New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

Two police officers in a patrol car received a report over the radio that a fight had just been witnessed and called in at 1411 Grand Concourse. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that the anonymous report stated that one of those who engaged in the fight had a knife. The only descriptions the witness gave about the two persons who were involved in the fight wore a red jacket and a dark jacket with a white stripe.

The two police officers drove to the address given in the report but they saw no one wearing the red jacket and dark jacket with a white stripe. When they got there a call for assistance was broadcast over the car radio. The two police officers responded. As they were heading toward the location of the other police officers who called for back-up, they saw three men. The officers got off their police car and headed for the three men. One of the men saw the two uniformed police officers and started running. The police officers gave chase and as they were chasing down the man, they saw him throw something. They finally caught up with the man and they also found what he threw away: it was a handgun. The police officers arrested him and charged him with criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

Even before the arraignment, the accused (the man who ran and threw away a handgun) moved to suppress the gun as evidence. He claims that the gun is not admissible as evidence as it was obtained by the police without probable cause. The police officers’ actions were not justified in chasing the man and in arresting him.

The trial court granted his motion to suppress. The People appeal the order granting the suppression of the gun. The only question before the Court is whether or not the suppression of the gun was proper. Stated another way, the question which the Court had to decide was whether or not the police officers were justified in chasing the man.
The Court affirmed the suppression of the gun.

The Court held that the report was of a fight; the fight involved a knife; and there was no description of those who were involved in the fight except to say that one wore a red jacket and the other a dark jacket. When the police saw the three men, they did not see any of them holding a knife. None of the three men wore a red or a dark jacket. The men were not doing anything suspicious on the street. The three men were not doing anything that could lead the police officers to believe that a crime was being committed. There was nothing that would justify the police officers’ action in approaching the three men.

The law is clear: no one may be stopped by the police unless there are circumstances which would give any ordinary prudent person a reasonable suspicion that the person the police is stopping has committed, is committed, or is about to commit a crime of criminal possession of a weapon.

When the man started running, there was no indication to the police that the man had just committed a crime, was committing a crime or was about to commit the crime of criminal use or criminal possession of a weapon. A Suffolk County Criminal Lawyer said there was no reason for the police to pursue him, to chase him at the time that he started running.

The police may have had reason to ask information of the man in furtherance of their investigation about the knife fight, but they certainly had no reason at the time that the man started running, to chase the man, to stop him and to detain him.

Have you been stopped by the police? Were you arrested and charged with a crime as a result of having been stopped by the police? You need a NYC Criminal Lawyer who will raise the question of the existence of probable cause, whether you have been charged with a gun crime, sex crimes or drug offense. A New York City Criminal Lawyer can ask that any evidence obtained from you be suppressed if there was no probable cause to stop you. At Stephen Bilkis and Associates, New York Criminal attorneys are willing and ready to represent you. Their NY Criminal attorneys can argue in your behalf to make sure that you ventilate all your issues. Call Stephen Bilkis and Associates today.

The accused man and his accomplice as well as the two female complainants boarded a subway train at 125th Street. Once on the train, the accused man and his accomplice sat down near, although not immediately beside, each other and engaged in a conversation.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that thereafter, the accomplice began to verbally harass the complainants. The accused man did not join in and in fact eventually moved by himself to a different subway car. When the train arrived at Zerega Avenue, the complainants got off followed by the accused man’s accomplice. It was shortly after leaving the train that the complainants were accosted on the subway platform by the accomplice and robbed of various possessions at knifepoint. One of the complainants testified that while the accomplice relieved her and her companion of their possessions, the accused, who had apparently also exited the train at Zarega Avenue, stood some 65 to 75 feet away; he was situated at the top of the stairwell providing access to and from the platform. While the first complainant at first claimed to have observed the accused glancing alternately down the stairs and in the direction of the ongoing robbery, she later stated that the accused was simply standing at the top of the stairs--that she could not see his face and that she did not witness any communication between the accused and the accomplice while the robbery was in progress.

Once the robbery was complete, the accomplice joined the accused and the two fled the station together. A short time later, when they were apprehended in the vicinity of the station, the accomplice was still in possession of the items taken from the complainants; the accused, on the other hand, had no stolen property and disclaimed any relationship with the accomplice, stating that he don't know the guy and he was just asking him for directions.

The accused was convicted of robbery in the first degree on the theory that he had acted as the accomplice. He now seeks to have the judgment of conviction reversed and the indictment dismissed upon the ground that the evidence was insufficient to establish his complicity in the robbery or, alternatively, to obtain a new trial upon the ground that his request for a circumstantial evidence charge was erroneously denied.

In arguing that the evidence against the accused was not wholly circumstantial, the Jury point to the testimony indicating that the accused and his accomplice conversed shortly before the robbery and to the evidence of the accused man’s presence on the subway platform while the robbery was in progress. Manifestly, however, neither evidentiary component established more than a circumstance which in combination with the other circumstantial evidence might have lent support to an inference that the accused had in fact intentionally aided the accomplice in the commission of the robbery. Neither piece of evidence, nor for that matter any of the other evidence in the case, directly established the accused man’s commission of any element of the criminal act charged. Obviously, the accused man’s inaudible conversation with the accomplice prior to the crime cannot be adduced as direct evidence of the accused man’s participation in the robbery. While the accused man’s presence at the top of the stairway during the robbery might well, in combination with all the other circumstances to which the complainants testified, have supported the inference that he was acting as a lookout for the accomplice, there was no evidence establishing directly that the accused acted in that blameful capacity; he did not call out to his accomplice or in any other way unambiguously signify a connection between his presence and the criminal act transpiring some 70 feet away. Indeed, a Suffolk County Criminal Lawyer said the cases uniformly treat evidence unambiguously establishing no more than presence as circumstantial.

The majority, while conceding that the evidence bearing upon the accused man’s intent was wholly circumstantial, is apparently of the view that there was other evidence in the case, presumably bearing on the accused man’s conduct, possible to characterize as direct. The majority, however, notably fails to specify the evidence to which it suggests preferring instead to describe the evidence as developing entirely along the same linear plane.

Contrary to the majority's suggestion, the fact that the case rested on eyewitness accounts of the robbery does not render the proof against the accused man in any measure non-circumstantial. The issue is not whether the relevant events were directly perceived, but rather what the witnesses' perceptions, direct as they may have been, may be said to have established about the crime charged, and, more particularly, what they may be said to have established about the criminal act charged without the aid of intervening inference. The evidence, eyewitness though it may have been, established directly no more than that the accused man was present on the subway platform during the robbery; the connection between his presence and the robbery, while conclusive, was not patent to the witnesses and, as a consequence, was not directly proved by their testimony.

