle was seized, the defense argued that the seizure was not legal and that the vehicle had to be returned to him.

After reviewing the arguments of the state and the defense, the court determined that the property clerk had not filed the paperwork within the time limit. A Nassau County Criminal Lawyer said the property clerk should have served the paperwork within the twenty-five day required window. The property clerk would have then had fifteen additional days to complete the service and take action to retain the vehicle. The fact that it was not done within this required time frame, means that the action is in fact illegal. The request of the defense to overturn the forfeiture of the car and to restore it to its owner is overturned. The request for dismissal of the forfeiture warrant is dismissed and the vehicle will be returned to the owner.

Whenever a seizure of property is made by the state, there are many specific guidelines that must be adhered to. If the state fails to meet their burdens within the prescribed time frames, the property must be returned to the rightful owner. At Stephen Bilkis & Associates one can find NY Criminal Lawyers who will defend anyone arrested of a crime in New York. We have convenient offices throughout New York and the Metropolitan area. There is no reason to risk your driving privileges. A New York DUI Lawyer can represent you in court against charges of DUI. Without an NY DUI Lawyer, you can lose your driver’s license and your freedom.

A man was charged with Aggravated DWI, DWI and Driving While Ability Impaired by Alcohol. The criminal complaint alleges that the accused man operated a motor vehicle in an intoxicated condition and in a later blood alcohol test was found to have a level of alcohol in his blood. After arraignment, the case was adjourned for the retention of private counsel and a counsel appeared as the accused man’s attorney for the first time. A New York DWI Lawyer said the accused man has apparently been at liberty after posting bail throughout the proceedings. The Jury and the man’s counsel both estimates that the trial of the matter, when it eventually occurs, should take no more than two days.

The case was adjourned for hearing and trial. The Record of Court Action notes that the complainant was ready on that date but that the accused was not and needed a copy of the police videotape which the complainant were directed to provide. The case was adjourned for hearing and trial to another date. A New York DWI Lawyer said on the rescheduled date, the Record of Court Action indicates that the complainant were ready. The accused man’s counsel submitted an affirmation asking for an adjournment for medical reasons. According to the complainant, however, the Assistant District Attorney informed the Court on that date that she had spoken to the accused man’s counsel and he had informed her that he would not be available for eight weeks due to his congested trial schedule.

According to the complainant, the counsel indicated that he was still not ready to proceed for medical reasons and asked that the case be adjourned for the second time to another date. The Record of Court Action notes that the complainants were also not ready on that date and contains a question by the Court as to whether the man's counsel had a medical issue. The complainant submitted a Certificate of Readiness. A Nassau County Criminal Lawyer said the case was adjourned for the third time to another date and the Record of Court Action does not indicate why a hearing and trial did not occur on that date. The defense counsel asserts that the complainants were not ready on that date. The defense counsel submitted an affirmation saying that he was engaged in trial on another matter and requesting an adjournment for the fourth time to another date. The case was adjourned to and the complainants indicated that they were not ready on that date.

On July 9, according to the Record of Court Action and the complainant's affirmation, both parties announced their readiness for hearing and trial but a part was not available. The case was adjourned for the fifth time and on that date the Record of Court Action indicates that the complainants were ready but that the defense counsel was engaged in trial on another matter. The case was adjourned a lot more times until a presiding judge over the case ordered the complainant to speak with the defense counsel and said he was to be in court and ready or he will be relieved.

On July 7 the case was heard in Jury Part 1 where a judge was presiding. According to the transcript of the proceedings on that date, when the case was called, the defense counsel was not present and had not submitted an affirmation of engagement. The complainant recounted the history of delays in the case and asked the Court to relieve the defense counsel as the accused man’s counsel. The Court asked that the accused inform his defense counsel that he was required to be present and ready for trial on the following Monday and said that the Court would call the defense counsel and provide him with the same direction. The Court said that it was possible that the defense counsel might be held in contempt if he did not appear on that date. The judge noted that the defense counsel had been required to appear at 9:30 A.M. and that it was ten minutes before 11:00 A.M. The judge penned that the defense has no defense attorney, no affidavit of engagement. The defense attorney's firm called to say that the defense attorney was engaged in Queens. The court informed the accused that he should let his attorney know the court is ordering him to be present and ready for trial.

The complainant asserts that the defense counsel appears late in the afternoon and the defense counsel is not on trial or engaged for the remainder of the week. The court directs the defense counsel to proceed to trial the following day and the defense counsel is directed to proceed to hearing.

The transcript on that date reflects the delays and contains an extensive colloquy between the Court, the defense counsel and the Assistant District Attorney. The transcript indicates that the Court was about to adjourn at the end of the day but waited for the defense counsel to arrive.
Among all of the interests which have been negatively impacted by the delays of the case, however, the interest of the people of the city is one interest, in the Court's view, that is most significant. The father, of course, is presumed innocent. It is worth noting, in fact, that according to his criminal history record he has never been convicted of a crime. He has also faithfully attended the proceedings, even on numerous dates when her nanny has been absent. The accusation in the case, however, is that he registered blood alcohol after being apprehended operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. The accused man stands accused of operating a motor vehicle in a condition where, if the charges against him are true, he placed the safety of anyone who might have randomly happened onto his path on that day in jeopardy.

The Court fully acknowledges that the defense counsel has other pending felony cases that are more serious than the accused man’s case. But the case of the accused is also important. If the accused man is not guilty of the DWI charges, then he has unfortunately stood accused of a crime he did not commit for what is now years longer than he should have. But if he is guilty, the criminal justice system has been prevented from imposing an appropriate sanction for what is now approaching 3 years. Both of these possible results are unacceptable.
To the extent the justice system seeks to prevent serious crimes from recurring (and in the Court's view, operating a motor vehicle at three times the legal blood alcohol limit for intoxication on the streets is a serious matter) it has been prevented thus far from having its most important effects in the case. The justice system has been unable to punish, deter, rehabilitate or capacitate the accused man. If he is indeed guilty of the crime it is not primarily the court system, the prosecution or the accused man whose interests have been compromised. It is the people of the city.

The defense counsel has every right to build a busy law practice. His clients have every right to retain him. But those interests are not limitless. They do not trump the combined interests of the court system in operating with some modicum of efficiency; the interests of the district attorney's office in having the opportunity to fairly present their cases and the interests of the residents of people in having a justice system which protects them. As the Court of Appeals explained, the efficient administration of the criminal justice system is a critical concern to society as a whole.

For all of the above reasons, the complainant’s motion is granted and the defense counsel is relieved as the accused man’s counsel. The Court talked to the accused on the record about the next steps regarding his representation and anticipates that a determination about who will represent him can be finalized on the next adjourned date.
Legal action takes so much of one’s time, energy and resources. Several factors contribute to the delay of lawsuits and these could cause inconvenience to both parties. A NY Criminal Attorney can help you solve your crime related cases in court. In addition, a NY DWI Lawyer from Stephen Bilkis and Associates can help faster in making your life worry free from legal actions.

Court cases are rarely tried strictly on the facts of the case. In almost every case that comes to trial, the issues that cause a mistrial or cause a conviction usually come down to points of legality. Because trials are investigations into the application of statute upon a set of facts or circumstances, it is critical that a defendant is represented by an attorney. In the case of a domestic violence offense, it is even more important. Domestic violence laws change almost daily. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said it is imperative to the proper defense of a case that the legality of the statutes that are applied are reviewed and questioned.

In one particular case that was heard in the Supreme court, appellate Division, Second Department, New York, the justices were called upon to review a domestic violence case in which the defendant was charged with misdemeanor aggravated harassment in the second degree. He was charged with three counts. The case was initiated in Criminal Court, Kings County. By an order dated January 31, 2007, the action was removed from Criminal Court and transferred to the Domestic Violence Part of the Supreme Court in Kings County. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the misdemeanor complaint was converted to an information dated February 7, 2007. A bench trial convicted the defendant of three counts of attempted aggravated harassment in the second degree.

The defendant appealed his conviction. He claimed that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction over his case because he was never indicted by a grand jury. He argued that minus a formal indictment, there was no superior court information. He relied on CPL 210.05 to support his contentions.

CPL 210.05 maintains that in order for the Supreme Court to have legislative jurisdiction over a case, it must have obtained the case through the Grand Jury as an indictment, or from the Superior Court as an Information. Neither of which was done in this case. The Supreme Court disagrees. The N.Y. Constitution Article VI § 7(a) gives the Supreme Court legislative jurisdiction over all cases unless its jurisdiction has been specifically proscribed. It states in CPL 10.20(1) that the Supreme Court and the County Court have exclusive trial jurisdiction of felonies; and trial jurisdiction of misdemeanors concurrent with local criminal courts. A Nassau County Criminal Lawyer said it also states that trial jurisdiction of petty offenses fall under this jurisdiction but only when the offense is charged in an indictment which also is charged as a crime.

