New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

A former employee of a bodega came in just as the manager was closing shop. The former employee had a loaded pistol and pointed it at the manager. He cocked it and ordered him to open the safe or he’ll blow his brains out. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the former employee was accompanied by another man and they both forced the manager back into the office.

The former employee heard footsteps in the store so he gave the gun to the other man and told him to guard the manager. The former employee espied the manager’s wife. He grabbed her and pushed her inside the office when they heard a gun go off. When the former employee heard the shot, he dragged the manager’s wife into the office. The manager wrestled with the other man and the gun went off.

Both men tried to flee through the back entrance; they dragged the manager’s wife and forced her to open the door. They were unable to unlock all the doors so the men used a bolt cutter to shatter the locks.

The night porter, who was about to come in for duty, had just awakened; and was coming down to the store from his quarters on the second floor. He saw the two men. He noted the presence of the former employee and he assumed that they had been locked in as the manager was closing up. He told them to wait so he could get the manager’s keys. Before he even reached the office, the night porter saw the manager’s legs on the floor and he realized that it was a hold up. The former employee aimed the gun at him and told him that he would kill him but then the other man pushed a shopping cart through the glass front of the store and the two of them ran off. The cashier of the bodega who had just gone off-duty and was outside saw the former employee.

When the police arrived, the cashier, the night porter and the manager’s wife all identified the former employee and told them that he was there just that afternoon speaking with his cousin who was also an employee of the bodega. The police then went to the cousin’s house and he said that he had not seen his cousin since that afternoon. Much later, the cousin admitted that his cousin knocked on his door just a few hours before and asked him to drive them to a nearby motel in Queens. The armed robber who was with the former employee had a brother-in-law who was a New York police officer and they asked him to help them find the two suspects. Through the mediation of the brother-in-law, the two armed robbers surrendered.

Both men were arrested at the motel and they gave a statement to the police. The armed robber confessed to having planned the robbery and asked the former employee to help him. He also confessed that the former employee’s cousin who still worked at the bodega agreed to meet them after the robbery and drive them to the motel. He also agreed to hide the gun for them. The former employee gave a similar confession. The cousin was also interrogated and he admitted to the police that the former employee approached him asking him when the store would close and that he received the gun from him and hid it.

All three were charged, tried and convicted of murder in the second degree, robbery in the first degree, manslaughter in the second degree, and petit larceny. In a separate indictment, they were also charged with murder in the second degree, attempted robbery in the first degree and attempted robbery in the second degree. As each statement was read into evidence the trial court instructed the jury that each confession can only be used against the defendant who made the statement.

A Long Island Criminal Lawyer said the only question before the Supreme Court is whether or not the admission of all the statements were an error that constituted a violation of his constitutional rights that would result in an acquittal.

The Court held that, indeed, there was a violation of the constitutional right of the other armed robber when his trial was not severed from the other two defendants as their admissions would work prejudice against him.

However, the Court ruled that the error is negligible in light of the overwhelming evidence of the armed robber’s guilt. No less than three people identified him: the manager’s wife, the night porter and the cashier. The armed robber himself admitted his own participation in the crime. It cannot be determined how the erroneously admitted evidence contributed to his conviction as the weight of all the evidence totally proved his guilt beyond all doubt.

Possessing a gun and using it to perpetrate a robbery brings a stiffer penalty. Are you facing an indictment for armed robbery? Were you in possession of a loaded weapon at the time of the robbery? You need a lawyer even if you decide to confess and admit to the crime. Call Stephen Bilkis and Associates today. Whether you have been charged with robbery, sex crimes or a drug possession charge.

On October 4, 1975 a man and a woman went inside a boutique. The woman tried on dresses but did not buy any. While the woman was trying on dresses, her boyfriend asked the boutique owner if he could use her bathroom. The man observed that there was a big window in the bathroom that faced a back alley.