The accused man and his accomplice were observed by eyewitnesses at or near the crime scene acting in a manner possibly but not necessarily interpretable as that of a lookout. Of course, is not to say that the evidence against the accused, circumstantial though it was, was not strong, for as has often been observed circumstantial evidence may be every bit as implied as direct evidence and the evidence was at least sufficiently attributed to support the verdict. The accused man’s right to a circumstantial evidence charge, however, did not hinge on the ultimate strength of the evidence but upon its complete lack of unmediated valid significance. Unless there is some sound analytic and/or precedential basis for the conclusion that any portion of the evidence was directly significant of the accused man’s participation in the robbery, and certainly none has been identified, the accused was entitled, as per his request, to have the jury instructed as to the circumstantiality of the evidence and as to the high degree of certainty necessary to support any inference of guilt.

Finally, although the case against the accused was strong, it was by no means overwhelming. While the evidence showed that he had associated with his accomplice before and after the crime and that during the robbery he stood at a place which although distant from the spot where the robbery occurred was one from which he might have acted as a lookout or blocked the complainants' way, it also showed that he removed himself from his accomplice’s company during the man’s verbal harassment of the complainants and remained apart from him until the robbery was completed. The entirely plausible hypothesis that the accused was merely an associate of the accomplice who awaited but did not assist him during the commission of the crime might have militated against a finding of guilt if the jury had been properly instructed that an inference of guilt was not permissible while there remained reasonable alternative hypotheses consistent with accused man’s innocence. Given the state of the evidence, it was for the jury to consider and either accept or reject the reasonableness of any such alternative hypotheses supported by the evidence and, in the end, to determine whether the inference of guilt was sufficiently compelling. However, as the jury was not properly instructed it is not clear that the essential deliberative responsibility was discharged. Nor as a consequence, can it be said whether, if it had been, the accused would still have been convicted.

The judgment convicting the accused man, after a jury trial, of two counts of robbery and sentencing him as second violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 6 to 12 years, should be reversed and the matter remanded for a new trial.

If you are faced with legal actions and still not sure who to turn to, whether you have been charged with robbery, sex crimes or a drug charge, call the office of Stephen Bilkis and Associates and consult a Bronx County Lawyer. The team of Bronx County Robbery Attorneys can help you bring hope for your robbery related lawsuits.

A couple co-owned two separate apartments in one building in Manhattan. A larger apartment was their family home and the smaller apartment was the office of the wife. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the couple was having marital problems and the wife moved out of their larger apartment and she had been living in the smaller apartment.

In May 1987, the husband slammed the wife into a wall and she injured her elbow. In October 1987, the husband knocked his wife to the floor and caused her to break her ankle. He forced her to walk on her broken ankle and threw books at her. On June 24, 1988, the husband punched the wife in the mouth and knocked one of her teeth out because she locked herself in the larger apartment and would not let the husband in.

The wife finally filed a complaint for domestic violence against her husband. She also filed a complaint for assault plus harassment. During the arraignment the district attorney asked for a temporary order of protection be issued effective until July 17, 1988. No argument was heard and there were no testimonies presented by the wife or the husband. The arraigning judge issued the temporary order of protection. The husband was released on his own recognizance.

On June 26, 1988, two days after the husband was arraigned, the wife asked police assistance. She reported that her husband had called her and told her that he was coming to see her and he had his gun with him. The police sought to arrest the husband but his lawyer asked to be given the opportunity to contest his arrest and the order of protection that he had allegedly violated since this was the basis for the second arrest for criminal contempt.
The husband appeared in court on July 13, 1988 and asked that the temporary order of protection be modified to allow him to stay in one of their co-owned apartments. His application for modification of the temporary order of protection was denied. The order of protection which was set to expire on July 17, 1988 was extended to August 1, 1988.

The husband filed an action to vacate the temporary order of protection on the ground that it was issued without sufficient evidence and in violation of his right to due process. A Suffolk Criminal Lawyer said he also filed a motion for review of the temporary order of protection with the Supreme Court of New York to review the issuance of the temporary order of protection.

Before the motion was heard, the district attorney and the husband stipulated that a hearing should be held to determine whether or not the temporary order of protection should have been issued. In accordance with this stipulation, the hearing was conducted. The criminal court judge ruled that there was sufficient factual basis for the issuance of the temporary order of protection.

The review of the constitutional grounds raised by the husband was separately heard by the Supreme Court. The only questions raised were: whether the judge who arraigned the husband on the charge of assault and harassment had the power to issue a temporary restraining order even without any evidence presented as to the need for it; whether or not the arraigning judge’s ruling to issue a temporary order of protection which was not in writing violated the husband’s right to due process.

The Court ruled that the State had a significant interest in issuing temporary orders of protection because the State considers domestic violence as a societal scourge. An NYC Criminal Lawyer said the State has declared it a public policy to battle domestic violence by criminally prosecuting those who engage in domestic violence. Victims of domestic violence must be prosecuted and they must feel secure enough to testify against those who committed domestic violence against them. To allow the victim and the perpetrator of the domestic violence to continue to live under the same roof would place the victim in danger of further injury and the perpetrator would be given a further opportunity to commit similar acts of domestic violence.

Thus, in accordance with the stated policy of the state, a judge did not violate the husband’s due process rights by issuing the temporary order of protection even without presentation of evidence of the domestic violence. It is enough that criminal charges for domestic violence have been filed and the district attorney prays for its issuance. But after the issuance of a temporary order of protection, the criminal court judge who will hear and decide the criminal case must schedule an evidentiary hearing to assess whether there is sufficient ground for the furtherance of the temporary order of protection.

A New York City Domestic Violence Lawyer can help you obtain a temporary order of protection for your safety. The temporary order of protection applied for by your New York Domestic Violence attorney will prevent any further acts of violence against you as you testify against your partner or spouse. The temporary order of protection secured by your NY Domestic Violence attorney will ensure that you do not have to share the house with your spouse or partner. Call Stephen Bilkis and Associates today, speak to any of their NYC Domestic Violence attorneys. They are willing to assist you present evidence and argue your case against your partner or spouse. Stephen Bilkis and Associates have accessible offices located in the New York area.