Because of this interpretation, local criminal courts’ concurrent jurisdiction of misdemeanor cases is subject to removal from the local criminal court to the superior court with or without an indictment. The Supreme Court states that the authority to transfer misdemeanor cases to the IDV Parts of the Supreme Court is found under New York Constitution article VI §§ 28 and 30 and Judiciary Law § 211.

Judiciary Law § 211 gives the Chief Judge the constitutional authority to regulate the transfer of all cases among all of the sections of courts. In addition, New York Constitution article VI § 19 allows the Supreme Court the authority to transfer any case to itself. The only requirement of the Supreme Court in transferring a case to itself is that the Supreme Court ensure that the transfer will promote the administration of justice.

A Queens Criminal Lawyer said because of these findings, the Supreme Court determined that there was no question that they had jurisdiction in the case. The case was tried in a proper venue and the conviction is upheld. Whenever a person finds themselves facing a legal situation, it is in their best interest to have a lawyer like Stephen Bilkis & Associates. Their Domestic Violence Lawyers are familiar with handling cases in family court as well as Criminal and Supreme; we can offer the client the representation that they need. Venue questions do not faze us. We have offices throughout New York and the Metropolitan area. Being able to defend the client’s interest is of the utmost importance to us.

The parties were both born in Albania. Plaintiff first moved to the United States on 14 December 1989, after receiving a green card through the American Embassy in Belgrade, Yugoslavia. He became a United States citizen in 1997. Plaintiff lived and worked in the United States continuously from late 1989 until the date of the commencement of the herein divorce action, only returning to Albania for brief vacations over the years (approximately the first six years of the marriage). Plaintiff is 48 years of age and defendant is 36 years of age.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the court is called upon to determine custody of five (5) minor children and whether defendant is entitled to a five (5) year stay away order of protection against plaintiff. The court has bifurcated the issues of custody, visitation and order of protection.

The matter was tried on an expedited basis given the seriousness of the allegations. Defendant-wife (hereinafter referred to as defendant) against plaintiff-husband (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff) was issued a temporary order of protection in Family Court, Kings County on 4 December 2007, the Family Court petitions were consolidated into the instant divorce action by order of this court dated 2 January 2008. The court has bifurcated the issues of custody and visitation and a final order of protection.

On the issue of Order of Protection:
In Supreme Court, the court may issue an order of protection pursuant to Domestic Relations Law. That order of protection, once granted, can provide certain conditions which require the enjoined party to obey.

In as much as the Family Court petitions were consolidated into the Supreme Court matrimonial action, herein, the Supreme Court is a court of general jurisdiction, this court has the authority to determine the issue of the order of protection in the context of the consolidated divorce action.

The court finds defendant's testimony of acts of violence, threats and intimidation are credible and plaintiff's denial not credible.

The court note that not only was the testimony of defendant both credible and compelling, the corroborating testimony of the witness described an atmosphere of fear, actual threats, domestic violence and intimidation of an ongoing nature. Defendant was subjected to curses, taunts, physical violence, being spat on and a victim of overt violence and degradation through the marriage. A Nassau County Criminal Lawyer said the tape recording admitted into evidence provided the court with the actual opportunity to hear plaintiff's threats and intimidation as well as the emotional distress his actions caused defendant as well as her responses and heart wrenching pleas to see the children.

Under the foregoing circumstances and pursuant to Domestic Relations Law, a final order of protection in favor of defendant is granted. It is abundantly clear that plaintiff poses an imminent and ongoing danger to defendant and therefore granting defendant a final order of protection for a period of five (5) years is appropriate

The defendant is granted a five (5) year final order of protection effective 15 August 2008 to expire on 15 August 2013; that plaintiff shall not harass annoy, strike, menace or intimidate defendant, and shall refrain from any criminal offense; that he shall cease and desist from any communication in any language except by e-mail or letter, which is limited to issues concerning the children's well-being and or health and education; that he shall not telephone defendant and he shall stay away from her home, place of business and place of employment; and that any exchange of children must occur at a police precinct.

On the issue of Custody:
It is well established that the trial court is given great deference to assess the character and credibility of the parties. In determining a child's custody, the court is to act as parens patriae and must base its determination on "child's best interests". In doing so, the court must make a decision based upon the totality of the circumstances, which includes evaluating which parent will best provide for the child's "emotional and intellectual development, the quality of the home environment, and the parental guidance to be provided."

It must be noted that there is overwhelming authority that children's exposure to violence can have lasting effects such as severe psychological injury. Moreover, exposing children to this behavior can lead the child to learn a dangerous and morally depraved lesson that abusive behavior is not only acceptable, but may even be rewarded.

Another significant factor in the determination of custody is which parent will assure that the child maintains a meaningful relationship with the other parent. The court recognizes that an "interference with the relationship between a child and a noncustodial parent by the custodial parent has been said to be so inconsistent with the best interests of the child as to per se raise a strong probability that the offending party is unfit to act as custodial parent".
This court must determine what is in the best interest of the child and what custody situation will promote the child's greatest welfare and happiness. While a child's preference is not determinative of the court's decision, it is a factor in the totality of circumstances.

Here, plaintiff has engaged in a pattern of behavior which clearly culminated in the filing of a false petition in Kings County Family Court, seeking custody of the children when plaintiff learned that defendant gained access to the United States and was seeking to regain custody. When plaintiff could not gain custody of the children in Albania, he utilized the New York Family Court and systematically continued on his quest to isolate defendant from the children.

It is clear that plaintiff would say and do anything, including falsely accusing defendant of engaging in an adulterous affair and utilizing drugs, in an effort to discredit her not only to his family but these children and defendant's own family as well. Plaintiff's utter hatred towards defendant and her family which has for many years resulted in defendant's forced alienation from her own family is disturbing to this court.

While the court is mindful of and extremely sensitive to the cultural identities of parties and the customs and practices that may vary in different parts of the world, it cannot close its eyes to the brute domestic and emotional violence imparted upon the defendant, which resulted not only in physical pain but emotional pain, and power exerted over her more than anyone should be subjected to. Plaintiff's explosive and volatile conduct created a hostile environment.

Moreover, the physical surrounding of plaintiff's residence does not convince the court that he will offer a better environment for the children than defendant. They live in a relatively close living space with plaintiff's brother and his parents. While plaintiff claims he is responsible for all of their support, the court can only recognize the support obligation to defendant and children. Clearly, defendant will more readily allow plaintiff access to the children than plaintiff would allow defendant. The court negatively views any attitude or actions that limit access to the child or that appears to demean the other parent to the child.

Certainly joint custody is not an appropriate remedy here. There needs to be clear lines of authority so plaintiff knows and understands that he cannot treat defendant or influence the children in the manner he is accustomed. The level of acrimony is far too great to justify such an award and, given the limits imposed on communications herein, would be impracticable. Similarly, plaintiff's request for structured family counseling is denied given the level of domestic violence and the existence of the order of protection.

Accordingly, defendant is awarded full custody of all of the infant children of the marriage while visitation rights were awarded to plaintiff.

If you want to know more about your rights in cases of domestic violence,or have been charged with sex crimes, theft or gun possession, contact Stephen Bilkis & Associates. Ask for a legal advice from our skilled New York City Domestic Violence Lawyers. For the prosecution of criminal actions, you may also speak with our expert New York City Criminal Lawyers.

A New York Gun Crime Lawyer said a man was charged with robbery for having forcibly stolen money from the complainant's store while wielding a knife. The complainant testified that the man had taken money from both the cash register and a cigar box in which lottery receipts were kept, and had warned her not to tell anyone about the robbery. Testifying in his own behalf, the man admitted that he had stolen money from the cigar box, but denied that he had possessed a knife, stolen money from the register, or threatened the complainant.

Prior to trial, the man made a motion to limit the prosecution's cross-examination regarding his prior criminal convictions. A New York Criminal Lawyer said he had three prior convictions of felonies and misdemeanor. The most recent involved a gun crime with robbery of a delicatessen. Initially, the trial court ruled that if he takes the stand, the Jury would be prohibited from cross-examining him regarding his two earliest convictions, but the Jury would be permitted, without inquiring into the underlying facts of the case, to confront the man with the fact that he had been convicted of robbery. Following jury selection, the court revised its ruling at the man's request to limit the Jury’s inquiry to whether the man had previously been convicted of a felony without specifying that it was robbery.

When the man testified, the prosecutor abided fully with the court's ruling and the man admitted of having previously been convicted of a felony. During the Court examination, however, the defense counsel asked the man, over the Jury’s objection, whether he had pleaded guilty to the prior felony charge. A Nassau Criminal Lawyer said the man responded that he did plead because he was guilty. Immediately thereafter, on the Jury's application and over the defense counsel's objection, the court modified its ruling to permit the prosecutor to examine the man about the facts underlying the prior robbery conviction.