On February 13, 1992, a woman pulled up to an area in Nassau County where she saw police officers working a car accident. She got out of her car and screamed for them to help her. She advised them that her husband was in her car with a knife and he was threatening to hurt her. She advised that she had an active order of protection against him. She showed the officers her order and asked them to help. The officers told her that they would take care of him after she left. However, a New York Criminal Lawyer said they failed to arrest her husband for the violation of the order of protection.

The next morning as she prepared to leave for work for the day, she exited her home. Her husband was hiding outside of the residence when she walked out. He attacked her with a machete causing serious bodily harm to her. She contends that if the police officers had done their duty and enforced the order of protection, she would not have been injured because her husband would have been in jail.

She filed a civil suit against the county where the officers worked for personal injury damages. The county maintained that they could only be partially responsible for the injuries that occurred to her because her husband was more culpable than they were. Under New York law, CPLR article 16, a joint tortfeasor’s liability for non-economic losses is proportional upon proof that it is 50% or less culpable for the personal injury. There are exemptions to this rule, domestic violence is not one of them. The court determined that in order to waive this rule, domestic violence would have to be added as one of the exemptions. The court just was not ready to create all new case law that would include domestic violence cases in the exemptions. Prior to this case being appealed, the victim had been awarded $1.5 million dollars by a jury. The County challenged the trial court’s ruling that barred article 16 exemptions from the case. The trial court had determined that there was a domestic violence exemption to article 16 and that apportionment did not apply because the case involved an intentional tort. The appellate division reversed the judgment holding that none of the exemptions applied. The appellate court overturned the verdict and ordered a new trial.

The victim appealed that decision. She asks that the Appellate Division examine the case and determine if the Division erred as a matter of law in granting the new trial. The court decided that it was. The court rejected the trial court’s reasoning that article 16 does not apply in cases where negligent enforcement of orders of protection occurred. A Long Island Criminal Lawyer said the concept is there because of public policy concerns. There is strong public policy encouraging strict enforcement of orders of protection. Since the language of the statute nor its history includes language including domestic violence, the victim is asking the court to create a new exemption that they are not permitted to do. It is the job of the legislature to create policy choices. The court also determined that prior to the creation of article 16, defendants who were liable for only a small percentage of damages were paying a disproportionate share of the damages awards. The reason for creating article 16 which provided a percentage reward according to the amount of liability that the person held, was to even out the monetary awards to match the amount of liability. Ultimately, the county maintained that they were less than 50% liable. A Suffolk County Criminal Lawyer said the appeals court ordered a new trial.

Since, Stephen Bilkis & Associates Domestic Violence Lawyers are well versed in the handling of violent cases; we can offer the client the amount of representation that they need. We have convenient offices throughout New York and the Metropolitan area. Being able to defend the victim’s interest

Whenever an incident of domestic violence occurs, the courts and law enforcement officers are required to file reports and take other actions without discretion. One of the prescribed actions that is required of officers is that they must make an arrest if the domestic violence occurred in the presence of a child under the age of 18. If the child is a witness to the domestic violence, the parents are charged with either child abuse or child neglect depending on the situation. While this appears to be a good idea on paper, it can lead to long-term issues that may not be appropriate in some situations.

Sometimes, isolated incidents of domestic violence occur in situations where it will never happen again. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the concept of creating a law requiring the parents be charged for an argument in the presence of a child is wrought with problems. Usually, police and prosecutors use good judgment in cases. However, sometimes it appears that only poor judgment is present. In many cases, criminal charges of child neglect are placed on parents who do not deserve to be charged. When a victim of domestic violence is charged with child neglect, it only creates a situation where that victim may not report additional incidents of domestic violence for fear of losing their child. The court tends to recognize that the intent of the law is to protect the children in homes where violence and fighting is the norm rather than the exception. Still, cases where the incident was isolated manage to get through the cracks. When that happens, it is usually family court that notices it.

Family court handles most of the domestic violence actions, but they have concurrent jurisdiction if a criminal offense occurred during the incident. In some cases, the criminal case is charged, but later dismissed because it was not supported by facts in the court. A Suffolk Criminal Lawyer said the problem is that Family Court may have another case pending that the criminal charge affects. In one case, which occurred in Suffolk County, New York on March 26, 2010, a father requested an appeal to overturn an action of family court.

On April 3, 2009, he was arraigned following an isolated incident of domestic violence involving his two preteen sons. At the arraignment, the judge issued a temporary stay away order of protection. The temporary stay away order of protection had an end date of April 8, 2010. Unfortunately, the victim of the domestic violence and the husband who was arraigned, were unaware that they were to return to the court for a hearing in regards to this order. When they did not appear, the presiding judge made the temporary order permanent. The man now addresses the court with his desire to have the Order of Protection that was finalized, overturned. He claims that he was denied due process in that he did not have a hearing of facts. The court reviewed the transcript of the April 3rd hearing and discovered that the man had been present in the court room when asked if he wished to attend the April 8th hearing and he stated that he would waive his appearance at the hearing.

The man also claimed that since a temporary order of protection is required to obtain bond or recognizance until trial, which he was not allowed to reject the offer if he did not want to stay in jail pending the trial. The court stated that in situations where the evidence demonstrates that it is in the best interest of the victim or the children to deny access to them, the court’s first responsibility is to them. It is the charge of the court to ensure the continued safety of the children. The court refused to overturn the order and it remains in effect. In this example, it is clear that even though the criminal case was dismissed, the family court decided that in the best interests of the victim and children, the father would have to stay away.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates recognizes that the domestic violence laws that balance between concurrent jurisdictions are confusing at best. No one should attempt to navigate its depths without a Domestic Violence Lawyer. Whether you have been charged with domestic violence, sex crimes or a theft crime, Stephen Bilkis & Associates have convenient offices throughout New York and Metropolitan area, we are always available to assist you. Do not lose Child Custody. Our criminal lawyers can provide you with advice to guide you through difficult situations. Without an Order of Protection Lawyer, you could lose the precious relationship that you have with your family.

On 22 February 1997, the defendant, after a parental visit, brought his children directly to his then wife (now former wife) in contravention to a court order of protection (hereinafter COOP). Thereafter, a verbal and physical confrontation occurred between the defendant and his wife. The COOP provided that the defendant was to return his children to the local police station.
The defendant was indicted and tried for crimes involved in this incident and another.

On 24 March 1999 after a jury trial, the defendant was found guilty of assault in the second degree, two counts of assault in the third degree, and two counts of criminal contempt in the first degree.

After trial and prior to sentence, defendant successfully moved this court to set aside the guilty verdicts as to all assault counts. This court held that "the evidence adduced at trial was devoid of legal sufficiency to support the verdict finding that the defendant caused `physical injury'" to his former wife and former father-in-law. On 15 September 1999, the defendant was sentenced on the criminal contempt in the first degree convictions to five years' probation (the first year to year and one half on intensive supervised probation) and included, as a special condition, 500 hours of community service. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the court also issued a COOP which is to expire on 14 September 2004.

Now, the defendant probationer applies, through the Probation Department, for a limited certificate of relief from disabilities (hereinafter called CRD) which would authorize him "to apply for hunting licenses and use long gun solely in governmental recognized hunting areas outside of New York City, and solely during designated autumn hunting seasons."
The defendant has completed his community service with high praise from the office where he had worked and is a first time offender who would otherwise be eligible for a CRD. He continues to serve his probationary sentence.

This application for a CRD requires the court to consider three federal criminal statutes, contradictory United States Court of Appeals decisions, contradictory New York lower court decisions, and novel issues apparently not decided by any court.

The New York's Felon-in-Possession Law bars the issuance to or renewal of a firearm license to a person who has been convicted of a "felony". This statutory bar applies to firearms as defined in Penal Law. A rifle is not a firearm unless "one of the barrels is less than sixteen inches in length”. Thus, there is no prohibition against a felon or a person who is under a COOP from possessing a hunting rifle. Therefore, a CRD is not necessary for the possession of a hunting rifle under New York State law.

The CRD may be helpful to eliminate criminal liability for numerous federal weapon possession crimes. A Suffolk County Criminal Lawyer says that in order to determine whether to issue a CRD, the court must decide whether the issuance of a CRD would remove the federal bar against possession of a firearm. If the defendant still could not lawfully possess the hunting rifle even after the court's issuance of a CRD, then the court would be deceiving the defendant as to the legality of his possession of a weapon, possibly be violating the Due Process Clause of the US Constitution and performing a worthless act. Under those circumstances, the court believes that it would be prohibited from issuing the CRD. Even if permitted, the court would not and should not perform a useless act.

On the other hand, under the Federal Felon-in-Possession Law, it is unlawful for any person who has been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to possess in or affecting commerce any firearm or ammunition, or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
The term `firearm' means any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive". The term "firearm" includes hunting rifles.

The court has investigated and has found that, as argued by the defendant on the brand of rifle wanted, while Remington does manufacture hunting rifles in Ilion, New York, some of the parts used are shipped from other states. Often major components are also manufactured in New York, but shipped to other states for processing before return to New York for sale. Thus, it is clear that the jurisdictional predicate of traveling in interstate commerce is met.

Now, since the defendant has been convicted of a felony, he is subject to the provisions of 18 USC § 922 (g) (1). However, 18 USC § 921 (a) (20) provides for an exception to the felon-in-possession prohibition and an exception to that exception known as the "unless" clause.
On the Exception to Definition of Conviction, the status of “felon” is removed for purposes of felon-in-possession gun possession crime if the conviction has been expunged or the state has "restored" a felon's "civil rights." The determination of whether a state has restored a felon's civil rights is determined by the law of the state of conviction. The state need not restore all civil rights, but must "substantially" restore a felon's rights. Nonetheless all core civil rights must be restored in order to obtain the benefit of this exemption. While the statute does not define the core civil rights, federal courts have defined the three core civil rights as the right to vote, the right to serve on a jury and the right to hold public office.

The herein court must determine what civil rights are lost in New York by a felon, and then, if these rights can be restored by a CRD.

Under Civil Rights Law, a convicted person who is incarcerated for a day or longer in a state correctional institution loses all civil rights during the period of incarceration. Once an incarcerated convicted person is released some of the civil rights are restored.

In this case, the defendant was never incarcerated. Thus, Civil Rights Law does not apply to him.

In New York, a felon who was never incarcerated does not lose the right to vote. This court has not found any statute that provides for the loss of the right to hold public office by a felon who was never incarcerated. However, a felon, whether incarcerated or not, loses the right to serve on a jury.

Thus, the CRD is not a document restoring civil rights. The CRD is legally insufficient to permit weapon possession by a former felon. The document restoring a defendant's rights must restore also the defendant's right to possess all weapons.

The "Unless" Clause further states that a restoration of civil rights is effective "unless such pardon, expungement provides that the person may not possess, or receive a firearm." In effect, the statute provides that even if a felon should have all civil rights restored, that is insufficient to comply with the exemption if the document restoring those rights prohibits possession of a weapon.

As stated above, this defendant is ineligible to possess certain firearms. Thus, unless a CRD relieves a defendant of all firearm restraints, then a felon would be prohibited from possessing any firearm.

One nisi prius court has held that a CRD cannot relieve a defendant from firearm restrictions imposed by New York on a felon. The court did not explain its reasoning. It merely cited the Penal Law. Dicta in an Appellate Division decision, all indicate that a CRD may remove the automatic bar contained in Penal Law to license a felon.

The court finds that it has the right to eliminate the automatic forfeiture of the right to a pistol or gun license. However, the CRD will not eliminate the firearm disability that must be done by the licensing agency. Thus, the CRD in effect authorizes a felon to apply to the licensing agency. The licensing agency cannot automatically deny the right to the license, but may do so in its discretion. The CRD "restores" the felon's civil rights, but continues the bar of possessing a weapon until the licensing agency authorizes possession. As such the "unless" clause of 18 USC § 921 (a) (20) comes into effect because in New York the document restoring the civil rights also contains a bar to possession of a weapon.

The court holds that even if the court were to issue a CRD and the licensing agency permitted the possession of all firearms, the defendant's possession of a weapon that at some time traveled in interstate commerce would constitute a federal crime.

The court holds that it is barred from granting the defendant's request, or, if not prevented by law, and should not perform a useless act.

The law provides that “it shall be unlawful for any person who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence to possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm". The term `misdemeanor crime of domestic violence' means an offense that (i) is a misdemeanor under Federal or State Law; and (ii) has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon, committed by a current or former spouse.

To establish the "use or attempted use of physical force element" all that is necessary is that the individual be convicted of a crime containing an element of an act "which was intended to cause pain or injury to another, coupled with the apparent ability to execute said act". Physical force may be characterized as power, violence, or pressure directed against another person's body.