A criminally accused person that chooses to testify, like any other civil or criminal witness, may be questioned in Court regarding prior crimes and bad acts that bear on credibility, veracity or honesty. A Queens Criminal Lawyer explained that to minimize the risk that evidence of prior convictions will be used by the fact finder, not on the issue of credibility, but as proof of the accused party’s propensity to commit the charged crime, the accused may obtain from the court an advance ruling as to whether and to what extent the Court will be permitted to offer such evidence in the event the accused testifies. Such relief, however, is intended as a shield for the accused, not a sword by which to advance the case for the defense.

Thus, it has been held that when an accused testifies that he pleaded guilty in a previous case because he was, in fact, guilty, thereby implying that his failure to plead guilty to the current charges should be taken as proof of his innocence, he opens the door to questions exploring his true motivation for the prior guilty plea. Indeed, testimony of this type could arguably open the door to court examination which would truly refute it.

In accordance with the court's ruling, the prosecutor elicited only that the man had been previously convicted of an unnamed felony. The defense counsel then asked on his Court examination whether the conviction had resulted from a guilty plea, and the man gave the answer that led to the modification of the ruling. Although the fact that the man previously had been convicted of a crime was relevant to his credibility, the fact that the conviction resulted from a guilty plea rather than a jury verdict was not. To the contrary, the only reason for eliciting that the man had pleaded guilty in the prior case was to raise the inference that, when guilty, the accused pleads guilty. That is precisely the inference that the Jury may, in the court's discretion, be permitted to meet with otherwise precluded evidence.

The man was charged with robbery and criminal possession of a weapon relating to the theft of money from a convenience store. At the trial, the man admitted that he took money from a convenience store, but claimed that the larceny was not forcible. The complainant testified that the man threatened and intimidated her and displayed a knife. The jury convicted the man of robbery with a lesser-included offense and acquitted the man of criminal possession of a weapon.

Persons who were previously convicted with crime will have a hard time getting their second chance to fair treatment in the society. To help you prove your innocence to wrong crime accusations, hire a Nassau County Criminal Attorney. If your lawsuit involves possession of deadly weapons, avail of the services of Nassau County Possession of a Weapon Lawyer from Stephen Bilkis and Associates.

A county sheriff established a roadblock with the purpose of screening drivers to identify persons driving under the influence of alcohol. At the aforementioned time and place, every car passing the roadblock location was stopped by the uniformed sheriff in order to make observations of the drivers to determine if they were driving while intoxicated.

Consequently, a New York DWI Lawyer said that one of the deputy sheriff stopped a vehicle. The uniformed sheriff stood in the middle of the road and signaled the driver to stop his vehicle. The man stopped his vehicle in a normal manner. The sheriff walked over to the driver's side of the vehicle, and shined his light into the vehicle. The sheriff observed that the man's eyes to be bloodshot. The man, without being asked, rolled down his window and spoke to the deputy sheriff who then noticed the odor of alcoholic beverages coming from the man's breath.

As a result of the deputy's observation of bloodshot eyes, and the odor of alcohol upon the man's breath, he asked the man to exit the car and come over to the side of the road for further investigation. All of the cars which passed the roadblock on that event were observed and the entire operators of all of the motor vehicles were asked with questions in the same manner as everyone else. After the man exited his car, the deputy sheriff observed the man's speech to be slightly slurred, and again detected an odor of alcohol upon the man's breath, and concluded that the man's ability to drive a vehicle might be impaired.

The man was asked whether he had been drinking and responded yes. A New York DWI Lawyer said that when he asked what he was drinking, he responded that it was a beer. When he asked how much he was drinking, he responded seven beers at his working place and four beers at the bar. The man was thereafter placed under arrest and charged with DWI.

Based on records, on a previous case settled by the superior court in its decision held that a particular roadblock was illegal and violative against the operator’s rights. However, the court indicated that under the proper situation roadblocks, even for the avowed purpose of detecting intoxicated drivers, could meet the legal restrictions and be valid. The court set forth certain criteria for a valid roadblock. A Nassau County Criminal Lawyer said he criteria includes that the inconvenience to the motorist be minimized, that the selection procedure not be random, that the safety of the motorist be assured, that the roadblock be systematic in nature and that the roadblock be established pursuant to a pre-arranged plan of law enforcement agency, established by supervisory personnel.

The court is aware of the fact that drunk drivers are a hazard to the driving public as well as to the pedestrian traffic. In addition, the highly mobile and visible nature of automobiles has traditionally resulted in an individual's lesser expectation of privacy while driving an automobile than in one's home or other constitutionally protected areas. The deaths and serious injuries caused by intoxicated drivers have resulted in the performance of stricter laws regarding the apprehension and punishment of a drunk driver.

Conclusively, the testimony before the court indicates that the roadblock was set up in accordance to a plan authorized by supervisory personnel of the sheriff's department of the county with the specific aim of detecting intoxicated drivers at a specific location during a specific time period.

A Queens Criminal Lawyer said the court consequently concludes that upon the facts presented, the criteria established for the abovementioned roadblock is protective of every individual's constitutional rights. The man's motion to dismiss the charge against him is denied by the court.

It is important that in every action we make, we must take full responsibility. We must be committed to driving responsibly because there are lives that might be lost or persons who might get hurt. If you want to be represented by the New York DWI Lawyers, feel free to call the office of Stephen Bilkis and Associates. If you are the one who got hurt because of other people’s negligence, ask guidance from the New York DUI Lawyers.

Three children were rescued by the ACS and the NYPD from their home. The two boys were aged 6 and 8 and the girl was aged 7. They were siblings. At the time that they were taken into custody, the children were all unbathed. Their hair was matted. The clothes they wore were torn and dirty. All over their arms and backs the children were bruised and scarred. The girl complained that she hurt in her vaginal area.

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the mother and her three children were all brought to the emergency room. A pediatrician specially trained in treating children who are physically and sexually abused was called to see the children and recommend treatment if necessary.

During the diagnosis and treatment at the emergency room, the pediatrician began taking pictures of each child. He began with documenting the injuries of each child beginning with the head down to the feet. The doctor asked the child what the mark or bruise was. He then asked how the mark of bruise was sustained and who inflicted the bruise or mark. The doctor made copious notes documenting each wound, each bruise, each scar and all injuries.

The father was accused and charged with domestic violence and assault of his three children and sexual abuse of his daughter. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said that at the arraignment, the father sought the dismissal of all the charges of domestic violence, assault and sexual abuse against him on the ground that the charges were based on hearsay testimony.

At the hearing, the responding police officer, the mother of the children and the pediatrician who attended the children at the emergency room were all called to testify.

The pediatrician brought a life-sized picture of a female child form and two life-sized pictures of two male children. On the side of the pictures, he wrote down the descriptions of each injury sustained by each child. Along with these diagrams, the pediatrician also testified as to the handwritten notes he made on the hospital admission and diagnosis form. There he noted that the children named their father as the person who inflicted these injuries. These medical records are the basis for the indictment and information filed against the father charging him with assault and with sexual assault. A Nasau Criminal Lawyer said these are the same records sought to be expunged as inadmissible by the defendant father as being hearsay.

The only issue before the Court is whether or not the medical records of the children are inadmissible for violating the hearsay rule. The Court ruled that the medical records are not hearsay. The medical records are admissible as business records.

A Queens Criminal Lawyer said the Court ruled that business records are an exception to the hearsay rule. Business records are entries in forms systematically made for the conduct of business. They are trustworthy because they are routine reflections of day-to-day operations of the business. The person who made the entries are truthful and accurate because the purpose of the record is for the conduct of the business enterprise. Hospital records kept by the hospital are considered as business records especially when the records are created, entered and maintained in the course of diagnosing and treating patients. A person who sees a doctor is generally thought to speak truthfully of his pain and suffering.

The defendant father contends that when the pediatrician asked the children the identity of the person who inflicted the injuries, the question was no longer germane to the treatment of the patients and should thus be inadmissible as being hearsay.

The Court ruled that the identity of the assailant of these three children is relevant in a domestic violence case where the patient is a child who needs to be protected from further harm. If the child’s assailant is a person who has a close relationship of trust with the child and who lives with the child, the treatment of the child will involve his removal from the home.

A child who is a victim of assault or rape consequent to a domestic violence incident has to be treated physically and psychologically as well. Part of the treatment of the child is to remove him from under the influence and control of the person who inflicted the injuries on him. Thus, the identity of the assailant is relevant to the diagnosis and treatment of the child.

The medical records including the information about the identity of the children’s assailant are all admissible in evidence.