In this case, the court vacated the assault in the third degree conviction because the People failed to make out a prima facie case that the victim suffered "physical injury."

The rule requires a court, upon setting aside a verdict, to take the same action as the appropriate appellate court; that when an appellate court determines that the trial evidence is not legally sufficient to support the verdict for a particular offense, but is sufficient to support a lesser included offense, then the appellate court may reduce the conviction to the lesser included offense.

In this case, the court should have reduced the defendant's conviction to the lesser included offense of attempted assault in the third degree, a misdemeanor. Attempted assault in the third degree would qualify under the federal statute as a domestic violence misdemeanor.
Because of this error, the court, in determining whether to issue the CRD, will consider the defendant as if he were convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor.

Thus, a defendant in New York who has only been convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor is ineligible for a CRD which would restore the right to possess any type of weapon.

18 USC § 922 (g) (8) bans gun possession for those subject to a protective order. This statute contains three elements: (1) an order of protection preceded by a hearing and notice containing certain restrictions and findings; (2) knowing possession of a firearm; and (3) possession affecting interstate commerce.

The elements of knowing, possession, and interstate commerce are identical to what this court has stated for the felon-in-possession statute.

The element of hearing and notice is fulfilled when a defendant has had an opportunity to participate and be heard in the determination of the issuance of the protective order.
In this case, the defendant was present at sentencing, was aware that the court could issue a COOP, and was asked if he or his counsel wished to say anything. Further, defense counsel was given the opportunity to read the probation report, which contained a request by the victim for a COOP. The requirement of hearing and notice was fulfilled.

This section has no exceptions for a convicted individual who has had civil rights restored. The apparent reason is, as held in a landmark case: “Possession of firearms by persons laboring under the yoke of anti-harassment or anti-stalking restraining orders is a horse of a different hue. The dangerous propensities of persons with a history of domestic abuse are no secret, and the possibility of tragic encounters has been too often realized. We think it follows that a person who is subject to such an order would not be sanguine about the legal consequences of possessing a firearm, let alone of being apprehended with a handgun in the immediate vicinity of his spouse."

Hence, the defendant, for as long as the COOP is in effect, is barred by law from possessing a firearm, including a hunting rifle.

Now, even if the federal statutes were not a bar to possession of a firearm by this defendant, the court in exercising its discretion cannot shut its eyes to the realities of life and the policies that have driven the federal statutes previously discussed.

The presence of a gun dramatically increases the likelihood that domestic violence will escalate into murder.

In performing lethality assessments, the possession of a gun is a main factor that significantly increases the risk of homicide. The herein court notes that guns and domestic violence are often a deadly combination.

Moreover, in the present case, the court has learned of times that the defendant acted violently against the victim. The Probation Department recommends against issuing the CRD. The probation report indicates prior acts of violence against the defendant's children.

The court, were it to have had discretion, would decline to grant the certificate of relief of civil disabilities that would permit the probationer "to apply for hunting licenses and use long guns solely in governmental recognized hunting areas outside of New York City, and solely during designated autumn hunting seasons." This is especially true where, as here, not only must the court grant relief for a hunting rifle, but must also grant relief for all types of weapons.

The application is denied to the extent that the defendant requests permission to apply for a hunting license and to possess and use a rifle. The court does, however, grant probationer a CRD for employment purposes only.

When someone is convicted of a felony, whether it be from sex crimes, burglary or assault, certain rights are stripped off a person and some of these rights may or may not be restored. This situation may arise even in a misdemeanor domestic violence. To know more of the legal remedies available in these situations, contact Stephen Bilkis & Associate for a free consult.

Vincent Knowles was charged with one count of robbery in the first degree. He admitted in the hearing before the court that he did steal money, a wallet, jewelry and subway tokens from a Henry Laylock. He also testified that he placed his hand in his pocket, which looked like he had a gun so Mr. Laylock will give him his valuables. The fact was he was unarmed. He pleaded guilty to robbery in the second degree. A New York Criminal Lawyer said if a person displays what appears to be a pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or other firearm when he forcibly steals a property, he is guilty of robbery in the second degree according to the law.

The Trial Court had accepted Mr. Knowles plea, and the case was given to the Supreme Court Appellate Division for review. The Court of Appeals in their review said they need to be one to check if the letter of the law was correctly interpreted in this case. The law states a person who “displays what appears to be” a firearm during a robbery is guilty of robbery in the second degree. The focus they said is to be on the word appears instead of display. In this case, Mr. Knowles did not display anything as his hand was in his pocket during the robbery. In his testimony, he admitted he pretended it was a gun.

Before any revision to the Penal Law, the only law which pertained to firearms was with the robbery in the first degree, according to a Suffolk County Criminal Lawyer. This is when a person is armed with a dangerous weapon when committing a robbery. It was not defined by the unrevised law, but the court had always ruled to show the weapon needs to be working and loaded for it to be deemed dangerous. If the gun is inoperable and not loaded, it fell on the robbery in the third degree. So even in the previous statute, this was not a robbery in the first degree.

In this case said the court, Mr. Knowles was unarmed. Though this is the situation, he had made the victim believe he had one, and the fear that both induce is the same. It appeared to be an armed robbery, so then it seemed the perpetrator had a gun. It is not considered as unarmed. The court’s conclusion is that it is a robbery in the second degree as in the commission of the robbery, Mr. Knowles had shown what had appeared to be a firearm, which was testified to by the victim and himself.

The charge for the crime committed and the punishment for such crime should be equitable to what the person did. This is why the law had different degrees assigned to the robberies. The degrees show how much harm the person had intended to do if the situation asked for it.

If you are accused of an armed robbery, drug charge or sex crimes, and you know you were not, you may be entitled to a lesser charge. Stephen Bilkis and Associates’ legal team have the experience to know and provide you with options for the best defense in your case. Our offices are located all over New York and Long Island. We are in Queens, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Staten Island, and Manhattan. In Long Island, they are in Suffolk County and Nassau County, as well as in Westchester County. We will provide you with legal guidance and a free consultation. Call us now at 1-800-NY-NY-LAW

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An FBI SWAT team executed a search warrant on Wednesday, and made one arrest connected with the case, reports the New York Criminal Lawyer. The arrest is a result of the so-called isolated event that occurred on Martin Luther King Day that involved a backpack that was reportedly filled with enough explosives to cause lethal damage to bystanders.

Arrested is a 36-year old, ex-soldier that allegedly has ties to a white-supremacist group. This is reportedly the same group that was founded by the author of “The Turner Diaries,” that was the focus of setting the guidelines for the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. It is thus far unclear as to whether he is the only person of interest in this case.

The suspect has already been arraigned in U.S Federal Court, which he has waived his hearing for bail. The suspect could face life in prison if convicted of several felony offenses including of the attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction. A separate charge of possession of an unregistered explosive device could net the suspect another maximum sentence of 10-years in prison if convicted. His next scheduled court appearance is set for March 23.

The Suffolk County Criminal Lawyer has heard much discussion, thus far, as to whether this should be classed as a hate crime. In simple words, a hate crime is considered by most states as any crime that involves “threats, harassment, or physical harm and is motivated by prejudice against someone's race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation or physical or mental disability.” The facts of this particular crime fit many of these definitions, as the explosive device was planted along a parade route that was to be primarily frequented by persons of a certain race, color, or national origin, and sought to cause threats, and/or physical harm to those persons.

The homemade bomb that was found on MLK Day was no makeshift device, as the explosives were laced with rat poison, which serves as an anti-coagulant. These were all factors prompted officials to pursue this case as one of domestic terrorism.

When you have a question about the legal system or are dealing with a criminal charge, contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates. Our legal team has the education, background, and experience to ensure that your rights are protected. As stressful as a criminal charge can be, it is important to take prompt legal action. Depending on the charges, you could be facing prison, community servce, fines and probation. The sooner you enlist the services of a qualified lawyer, the better chances you will have for a positive outcome.

Continue reading "FBI Makes Arrest in MLK Bomb Case" »

Police in Nova Scotia have issued an arrest warrant for a 16-year old male they believe to be responsible for at least some of the shots that were fired at a high school this past Monday. The youth is facing multiple charges that include at least eight offenses involving possession of a weapon, and two counts of attempted murder. While Halifax police believe that only two persons, who have not been named thus far, were targeted by the youth, multiple gunshots were fired outside of the high school that the youth does not attend as a student.

Investigators have also learned that the shooting is believed to be a payback for another recent shooting of which a 16-year old was shot on Saturday, a New York Criminal Lawyer was informed. Police have confirmed they are exploring the possibility the two incidents are related.
While it is unusual for police to announce publicly information on a juvenile, a judge has given them five-days to announce his name and photograph publicly due to the nature of the incidents. The fact that the incident involved seemingly indiscriminate violence with a firearm at a school weighed heavily in the judge’s decision, sources. However, if police have not arrested the 16-year old within that five-day time period, the permission to use his name and photograph publicly will expire.

Within hours of the shooting, police had executed a search warrant at a home they believed the youth may be located, sources have confirmed to a Suffolk County Criminal Lawyer. While police did take two women in for questioning, they were released on Tuesday with no charges being filed.

Halifax police are asking that anyone with information regarding the whereabouts of this young man to notify the Halifax Police Dept, and are advising not to approach the youth if he is spotted and to notify the police immediately as he is considered armed and dangerous.

The school where the shooting took place was open on Tuesday morning as usual, only with an increased police presence in order to put students, parents, and teachers at ease. Sources say they will likely be there on Wednesday also.

Serious criminal charges can have a significant impact on your life, whether you are found guilty of the charges or not. If you are found guilty, you could be facing prison time, fines, probation, community service, and the offense will be marked on your permanent criminal record. Even if you are found innocent, these types of charges can affect personal and professional relationships. If you have been charged with a criminal offense, it is important to take prompt action and speak to skilled legal counsel as soon as possible to ensure that your rights are protected.

Continue reading "High School Shooting Puts Police on a Manhunt " »

County Sheriff's deputies have a 19-year old man in custody, and sources have told a New York Criminal Lawyer that the arrest may have prevented further development of a serial killer. The 19-year old was arrested following a report by his girlfriend’s mother who had reportedly received a call from her daughter who said that she was being held hostage by the young man. During the course of this call, the woman’s daughter reportedly told her that her boyfriend was holding her hostage, mutilating and killing dogs, and had threatened to murder her and any police who may come to arrest him.

The accused has an alleged history of torturing and killing animals, and during the course of their investigation, police discovered carcasses of at least 29 dead dogs that either had been buried in the backyard or had been tossed into the woods near the dwelling. Sources also informed the Manhattan Criminal Attorney that he had forced his girlfriend to participate in the mutilation and killing of 29 dogs or puppies. Police also discovered a rifle and a shotgun as they searched his home.

Experts who have examined this case explained to the Suffolk County Criminal Lawyer that the suspect has at least one of the characteristics of a serial killer, and from all indications, his violence was escalating. Police have stated to that they have no doubt that he would have eventually killed his girlfriend.

According to at least one expert, serial killers exhibit at least three behaviors, “animal cruelty, obsession with fire setting and persistent bedwetting past the age of five to violent behavior.” Each of these have been linked to violent behavior as both police and science attempt to understand the mental workings of these types of killers. While there has thus far been no indication that the suspect in custody exhibits any of the other two behaviors, there is little doubt that based on the evidence that an obsession with animal cruelty exists. Prosecutors have stated that a defense of temporary insanity should not be applicable in this case due to the accused alleged long and methodical obsession with animal cruelty.

Often when this type of crime is involved, other crimes are uncovered as an investigation continues. Frequently, there may be additional allegations of a sex crime, drug possession or weapon possession. It is important that if you or a family member has been charged with a serious offense, you act promptly to protect your rights. Whether you are found guilty of the charges or not, these allegations can have a significant impact on your personal life. If convicted, the criminal punishments can be significant, and include jail time, monetary fines, community service and probation.

Continue reading "Animal Abuse Case May Have Prevented a Serial Killer" »

A former multi-sport, All-American football player from a Florida university was arrested on March 16 and charged with DWI, a New York Criminal Lawyer learned. The former high school and college standout had been observed by police officers driving first at a low-rate of speed, then at a speed of up to 10-miles per hour, over the posted speed limit, and unable to maintain his lane.

After the Orlando police officer pulled the 24-year old over, the officer stated that when he approached the vehicle that he smelled alcohol when the young man exhaled. The officer then suggested that the driver undergo a field sobriety test, which he agreed to do. As a result, of the field sobriety test, the Suffolk County Criminal Lawyer was told, the former All-American was arrested and taken to a DWI center so a breath test could be administered. The driver provided two valid breath samples, both of which were 0.46. The blood alcohol concentration (BAC) in the State of Florida is 0.08, but if the driver fails the field sobriety test, they can be charged with DWI with a BAC of less than the legal limit. The former collegian was then cited for a misdemeanor charge of DWI and was then taken to the Orange County Jail.