A NY Domestic Violence attorney can help gather facts and present these facts before the court. An experienced lawyer can also argue for the admission of these same facts into evidence. The legal team at Stephen Bilkis and Associates are willing to assist you and stand by you in court to see that the person who perpetrated acts of domestic violence against you are brought to justice. Confer with any of the New York City Domestic Violence attorneys at Stephen Bilkis and Associates today at any of their offices located conveniently around the New York area.

A man appealed from the order of the Supreme Court, which after a hearing granted the man's set of motion to suppress physical evidence.

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the relevant facts brought forward at the suppression proceedings claims that the housing police officer saw a man and another male making an exchange of money for an unknown substance while patrolling in a radio motor patrol vehicle in the vicinity of a playground known as a location for drug crime activity.

The police officer over the course of the previous year and one-half had made 10 to 15 arrests involving narcotics. The officer continued to observe the man for another three to five minutes as he spoke with two or three other males. The officer noticed that the man was continually grabbing a bulge in his left side of his jacket. The officer did not otherwise describe the bulge. The officer called for assistance and then approached the man stating he wanted to speak to him. Apparently, the man immediately fled. The officer however chased the man on foot while his partner followed in a patrol vehicle. After about three blocks, the officer managed to stop the man, whereupon the man reached into his left jacket pocket where the officer had observed the bulge. The officer drew his service revolver and ordered the man to remove his hand from his pocket and put his hands against a wall. A New York Criminal Lawyer said a search to the man produced a loaded .38 caliber revolver and eight vials of crack cocaine.

Based on records, the Supreme Court erred in granting suppression of the physical evidence recovered from the man. The man's conduct in a location known for drug crime activity in the early hours of the morning provided the necessary objective and credible reason to warrant the officer's approach to the man in a noncoercive fashion in order to implement the common-law right of inquiry. A Nassau County Criminal Lawyer said the man's abrupt action upon the approach of the police coupled with the officer's other observations gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that the man had committed or was committing a crime so as to warrant the greater level of imposition inherent in pursuit by the police. Moreover, when the officer observed the man reaching toward the bulge in his pocket, the officer was justified in conducting a limited pat-down search of the man to allay his fears for his own safety. The possible cause to arrest the man existed upon the discovery of a firearm and the crack cocaine possession. Therefore, the physical evidence was not obtained as a result of illegal police conduct and the hearing court erred in granting suppression.

The judge concluded, as does the majority and as did the hearing court, that the housing police officer’s observations at a location known for drug activity in the early morning hours provided him with the objective and credible reason necessary to warrant the exercise of his common-law right of inquiry. A Queens Criminal Lawyer however, after the trial court's determination, the judge with his view that the trial court correctly found that the man's action in implementing his constitutional right not to respond to the officer's inquiry and to take flight did not provide the missing element of reasonable suspicion of the man being engaged in a criminal activity to justify pursuing him. The judge also stated that there is nothing to establish that a crime has been or is being committed. The man’s flight and refusal to answer, is an inadequate basis for seizure or for the limited detention that is involved in chase.

Consequently, the court’s order to reverse the man's set of motion which was to suppress physical evidence is denied, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings.

Drugs and medicines are essential in providing cure to those who are ill. When people abuse drugs, it beats its main purpose. When you need legal guidance involving actions on controlled substance, you can call the Queens Drug Lawyers. If you want to explore the proper lawsuits to consider in your crime-related actions, contact the Queens Criminal Lawyers at Stephen Bilkis and Associates.

Domestic violence is a popular topic these days. Better and stronger domestic violence laws have gone in to effect. The truth about domestic violence is that it is cyclical. It follows a regular cycle that begins with a honeymoon phase where everything is wonderful. The abuser is loving and attentive. Then the abuser begins to pick at the other party. They begin verbally abusing them. From there the cycle heats up until violence breaks out. After the violent episode is over, the abuser tends to go back to the honeymoon cycle again. They promise that they will never abuse their spouse again. However, they do, the cycle continues to repeat itself. Each time the cycle completes, it becomes shorter. The honeymoon phase doesn’t last as long and the abuse phase lasts longer. That is the normal progression. Experience also tells us that the most dangerous time for the victim is shortly after they decide to leave. As soon as they separate, the victim should begin to take steps to protect themselves and any minor children. Unfortunately, many victims do not know what danger they are in.

According to a New York Criminal Lawyer on early April of 1998, a wife and husband filed separation papers in Spafford, Onondaga County, New York. Apparently, the wife did not recognize the danger that she was in during this separation stage. The couple continued to reside in the same house following the signing of the separation agreement. On April 21, only a couple of weeks after they separated, they had a heated argument. It was early in the morning just before dawn when the argument became physical. The later investigation revealed that the husband beat the wife about the head with an aluminum baseball bat in front of her two small children. Evidence revealed that during the beating, the wife told her children to call the police because their father was trying to kill her.

After the wife collapsed with a visible indent in her temple, he called his parents and not an ambulance or medical help. When his parents arrived they brought the husband’s brother and a family friend who was a doctor. The police were finally notified and when they arrived, they found the wife lying on the kitchen floor writhing around in her own blood and moaning unintelligibly. The husband had some scratches and minor cuts. A Nassau County Criminal Lawyer they were taken to different hospitals for treatment.

The husband later admitted to police that he had cut himself and come up with a story about the wife being the primary aggressor by coming at him with a knife. He stated that he had cut himself with a nail while he waited for the police to arrive. He also admitted to striking his wife with the bat while she was unarmed. He stated that after everything was over, he had taped a section of garden hose to the tailpipe of his car and decided to gas himself. He told officers that he changed his mind when he saw the rosary hanging in the car.

The husband was indicted in June of 1998 for the assault. The children went to live with their maternal grandparents and aunt and orders of protection were obtained to keep the husband away from the children and the hospital where the wife was trying to recover. The hospital noted that the wife had been struck at least four times in the skull with the aluminum bat. She had surgery to remove a blood clot from her brain. Over the next six months, she was confined to the hospital. She battled life-threatening infections, her brain swelled several times, and she was in a coma for a while. Finally, in October of 1998, she was showing signs of recovery. She was able to speak the names of her children. Her speech was very limited but she was able to say simple words again.

Her mother notified the court that her daughter was regaining her speech. Shortly after that, a nursing assistant noticed a strange man entering the wife’s hospital room. She followed him in and asked him if she could help him. He appeared to be trying to pass himself off as a hospital janitor, but the uniform was not correct. He told her that he was just visiting the wife and left. One week later on October 27, 1998, several members of the hospital staff saw a mysterious man. He was walking around in the hospital. He appeared to be wearing a wig, glasses, a false nametag, and carrying a mop. The hospital was closed to visitors by then. Just after 10:00 P.M., a nurse noticed a strange, strong odor in the wife’s hospital room. She realized that the wife was having difficulty breathing and had an odd waxy-looking substance on her chest. When she touched the wife’s gown, it burned her skin. Hospital staff tried fruitlessly to revive her. She died the following morning. An autopsy revealed that she had been poisoned with potassium cyanide delivered through her mouth or feeding tube. It did not take long to identify the husband as the man who had been in the hospital disguised as the janitor. He was promptly arrested.

A search warrant was executed at the husband’s residence. It produced recovered data from the hard drive of the husband’s computer showing Internet searches on the words “cyanide” and “ordering potassium cyanide.” They also discovered several forged letters composed on the computer that were falsely suggestive that they had originated from an East Syracuse company called General Super Plating. They were sent to a company called Bryant Laboratories placing orders for potassium cyanide. They also recovered a half-burned wig and a bottle of potassium cyanide. The bottle was concealed in a cinder block in the corner of the shed near the rear of the property. Police also located eyewitnesses who saw the husband in July of 1998 intercepting a delivery of cyanide in the area of the General Super Plating business.

On November 19, 1998, the assault charges were still pending. The grand jury indicted the husband for two counts of first degree murder and other related offences. One count was actually murder in the first degree for intentionally murdering the wife to prevent her from testifying at the trial of the assault case. The second count of murder was in reference to him intentionally murdering his wife in the course of and in the act of committing a burglary. He was also indicted for burglary, aggravated criminal contempt and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree.

On December 30, 1998, the District Attorney filed notice of intention to seek the death penalty in this case. He also requested that the court allow him to consolidate the murder and assault indictments. The motion was granted in January of 1999. Because this case was a death penalty case, the jury trial was conducted in two phases. The first phase was to determine guilt. The second was to determine the penalty. The jury returned unanimous verdicts of guilt for both first degree murder counts. The husband was issued the penalty of death. He appealed this verdict.