The arresting officer included in the affidavit that he filed with the DWI charges that during the entire process the young man was both cooperative and polite, according to the arrest report. His arraignment is set for April 14.

In high school, this talented athlete excelled at both basketball and football, and chose to focus his energies on football when he went to college.

In addition to his high school and college accolades, he was drafted by the popular football team franchise as a fifth round draft pick in 2009. He played two seasons on this team before being released in September 2010. In January 2011, he signed a contract as a reserve player for a new team. It is unclear at this point how, or if, his prospective NFL career will be affected by the DWI charges.

Continue reading "Former All-American Football Player Arrested for DWI " »

A 27-year old San Antonio Police Officer was killed Tuesday, when her police cruiser was struck by a man that police suspect of being drunk at the time, a New York Criminal Lawyer was told.

Police say that the 32-year old driver of the SUV was driving the wrong direction on Interstate-35 in San Antonio when he struck the police cruiser head-on.

Having just finished with a call involving a fight, the young officer was responding to another call involving another officer who might be in trouble when her vehicle was struck. Another officer nearby witnessed the crash and immediately began CPR on the downed officer. When other first responders arrived on the scene, they were able to remove the officer from her vehicle and then rushed her to the hospital where she later died as a result of her injuries.

The first officer on the scene that rendered CPR had stated that he saw no oncoming headlights from the vehicle that struck the officer. On scene investigators had found a bar receipt in the pocket of the other driver, who also died in the crash. The investigation is continuing and police are awaiting the results of the toxicology report to either confirm or refute their suspicions of whether the other driver has been drinking, according to a Suffolk County Criminal Lawyer.

If it is learned that the SUV driver had been drinking prior to the crash, the authorities explained that it would not be his first DWI offense. He was convicted of DWI last September following his arrest for hitting another car after running a red light in June. In Texas, first-time DWI offenders are often given probation instead of jail-time. As part of his probation, he was required to report once a month, and had an ignition interlock device installed on his vehicle.

As authorities were only aware of the man’s one vehicle, a motorcycle, they think that the SUV the man was driving was borrowed. The interlock device is supposed to stop the individual from driving if they have been drinking. The motorcycle is the vehicle that had the interlock device installed.

Continue reading "San Antonio Police Officer Killed by Drunk Driver" »

A serial killer’s graveyard was thought only to contain the bodies of women, sources told a New York Criminal Lawyer. Police were therefore shocked to find the body of an infant or a child buried there.

“One doesn’t match the others. It’s a young person, possibly as young as an infant, or a child,” one witness reported. The same source also suggested the victim may be due to another killer entirely.

There have been seven other murder victims found on that stretch of Long Island beach. Four of these people were found close to each other in December 2010 and were all confirmed to be prostitutes on Craigslist who disappeared after meeting a john. The other four, which includes the body of the child, were discovered just a few miles away. The second set of four were all within half a mile of each other. Sources explained that while the first set of four have been identified, the second set remains unknown.

Suffolk County’s monetary woes may have played a role in the difficulty of solving the murders, according to a Suffolk County Criminal Lawyer. Officials are trying to avoid paying overtime, which means reduced patrols along the beach area where the bodies were buried.

Patrols of the area were once the job of the Marine Bureau, placed on the beach, but the job was given to police authorities, which could be as much as a 40-minute drive away. This lasted from early 2009 to the end of 2010, when the first bodies were found. There have been no weekend searches, either, thanks to fears of overtime costs.

Investigators believe the killings are related to the murders of four prostitutes in Atlantic City in 2006, due to similar aspects in both cases. “It’s the same guy,” one person alleges.

The four bodies found in December were all strangled, just like the bodies found in Atlantic City in 2006. In Atlantic City, the bodies were also dumped near water, near each other, in deserted areas.

Often with criminal offenses, there are multiple crimes involved, including a domestic violence issue, drug offense, or sex crime. It is important to seek quality legal representation to ensure that your rights are protected.

Continue reading "Police Uncover Child’s Remains on Long Island" »

A former hedge-fund manager sits in a New York City jail today after he was arrested January 13 for making death threats against federal regulators, a collegue discovered. The government alleges that the accused sent emails that were laced with profanity to at least 47 current and former members of the SEC, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTA), the National Futures Association (NFA), and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FIRA).

Sources report to a reporter that U.S. prosecutors further allege that the former 50-year old commodities trader maintained an “execution” list of these regulatory officials on his company website. They are including the words that are alleged to have come from his website, “Go buy a gun, and let’s get to work in taking back our country from these criminals,” and that “I will be the first one to lead by example.” One of the government’s pieces of key evidence is that one of the emails that was reportedly sent by the accused to the NFA’s Chief Operating Officer (COO) reportedly reads, “It wasn’t ever a question of ‘if’ I was going to kill you, it was just a question of when.”

As is always the case, there are two sides to every story, and this story is no different, claims a source. The accused former trader says that these charges are the result of those officials in the regulatory agencies that have a grudge against him that began about 10-years ago after he was acquitted of charges of mail fraud and for allegedly making false statements. Following his acquittal, he applied to have his licenses reinstated, which was denied. Completion of the appeals process would also see the denial of reinstatement of his licenses. Following these denials, the accused had allegedly sent out threats to those involved at that time as well. These threats resulted in the accused agreeing to undergo therapy for anger management.

Regardless of which side of the story one believes, the accused is to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. This is true everywhere including New York and Suffolk County.

If convicted, the former Wall Streeter faces up to two federal counts of “transmission of threats to injure" that he has been charged, that could result in a maximum of 10 years in federal prison.

Continue reading "Former Hedge-Fund Manager Accused of Making Death Threats Against Regulators " »

A New York Criminal Lawyer was told by immigrant officials that in Wisconsin the state had every county being a part of the immigration enforcement strategy. Federal officials announced to a New York Criminal Lawyer that they have developed an information system that would share details with each country so that people who are accused of criminal charges will be easily identifiable.
The immigration officials told the press that about thirty seven states were on board with this program. It is anticipated that by the year 2013, more states will become a part of this immigrant fingerprinting system so that even if the illegal immigrant moves to another state, their information will still be available.
Wisconsin is one of the states that joined the immigration program on a state and federal level. This means that when fingerprints are taken from an individual who is being charged with a crime, they will be put in custody and their criminal records checked.
Additionally, when someone gets charged with a crime in Suffolk and Westchester Counties, their information can be shared with the FBI, and other criminal records related to the FBI will show up. An immigration official told the NYC Criminal Lawyer that there is a lot of controversy around the subject and the state has to move carefully, but deliberately with this tough topic. A lot of citizens think that the system will only add to the frustration felt by many because innocent people may be affected by this. Officials from the law enforcement division do not agree with this idea.