The husband appealed his conviction based on 38 points. Only three of those points were relevant to the decision that was made by the Supreme Court. Those three issues were considered primary issues to the sentence. The first was a discrepancy in the jury selection. The second was that the weight of the evidence supporting first degree witness elimination murder was legally insufficient to support his conviction. He made the same argument about the first degree murder chase based on the burglary. The reasons that were brought before the court to discuss were straight forward.

The first problem arose in jury selection. Two prospective jurors were not included in the jury pool in a manner in which the defense felt harmed their case. One juror was accepted into the pool even after he repeated on numerous occasions during voir dire that he was not sure that he could determine the facts of the case fairly. He cited an incident early in his marriage when he had shoved his wife in anger and that it still haunted him years later. He was also quite adamant about supporting the death penalty. The second juror was one that was not retained, but was released. She had stated during voir dire that she would do her duty if she had to, but that she had serious reservations about voting for the death penalty.

Secondly, the defense makes the argument that the state failed to support their argument for witness elimination murder. They claim that there were other motives that provoked the husband to intentionally murder his wife while she lay in the hospital that had nothing to do with preventing her from testifying against him. He claimed that he murdered her because he could not stand the fact that his family had been destroyed.

Lastly, the defense maintains that the state failed to sufficiently prove their case for first degree murder based on burglary. In order for this charge to be valid, the burglary would have to be a separate and distinct crime from the murder that was committed. In New York, burglary is an aggravated version of criminal trespass. If the defendant had entered into the building with the intent to rape, rob or commit another felony other than the murder, had committed this offense and then murdered the wife, it would have been a proper charge. Since, the felony act that was being used to support the burglary was the murder, the defense did not think that the state had met their burden of proof.

The Supreme Court agreed with the defense. They overturned the convictions for first degree murder; however, they upheld the one conviction for second degree murder as well as numerous lesser charges. They did not feel that it was necessary to re-try the husband since the matter of guilt had already been sufficiently determined. They did, however, return the case to the lower court in order to determine a new sentence of punishment. The death penalty is not considered an option for second degree murder.

The court also determined that the trial court had erred in their allowances as they dealt with the jury selection in voir dire, however, they also felt that it had no impact on the guilty verdict that was passed down. They felt that it would only have affected the penalty phase of the trial since the only problem that the defense had with the release of the one and the retention of the other was their ability to vote on the death penalty.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates are attorneys who believe that the legal system is in place to protect the rights of all citizens. If a person is charged with a crime, whether it is murder or sex crimes, they need to hire a NY Criminal Attorney to represent them. Our firm has convenient offices located throughout New York and the Metropolitan area. Any time that you find yourself in contact with the law in a family violence case, contact us to have a New York Domestic Violence Attorney assist you.

A Lawyers’ Association filed for a rate increase to the State for their in and out of court work. The issue is whether the State's failure to increase the compensation rates for assigned counsel violates the constitutional and statutory right to meaningful and effective representation.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the court finds beyond a reasonable doubt that it does and results in obstructing the judiciary's ability to function, and declares the law that set those rates are unconstitutional as applied. The court also directed the payment of $90 an hour without distinction between in- and out-of-court work, and without ceilings on total per case compensation, until the governing body acts to address the issue.

Based from the evidence, the grim reality that children and indigent adults in the State Family Court, Criminal Court, and Criminal Term of Supreme Court are at unreasonable risk of being subjected to a process that is neither swift nor deliberate, and fails to confirm the confidence and reliability in the system of justice. It is a direct result of the law-making body’s failure to provide adequate compensation to the assigned counsel. The right of a criminal accused party or Family Court complainant to interpose an attorney between himself and the State with its considerable power and resources is a cherished principle, zealously protected by the State courts. The State continues to ignore its constitutional obligation to the poor by failing to increase the assigned counsel rates that result, in many cases, in denial of counsel, delay in the appointment of counsel, and less than meaningful and effective legal representation. Accordingly, the court declares portions of section of the County Law, section of the Family Court Act and section of the Judiciary Law to be unconstitutional as applied. These statutes were enacted without a mechanism for automatic periodic increases, therefore requiring recurrent visitation by the law-making body. The initial rate set in 1965 of $15 an hour for in-court work and $10 an hour for out-of-court work has been increased twice to $25 and $15 in 1978, and $40 and $25 in 1985. The last increase was 17 years ago.

The court finds upon the evidence of 41 witnesses and 435 evidences that assigned counsel are necessary and there are an insufficient number of them. The court also finds that the insufficient number results in denial of counsel, delay in proceedings, excessive case loads, and inordinate intake and arraignment shifts, further resulting in rendering less than meaningful and effective assistance of counsel, and impairment of the judiciary's ability to function and the current assigned counsel compensation together with the rate distinction between the in-and-out-of-court work, and the monetary caps on per case compensation is the cause of the insufficient number of assigned counsel.

Assigned counsel are necessary in the Family Court, Criminal Court and Criminal Term of Supreme Court based upon the system selected by the State to provide counsel to the indigent and in order to service multi-offender cases. A Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer said there is a substantial need for assigned counsel to represent both children and indigent adults in family and criminal proceedings. The assigned counsel plan in the State has evolved into the primary source of legal representation for adults in Family Court proceedings such as abuse, neglect, custody, child protective, and domestic violence cases. A Legal Aid Society and the other institutional providers represent one offender in a multiple offender case. The assigned counsel plan serves a vital and important function by providing representation to indigent offender in cases where the institutional providers have a conflict of interest. The conflicts of interest occur frequently in juvenile delinquency cases and on a regular basis in child protective proceedings.

In 2001, the Juvenile Rights Division of the Legal Aid Society represented approximately 40,000 children in the State Family Court with an average of 2.5 children per case. Assigned counsel, today represent a greater proportion of the criminal offenders than originally contemplated by the assigned counsel plan. When adopted in 1966, it was expected that assigned counsel would represent criminal offenders only in homicide and conflict cases. The evidence demonstrates that assigned counsel represent a substantial percentage of indigent offenders charged with felonies, misdemeanors and violations. Assigned counsel also represents indigent offenders in a substantial number of non-conflict cases. There has been an increase in the total number of offenders referred to the assigned counsel panels, as seen in the significant increase of misdemeanor and violation arrests and summonses issued in State since the mid-1990s. As a result, there is an even greater need for assigned counsel representation.

The lack of panel attorneys is evident in the Family Court intake parts. The intake part of the Family Court serves the same function as arraignment in the Criminal Court. The Family Court intake part has been described as a very fast paced, incredibly busy part with a very large calendar. Victims of domestic violence, juveniles that have been arrested, and litigants with initial petitions in child support proceedings or cases of neglect or abuse, first appear in the intake part. The nature of Family Court practice requires assigned counsel to staff the intake parts every day. Attorneys assigned to staff an intake part must be available to accept as many as 25 to 50 cases that come into the part on that particular day. In addition, assigned counsel must also be available to accept cases that are not assigned to an attorney in the intake part.
The severe shortage of assigned counsel willing and available to staff the Family Court intake parts resulted in the creation of an emergency case system in March 2001. The system prioritized the appointment of counsel to litigants in cases where a liberty or public safety interest was directly involved. Litigants in cases deemed nonemergency were not assigned an attorney although they were entitled to one. The triage system failed and was discontinued. Currently, litigants in emergency cases do not receive timely assignments of counsel because of the severe shortage of available assigned counsel.

The shortage of assigned counsel in the criminal courts, as in the Family Court, has also resulted in less than meaningful and effective assistance of counsel. Too many assigned counsel do not conduct a prompt and thorough interview of the accused, fail to consult with them on a regular basis, fail to examine the legal sufficiency of the complaint or indictment, fail to seek the accused party’s prompt pretrial release, fail to retain investigators, social workers or other experts where appropriate and fail to file pretrial motions where appropriate. A Nassau County Criminal Lawyer said the assigned legal counsel also fail to fully advise the accused regarding any plea and only after conducting an investigation of the law and facts, fail to prepare for trial and court appearances and fail to engage in appropriate presentencing advocacy, including seeking to obtain the accused party’s entry into any appropriate diversionary programs. In addition, the evidence showed that many attorneys do not conduct appropriate investigations of the facts or the law, and of those that do, many fail to do so prior to engaging in plea negotiations and only do so immediately prior to trial.
The evidence revealed many assigned counsel do not prepare motions or memoranda and do not have sufficient contact with clients in a convenient atmosphere because they cannot afford the basic tools of the trade such as offices to meet with clients as well as traditional research materials, on-line research capability, paralegals, and secretaries or receptionists.

The present statutory compensation rates and the deficiencies in the assigned counsel system resulting therefrom have seriously impaired the courts' ability to function. There are an insufficient number of attorneys to assign to litigants who are entitled to legal representation in Family Court and criminal proceedings. The critical shortage has resulted in judges leaving the bench or engaging their law clerks, court attorneys, court clerks, or court officers to scour the courthouse hallways to find attorneys willing to accept cases. The testimony revealed judges must persuade, urge and even beg assigned counsel to take cases. Many times these efforts were not successful. In the meantime, cases grind to a halt. If a willing and available assigned counsel cannot be found, the judge must proceed without counsel or adjourn the case, both to the detriment of the litigants and the court. In addition, judges are unable to process cases in a timely fashion. The shortage result in repeated adjournments, significant delays of trials and other court proceedings further resulting in substantial backlogs of pending cases.

The evidence shows that out-of-court assigned counsel work requires no less legal skill and effort than work performed in court and is as important, if not more so, to the quality of representation. Assigned counsels maximize their in-court time at the higher rate in order to financially survive. The lower rate operates as a disincentive to perform necessary out-of-court work. The lower out-of-court rate, accordingly, results in a threat of irreparable harm to litigants. The evidence further showed that assigned counsel would perform necessary out-of-court work if compensated at the in-court rate.

The removal of the caps on total per case compensation is necessary to assure meaningful and effective representation. There are too many cases where under the current law provisions governing payment for such representation, it seems then that any attorney who fulfills his/her ethical obligations must be prepared to exceed the determined cap in most felony cases which are not disposed of by an early plea of guilty.

Accordingly, counsels routinely submit vouchers seeking payment for the actual time that they have expended on the case. It is simply inconceivable to the Court that all (or even most) of the cases manifest extraordinary circumstances involving the underlying facts, the accused or anything else. However, the system has routinely ignored the cap and paid the amount requested perhaps out of a sense of fairness and/or embarrassment at the fact that the State is at the very bottom of the fifty states in compensation to assigned counsel in criminal cases.

The court recognizes it does not have the capacity or the resources, nor is it in the best position to provide a comprehensive, although interim, solution to the present crisis. However, it does so with limited judicial precision and minimal intrusion into the executive and Legislature's province albeit justified by surrender of their constitutional obligations. The expenditure of funds for the purpose of indigent defense and the manner by which it is provided is a complex societal, political, economic and governmental issue best left to the executive and legislative branches. They are in a better position to investigate, hold hearings, formulate, debate, identify funding sources and provide, if at all, governmental incentives, such as tax deductions or credits, and structure a plan of rates with or without caps or differentials, to best meet the needs of the assigned counsel scheme. Implicit in the State's obligation to provide reasonable compensation to assigned counsel is the recognition that legal assistance, like any provision or distribution of goods and services over time, is subject to the dynamics of inflation and the laws of supply and demand. The failure of the law-making body to address the rates since 1986 ignores these realities.

Any crime-related lawsuit will definitely make anyone’s life miserable but a wise person instead of lurking in worries, would want to find a way to get out of the legal action, whether you have been charged with sex crimes, assault, or burglary. Call Stephen Bilkis and Assocites for advice and guidance. The firm can also provide you with the best New York Domestic Violence Attorney in case you get yourself in a domestic-violence related action.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 Benicia, CA, woman was taken into custody last Friday by California Highway Patrol (CHP) officers; sources have told a New York Criminal Lawyer. While a woman being arrested for an alleged DWI is, unfortunately, not uncommon, what brings more to this case is that the woman’s 8-year old daughter was involved.

The incident occurred as the woman was westbound on I-780 at approximately 6:18 p.m. when she apparently lost control of her vehicle which then rolled over, sources reported to a Nassau County Criminal Lawyer. As a result of this, the mother’s 8-year old daughter was seriously injured due to her being thrown from her seat into the front seat. The head trauma that the child suffered necessitated her to be airlifted from the crash site to Children's Hospital in Oakland, CA, for treatment. The mother had only sustained minor injuries.

According to the CHP, they performed a series of field sobriety tests on the girl’s mother. Field sobriety tests are given in order for officers to determine the sobriety of individuals they suspect may be intoxicated. Based on the results of the sobriety tests, the mother was taken into custody and taken to a DWI processing center. The woman refused a breathalyzer and requested that a blood test be done instead. The results of that blood test had not been returned as of this writing. After the blood sample was taken, the woman was taken to the County Jail and booked for DWI and child endangerment charges. The woman’s bail was set at $55,000.

Although the woman stated that both she and her daughter were wearing seatbelts at the time of the crash, it has not been confirmed. The condition of the 8-year old child is also unknown at this time.

In the State of California, anyone over the age of 21 that has been arrested for driving under the influence (DWI) that has taken a blood or breath test, or (if applicable) a urine test, and the results showed 0.08% BAC or more can expect to lose their license. If the court determines that, the accused will lose their license they can be subjected to that loss of license for 4-month suspension for a first offense DWI and a 1-year suspension for a second DWI conviction within a 10-year period.

A DWI charge can greatly impact your life, whether you are guilty of the charges or not. Criminal charges can affect employment, and personal relationships. If you are charged with a crime it is important to always sure your rights are protected. Whether you have been charged with a DWI, sex crimes, or theft charge, take prompt action and seek legal counsel right away. If convicted, the penalties for a criminal charge can be significant, and include jail time, monetary fines, probation and community service.

Continue reading "CHP Arrests Mom for DWI and Endangering Her Child " »

A late Thursday night crash has left one man dead and another charged with aggravated DWI, sources have confirmed. The incident occurred at approximately 10:15 p.m. Thursday in Chicago, IL, when one Chicago man was standing outside of his broken down vehicle that he had parked along the shoulder, as he awaited a tow truck. Another Chicago man was seen driving across the fog line and then struck the stranded motorist before speeding away from the scene. The man who was struck was pronounced dead at 11:34 p.m. as a result of his injuries.

A passing motorist who had witnessed the incident immediately phoned 911 and reported a description of the vehicle that had sped away from the scene. Police located both the driver and his pickup about 15 minutes after receiving the initial call from the motorist. When they approached the man, the police report says that officers could smell a “strong odor of alcoholic beverage,” and that his eyes were both bloodshot and glassy. The report also added that his speech was slurred. According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, the police report stated that when officers approached the man, they noticed an open can of Modelo beer inside the cab of the truck. The beer can reportedly had some alcoholic beverage remaining in the can.

Officers went on to include in their report that the subject agreed to their request to perform a field sobriety test, and that he subsequently failed those tests. He was arrested and charged with one count of aggravated DWI, and is being held on a $1 million bail. A Nassau County Criminal Lawyer went on to add that it is expected that more charges will be filed against the 40-year old man during his first hearing. The least of those charges that are anticipated could include vehicular homicide, which is normally filed when a death occurs as a result of a traffic violation or action.

The Chicago Medical Examiner’s Office ruled the 32-year old man had died as a result of his injuries after completing an autopsy on the man’s body on Friday.

A DWI charge can be life changing, even if you are proven innocent. It can create problems with personal relationships, employment and much more. If you have been charged with a DWI or related offense, seek prompt legal advice to ensure that your rights are protected.

Continue reading "Fatal Hit and Run on I-55" »

As a New York Criminal Lawyer explains, criminal law is very different in the US as it is to Saudi Arabia. Saudi authorities condemn and forbid any demonstrations or protests over the way the country is run.

There is however an increasing dissatisfaction over the way that the country is run. There have been many anti-government protests over the past few months.

The government is cracking down on these protests to try and limit their impact on the country. Eye witness accounts indicated that many of the protestors were detained for taking part in the protests.

According to a Nassau County Criminal Lawyer, in a recent report, over 160 activists have been detained since the start of February. People are being arrested every day, without fail.

The government is hardest on people who frequently attend protests. However, the Saudi police are also detaining ordinary law abiding citizens for just taking part in one protest. The Saudi authorities track down these normal people and arrest them from their homes or when they are at work.

There were over 10 arrests this week and all of these individuals were imprisoned. While the exact reason for the arrests has never been published, many of the families believe it is because they have been part of protests and demonstrations.

Saudi Nationals are continuing to protest over the suppression or people’s rights and imprisoning people without a trial or charge. Unemployed Saudi citizens are also protesting over the lack of job opportunities in the country.

Saudi authorities are ruthless in their crackdown on peaceful protests by using violence. They are said to of opened fire, and used grenades to disperse an otherwise peaceful public protest. Human rights protestors are outraged at the lack of a freedom of speech in the country and have urged the authorities to consider relaxing the ban.

Although protests are officially banned in Saudi Arabia, many more are planned throughout the month. It's thought that Saudi's crackdown will get even more violent as the government tries to retain power.

If you or a family member is facing criminal charges, whether it is a drug crime, sex crime, or gun possession matter, it is important to ensure that your rights are protected.