Continue reading "Immigrant Fingerprinting as indicated " »

Although this story began in 2005, a N York Criminal Lawyer has learned from sources that the case was solved. It was solved due to the dogged determination of a private investigator, who by following his gut instincts tracked the woman’s assailant across the country.
The story began in February 2005 when a Dade County, FL, utility worker found a woman in the grass at an undeveloped cul-de-sac just outside of Miami, FL. The woman had been dumped and left for dead. Sources said that the utility notified the authorities who determined the woman was still alive and immediately transported her to the nearest medical facility where she would remain unconscious until the next day. Investigators attempted to gain information from the woman so as to ascertain who committed the crimes against her, but due to her inability to speak were able to collect some vague information as she could write it.
The woman was a Ukrainian who was employed with one of the cruise lines out of Miami who had been injured on the job and had been placed in a local hotel room by her employer as she recovered. Since the woman had filed suit against her employer, these details explained to investigators why the only person she could direct investigators that she knew was her attorney. In Westchester and Suffolk Counties this crime could easily result in a murder charge and criminal procedure would ensue.
A New York Criminal Attorney also learned that investigators were able to determine the approximate time and location of the attack on the woman. It had occurred at some point after she had entered an elevator at the hotel. The surveillance cameras showed the woman entering the elevator but did not show her exiting it. They did show, however, a large, black man exiting the elevator with a large piece of baggage that appeared to be very heavy since the man had struggled with the bag as he exited the elevator.
Investigators initially could not locate the man exiting the elevator to question him about anything that he may have seen, nor could they locate any more leads and the case went cold. Due to the woman filing a lawsuit against the hotel for lax security, the hotel hired a private investigator to investigate her claims. The investigator was a former NY police officer and federal DEA agent who soon became intrigued by the mystery of this case.
Over time, the investigator would follow leads that led him from Miami to Colorado, and to the woman’s attacker in Frederick, MD. After further investigation and the comparing of DNA evidence between her attacker and others in various locations, the man’s identity was confirmed. However, it would take his conviction on an unrelated case for the Ukrainian woman and the private investigator to see the man sentenced to 24-years to life, for his attack on a Colorado woman.

Continue reading "Woman Survived Attack in Miami—Mystery Solved" »

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" »

Police may have discovered the identity of the Long Island Ripper.
They say they are “looking at somebody”, according to sources, which refused to give further details about the crime.
This new development comes even as police are looking at what might be a link between the Long Island killer who is suspected of dumping the bodies of eight victims on Suffolk beaches and four murders of prostitutes that happened in Atlantic City in 2006.
“Our homicide detectives are in touch with the [Atlantic City] police,” a Suffolk police spokesman informed New York Criminal Lawyers. One of the New Jersey victims was on Long Island five weeks before she disappeared on the way to Atlantic City.
This victim’s husband recounted to New York Criminal Lawyers that his wife, who was addicted to crack and a prostitute, moved from Florida to Long Island in September 2006, hoping to get work for a friend and to regain custody of their two children, who were in foster care in New Jersey.
According to the husband, his wife did not handle the loss of her children well, after they found they could not get their children back.
“That drove her nuts and she started doing crack again. We were fighting and she hopped on a bus to Atlantic City. I never saw her again,” he said.
The killer changed tactics while on Long Island. The four bodies found in December were wrapped in burlap, all of them later found to be hookers from Craigslist. The newest bodies found, four more of them, were placed there in a different manner, which police have not disclosed.
Police feel these latest discoveries may have been there longer.
“We don’t know their sex, we don’t know their age, we don’t know anything about them,” a Suffolk police commissioner released to New York Criminal Lawyers. Regardless, they are still searching.
“It’s possible we missed something,” the commissioner said.
“We should tell people they should be careful with any contact they make with strangers, especially women involved in the escort business,” the commissioner warned.
In the meantime, the police continue their search for more information that will lead to the identity of the Long Island Ripper.

Continue reading "Long Island Police Hot on Killer’s Trail" »

A Brooklyn man accused of the murder of his girlfriend during a domestic violence dispute sobbed apologies as police led him out of a police station in handcuffs.

“I’m sorry,” the suspect said, as he was led away from the 62nd Precinct stationhouse. “I loved [her]. I’m sorry to her family. I’m sorry for my children.”

His 34-year-old girlfriend was found dead in a bathtub in the suspect’s apartment. Prosecutors explained to a New York Criminal Lawyer that the woman had been beaten, strangled, and stabbed several times in the neck and body.

According to friends, the woman had gone to her boyfriend’s house to tell him the relationship was over.

“She went there to end it. That’s how he ended it,” a neighbor of the victim told authorities. “Jerk! He must have been real crazy.”

The suspect told a relative of his that he “lost it” and made a confession, according to police.
.
The 36-year-old suspect called his ex-wife in Long Island after the murder occurred and told her his girlfriend was “probably dead” after he “hurt her” as they argued in his apartment one afternoon. The ex-wife made an immediate call to Suffolk County police, who called the NYPD. Police discovered the body of the slain woman upon arrival, according to a Suffolk County Criminal Lawyer.

The suspect was ordered to undergo a psychiatric evaluation during a brief hearing after his arrest. He had been previously arrested for menacing and criminal possession of a weapon. He had nothing to say at that time.

A friend of the victim said the pair had only been dating a few months.
He said, “She told me he’s just not a good guy – a bad person.”

The family of the victim, including her father, gathered at the family home in the aftermath of the murder. They were attempting to console the victim’s 13-year-old daughter.

“She was a great girl, she had a beautiful daughter,” a relative who did not live with them said. The suspect has four children of his own. "He’s destroyed two families,” a relative said.

Often in a domestic violence case, there is more than one offense involved, such as a gun possession offense, sex crime, or drug possession offense. While the emotional scars from these offenses can never be erased, justice can be served.

Continue reading "Brooklyn Man Shows Great Remorse at Slaying" »