Continue reading "The Saudi Arrest Campaign Explained" »

Tax fraud has been a problem almost since people have been required to pay taxes. As a New York Criminal Lawyer also claimed that, the problem has been even more prevalent in the electronic age. This is due, in large part, to the many places that we do business on the Internet that collect our vital information and store it as part of a normal business transaction. Electronic information gathering is not the only method that criminals use to collect our private information, however. Thieves have been scouring trash bins and mailboxes during tax season for many years, and the problem has only grown worse.

Many citizens in one state in particular have been learning of the problem firsthand. Citizens from the State of Georgia have been reporting increasing instances of receiving tax bills that have caught them by surprise. These are also the same citizens who have been filing their taxes regularly and have had no problems either with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) or with their Georgia state income tax. Recently it has been learned of one such man who discovered too late that a 26-year old illegal immigrant had been arrested for using his Social Security number when he applied for work in a nearby county. It is also believed that this same illegal immigrant is why the Georgia man had recently received a tax bill from the IRS for $3,434.

Unfortunately, stories like his are not uncommon. During the 2010 tax season, the State of Georgia’s Revenue Department reportedly detected at least 52,000 fraudulent tax returns that totaled approximately $41 million in tax refunds. Those returns are only the returns that were detected; sources indicated.

While tax scammers are growing in number, there are certain measures that can be taken in order to protect your identity. The IRS and every state tax revenue department maintains a list of these steps and makes them freely available on their websites. One of the most important points to remember is never give your vital information to someone that you do not know, and take extra precautions when mailing your returns. One of the most important suggestions they offer is do not mail your return from your home mailbox, as thieves do pilfer through mailboxes during tax season in search of returns and refund checks.

Continue reading "Tax Fraud in Georgia is Growing" »

Minnesota Vikings’ cornerback, Chris Cook, will have his day in court on March 21, sources say.. He has been formally charged with brandishing a firearm, which in this case is a misdemeanor.

The incident reportedly began, as the second round, draft pick was involved in a heated confrontation with one of his neighbors. While his arrest did not take place during the argument, the arrest and charges occurred after his neighbor swore out an arrest warrant a short time later.. Although Chris Cook was arrested and charged Saturday, he was shortly released on his own recognizance. The cause or content of Chris Cook’s confrontation with one of his neighbors has yet to be released.

In case many who are reading this are wondering, just how Chris Cook was arrested and charged so quickly, especially when police were never called to the scene of the argument at the time of its occurrence. There are some differences in the way that Virginia law works and how the law in many other states work. We will try to explain.

Most states will file charges only after reaching a certain point in their investigations. Many times these charges will be filed long after someone may have been arrested. In large part, this is due to the fact that these states rely on charges to be filed by their District Attorneys. The State of Virginia, however, allows its citizens to appear in front of a magistrate and swear out an arrest warrant themselves. The Nassau County Criminal Lawyer has been told that this is what happened in this case. The man who Chris Cook had been arguing with went before the magistrate, swore out the arrest warrant, and the Lynchburg, VA, police department then served the warrant and arrested Mr. Cook. His preliminary hearing was then set for March 21, where Chris Cook is expected to be arraigned.

It is too early to tell whether the arrest and charges will have any affect on Chris Cook’s NFL career, as the season, if there is one, is still a few months from the beginning.

Continue reading "Chris Cook’s Day in Court was March 21" »

Interstate 30 in Fort Worth, TX, was the scene of a horrific crash on March 28, that left one man dead and another man in jail accused of killing him. Shortly after about 2:30 a.m. is when local 911 operators began receiving calls of a pickup truck traveling eastbound in the westbound lanes. Within a matter of moments after those calls to 911 that the driver of that pickup truck slammed head-on into a tanker truck that had just been filled with fuel to deliver to local businesses.
As a result, of that crash, the tanker truck burst into flames and the resulting fireball rose up into the Texas night sky and could be seen for miles. The 45-year old tanker truck driver, husband and father of three children, reportedly died immediately as his truck was engulfed in flames. The driver of the pickup truck survived the crash and was allegedly charged with DWI along with a variety of other crminal charges. He was transported to the local hospital for treatment, and arrested soon after for suspicion of drunk driving.
While there can never be a valid reason to drive after you have been drinking alcoholic beverages, the suspected drunk driver has expressed genuine remorse for his actions. He was informed of what he had done by one of the local television news crews, he has apologized repeatedly for what he did and while it can never bring back the man that he allegedly killed, he has apologized to the truck driver’s family. There is a question on whether or not the driver will be charged a murderDuring his interviews with police and also with reporters, the suspected drunk driver has stated that all he remembers is that he drank 10 beers at a bar. He has stated that he has no memory of getting into his pickup truck and driving, or in how he wound up traveling the wrong direction on I-30 that night.
The blaze was so intense that firefighters allowed the fuel to burn almost completely before making any attempts at extinguishing it. The fire was so hot that it literally melted sections of concrete and steel in the bridge’s structure. The Texas DOT estimates that repairs to the bridge will take months since everything will have to be custom manufactured for the bridge.
The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission is also investigating as to whether the bar that served the suspected drunk driver did so after he was already intoxicated. If it is determined that if they served a man who was already intoxicated, then the owner could lose his liquor license, and he could also be faced with a prison sentence.

Continue reading "Drunk Driver in Fort Worth, Texas is Apologetic for Highway Fatality" »

A woman was found, naked, beaten and unconscious in Miami explains a New York Hand Gun Criminal Lawyer. The body was found in 2005 near the outskirts of Miami. This was just the start of a bizarre mystery which shocked lawyers, and investigators.
The woman was rescued by police. When the lady became conscious again, she asked for a Lawyer. This may seem strange, but she was just looking for someone to help her understand what was happening.
The lady was unable to speak. She did however manage to communicate using a pen and paper. She told detectives her name and that she came from the Ukraine. The lady also informed detectives that she had previously worked for a cruise ship company. She had actually been injured and filed a lawsuit against the company.
The lady explained that the reason she wanted to see her Nassau County Criminal Lawyer was because she did not know anyone in the country. Her lawyer was the only person she trusted at that time.
After the woman’s injury she was living in a hotel while the company was paying to care for her. She was left for dead around 10 miles away from this hotel. Fortunately the hotel’s state of the art security system would unlock many of the secrets of the case.
The hotel management was only too willing to help with the police investigation. There are sixteen security cameras which record footage whenever movement is detected. There are also two security guards which patrol at night. This means that the hotel will be able to see everything that happens.
The police get hold of the video footage from these security cameras and started the painstaking task of watching them all.
After some time, the victim was able to talk. She explained that on the night of the incident she had dined at a restaurant in Coconut Grove with a friend. She then returned to the hotel at around midnight by taxi.
The footage from the security camera showed her that she left at 3:33 AM. On questioning the victim, it was learned that she went to buy a phone card. She then returned after just under 10 minutes. She walked into the elevators a minute later and then the cameras never picked her up again.
Then the victim dos not remember anything that happened. She just remembers a brief moment of consciousness at the place she was found the next day.
The case is still ongoing. As the victim was in shock it could be that she will remember more details in the days or months after this event.

Continue reading "The Miami Hotel Mystery – Woman Left for Dead" »

Dewayne Bunch, a Whitley County High School teacher and State Representative, is reportedly improving after sustaining a head injury when trying to break two boys apart during a school cafeteria altercation. According to the public relations and marketing director for Shepherd Center in Atlanta, Georgia, the 49-year-old’s recovery is going nicely.
The teacher, sustaining serious injuries, was immediately transported to Baptist Regional Medical Center. The then had to be transferred to the University of Kentucky Medical Center. Two weeks later, he was again relocated to the intensive care unit at Shepherd Center, a hospital specializing in the treatment of brain and spinal cord injuries where he improved so much that he was able to be moved to the hospital’s rehabilitation unit.
His wife expressed sincere thanks. She was quoted as saying, “I appreciate the outpouring of support and kindness we’ve received from the community. Please continue to keep [my husband] in your prayers as he continues his journey to recovery.”
More extensive details on his recovery and prognosis of the State Representative are not available at this time.
As for the incident that injured the teacher, the Whitley County Sheriff said last Monday that the incident is still under investigation. The exact reason why Bunch was injured is still unclear. The cause of the fight is still unclear. No one has provided details on the altercation, and it is possible, that the courts are suppressing the information because they are both minors, at ages 15 and 16.
A Nassau County Criminal Attorney reports that the fighting students were charged with first-degree assault for Bunch’s injury and third-degree assault for the assault on the other two instructors who received minor injuries when they joined their fellow teacher in attempting to break up the fight.
According to a New York Criminal Attorney, Representative Dewayne Bunch is a science instructor at the Whitley County High School where he was injured, and as a member of the Kentucky House of Representatives, he represents all of Whitley County and a portion of Laurel County in the 82nd district.

Continue reading "State Representative Teacher Breaks up Fight and Ends up with TBI " »

A 33-year-old man from Tinley Park fought with police about his arrest for driving under the influence at almost 3am March 18 near the intersection of Oak Park Avenue and 175th Street.
As stated by the New York Criminal Lawyer, the man was pulled over after supposedly stopping his car inside the cross streets at a red light and weaving in and out of his lane.
He apparently reeked strongly of alcohol, had bloodshot and glossy eyes and at first told officers he had just a couple of drinks, but then said he had not been drinking and again later said he had a few drinks. He changed his story repeatedly, leading to doubts about his credibility in this case. That and the fact that he could not pass sobriety tests that were given to him over the course of the night. In New York City and Nassau County, police are on the lookout for drunk drivers. Nassau Criminal Lawyers have many cases involving DUI and DWI.
He had problems keeping his balance while standing and was arrested after failing several field sobriety tests, according to local police. On the way to the police station and while he was being tended to, the man allegedly asked police over and over again how they could arrest him for DUI because he said he was walking home from the bar. He refused to do a breath test; although he repeatedly insisted that he was in fact walking, not driving at all.
He will face charges of driving under the influence of alcohol and disobeying a traffic control device; unless it can be proven that he was in fact walking and not driving. At this time, it’s too soon to tell if that can happen since his car was found at the scene.
He was released on his driver’s license and 10 percent of a $1,000 bond and is scheduled to appear in Cook County court April 27. His car was removed from the scene and his wife came to the station to pick him up.

Continue reading "Man Accused of DUI Says He Was Walking, Not Driving" »

The preliminary hearing wrapped up earlier this month for the three men accused of beating and paralyzing an Oklahoma City Police Officer. The three men will stand trial, according to the presiding Oklahoma County Special Judge ruling.
When the officer responded to a northwest Oklahoma City bar last February, he was asked to escorting the defendants out because they were allegedly trying to start fights with customers. While doing so, he was attacked.
According to witness testimony, one of the men held the officer in a headlock and lifted his body while another three repeated haymaker punches into the officer’s head. The third man is accused of holding back any possible rescuers. Police in Nassau County and Manhattan alike go all out to find these kinds of criminals and bring them to justice.
During the attack, the officer’s neck was broken. The operating surgeon said the extent of the spinal cord injury was extensive and complete. According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, indicated that the injury likely shortened his life by 10 to 15 years.

All three men are facing charges of maiming or assault and battery by means of force that is likely to cause death. A New York Criminal Attorney reports that if convicted, each defendant will face the possibility of life sentences.

The second charge, of conspiracy to assault a police officer, was dismissed by the Oklahoma County Special Judge who agreed with the defense attorneys’ argument that the three men did not plan the attack.

The District Attorney assigned to the case reported that the man’s family has remained strong throughout the testimony, but that they were disappointed with the conspiracy charge being dismissed. He is expecting to appeal the conspiracy charge’s dismissal.
Members of the family point out that the possibility of life imprisonment may be “just” enough at this point.
The three men’s arraignment is to be June 10; a pre-trial date will be set then.
Oklahoma City Police Officers have set up a bowling and auction event for June 11. Proceeds will go to the injured officer and his family.
Spinal injuries can be devastating, completely changing the victim’s way of life forever. When injured by another’s willful actions, it can seem even more brutal. "I can't imagine having a child in the position that Chad is in right now. Being a parent myself, I don't know how you'd wake up every day and put your foot on the floor and get out of bed,” the District Attorney said.

Continue reading "Men suspected of paralyzing officer to stand trial" »

An ex-Marine who attacked his wife during a final divorce hearing in a judge’s chambers had his bond set at $1 million. The attack split her lip and caused swelling and bruising to her head, to the point she had to be hospitalized.
The 28-year-old ex-Marine was only subdued with the aid of a stun gun and has been charged with felony battery, domestic violence and resisting arrest without violence, police.
The accused man’s wife is also a former Marine, 23 years old. She was taken to Holy Cross Hospital and declared to be in stable condition, after sustaining facial fractures, a torn lip, and a broken nose, her 30-year-old boyfriend revealed to N York Criminal Lawyers.
Just in case, she was held overnight in the intensive care unit to watch for brain trauma.
The wife’s attorney said that the assault was “unexpected” and “surreal”.
“He was punching with a true vengeance. It was vicious,” the attorney mentioned. He managed to hold the accused until deputies arrived. “He was in a rage.”
Married in 2006, the couple have a 1-year-old daughter and a 3-year-old son.
The accused did not have an attorney and did not wish to pay child support. He also had a problem with a judge telling him he had restricted visitation rights and left the chambers. When he returned it was only to shout he didn’t have to obey orders, then leave again, New York Criminal Lawyers have learned.
When he returned, he rushed in and started beating his wife with closed fists, police sources explained. He attacked her from behind, put his hands around her neck, and struck her several times on the side of her face, knocking her unconscious with the first blow. When violence like this is reported in Suffolk or Nassau County, police are quick to respond and justice is swift.
“I’m in shock and disbelief,” the boyfriend stated. “I didn’t think anybody could take it to that extreme, much less in a judge’s chambers at that. Words, to be honest with you, could not describe what went on.”

Continue reading "Ex-Marine Attacks Wife In Judge’s Chambers" »

Charges were filed in the deadly crash that took the life of a middle-aged mother of nine from Pennsylvania. The two car crash that killed the young woman was operated by a Mississippi driver who fled the scene. Following arrest, authorities indicated to an NYC Criminal Lawyer, the man was being held without bail in a local county jail. The woman’s funeral was held while the Mississippi was awaiting trial.
The Mississippi driver is slated for a preliminary hearing in the next two weeks authorities explained to an NYC Criminal Lawyer. The driver is facing criminal charges to the tune of 18 counts. Some of those criminal charges include vehicular homicide and involuntary manslaughter. If this crime was committed in Nassau, Long Island, a local attorney would be on the case.
The Mississippi driver went afoul of the law when he sped away from a law enforcement official at a high speed, over 100 miles per hour. Authorities told an NY Criminal Lawyer that this was one of the charges against him. The chase came to an end when the Mississippi driver smashed into the Pennsylvania woman’s vehicle at an intersection. No details were available about the status of either vehicle following the accident. It was unclear whether the woman’s car was in motion or not at the time of impact. Authorities did not confirm the direction of the impact on the victim’s vehicle.
The victim was flown to a nearby hospital in York, Pennsylvania. It was two to three hours later, authorities said, that the woman was declared legally deceased. The cause of death was not revealed. There was not any information available concerning the exact cause of death. It was thought that the preliminary impact of the accident was severe enough for the victim to be airlifted to a medical facility.
The woman is survived by her nine children, none of whom could be reached for comment. There was no information regarding next of kin of legal adult age. Her husband was not available for comment.
The woman was a pillar of her Catholic Church community. She was a youth catechism instructor at her church. The victim had led their local youth group for a few years and provided pastoral counseling to married couples.

Continue reading "Man Still in Jail Over Fatal Car Crash" »

Police sources revealed information about a man who killed his girlfriend early one morning while their 7-year-old daughter was still asleep.

The 28-year-old suspect was charged with murder in the death of his 29-year-old girlfriend. They had been arguing starting when she returned to their apartment at 4:30 a.m. after a night out.

The victim’s body was found around 6 a.m. The little girl was unhurt. The police commissioner believes the woman was strangled, but will not know for certain until a full autopsy can be performed. As for the suspect, he fled the scene of the crime, but was arrested when he returned, a short time later.

“He’s a great man and a great dad,” the suspect’s mother said. “He was asking her why she was coming home so late when you got a daughter.”

The family of the victim had no comment. They are just dealing with this tragedy as best they can at this point.

The family of the suspect explained to a New York Criminal Lawyer that the slain woman was very strong-willed. She would do as she pleased. According to them, the suspect did kill his girlfriend of ten years – by accident. It is his claim that he was merely defending himself when she attacked him with a knife. He says they were arguing about her seeing two other men. As the couple argued, the victim called her brother. After the killing, the suspect fled to his aunt’s house four blocks away.

“He said she charged at him with a knife and he choked her,” the 44-year-old aunt said the suspect told her. “I gotta go,” the suspect told his aunt. “I know I’m going to jail. I love you.”

It was the sister of the suspect who found the victim dead, according to a Nassau County Criminal Lawyer. The suspect’s mother reported that her son was on medication for depression. She said he could be “very distant, very isolated from everybody.” She also said he never wanted to lose his girlfriend and that he loved her.

These tragedies often arise in conjunction with other offenses, including a sex crime, drug offense, or drug possession charge. While it will not erase the emotional scars these crimes cause, seeking quality legal representation will ensure that justice is served.

Continue reading "Woman Murdered by Boyfriend as Daughter Sleeps" »