Three days later, the lovers parked their car in the back alley with the trunk of their car facing the back window of the bathroom. The woman stayed near their car while her boyfriend entered the store and took clothing items and gave them to his girlfriend who stashed the clothes in the trunk.

A police officer on routine patrol passed through on his cruiser down the back alley and saw the woman; he saw clothes being pushed out of the widow, and the woman stashing the clothes in the trunk. He called for back-up and he saw the woman hide behind the car. The police officer approached and talked to the woman and asked her what she was doing. The police officer did not immediately place her under arrest.

Another police officer arrived because of the call for back-up made by the first police officer. He went to cover the store front. At that time, the woman’s boyfriend came out of the front door. The police officer tried to stop the woman’s boyfriend from escaping but the man shot the police officer with the gun he had in his possession (gun crime). The police officer later died.

The lovers were charged with felony murder, that is, that during the commission of a felony, the crime of murder was also committed. During the trial, the woman asked the trial judge to instruct the jury that if the police officer had already arrested the woman then there could be no felony murder as the burglary had already terminated at the time that the police officer was shot. She also moved that the trial judge instruct the jury to find her not guilty of felony murder if they find that she was already in custody of the police at the time that the police officer was shot.

The woman was convicted of felony murder. There was a finding that she willingly participated and fully involved herself in the burglary. She appealed her conviction but the Appellate Division affirmed the conviction finding that the trial court did not commit any error when it refused to instruct the jury as desired by the defendant.

On further appeal to the Supreme Court, the Court held that a felonious homicide is considered a felony murder by operation of law. This happens when the law transfers the malicious intent for the robbery as also malicious intent for the homicide. Applied to the specific facts of this case, the Court held that when the lady shared the felonious venture with her boyfriend who shot someone with the gun in his possession, she will also share in his liability for felony murder especially when it occurred during the felonious act or immediately while her boyfriend was fleeing from the scene.

The question then of whether or not the woman was already arrested at the time that her boyfriend shot the police officer is relevant and necessary to find if the woman really committed felony murder. The trial judge did not commit any error when it refused to instruct the jury as requested by the defendant such that she should be acquitted for the trial court judge did charge jury to find as a fact if the murder of the police officer was in furtherance of the burglary or of the immediate flight. The trial court judge did not decide that the homicide occurred during the course of the burglary as a matter of law. This matter was left for the jury to decide.

Thus, the case was remanded by the Supreme Court to the trial court for a new trial with the specific mandate that the issue of whether or not the killing of the police officer was committed in furtherance of the burglary or in furtherance of flight from the scene of the burglary.
Have you been charged with a felony murder for having shot someone in the course of a robbery? You need the legal advice of a New York Gun Crime lawyer. The New York City Gun Crime Attorneys at Stephen Bilkis and Associates are willing to advice and assist you. Call Stephen Bilkis and Associates today, speak with any of their NYC Gun Crime attorneys who can represent you in court and argue your defense. Confer with any of their NY Gun Crime lawyers today at any of their offices located in the New York area.

A man, in possession of a gun, accosted a registered nurse who was on her way home from working at a hospital. He assaulted the nurse who was severely injured. Seven months later, the man committed a similar crime but in the territorial jurisdiction of Queens County. In relation to the second assault he committed in Queens, the police arrested him.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the arrest was effected while the man was in the apartment of his girlfriend. When the police arrested him, the man was handcuffed and was escorted from the building. While they were escorting him, the man and his girlfriend had a conversation. The girlfriend said that she could call an attorney for her boyfriend. The boyfriend agreed and gave his girlfriend a specific instruction to call his lawyer.

When the police reached the car, they read the man the Miranda warnings. The police detective asked the man if he understood his rights and he declared that he understood them. The police detective then asked if he was willing to talk to the detective even without his lawyer. The man agreed.

The man gave a statement to the police detective about the crime he committed in Queens County. He denied that he shot the woman. The police then asked him what he did with the gun he used when he committed the assault. The man informed the police that he had thrown the gun away six months before.

The man’s girlfriend called a lawyer who arrived at the police station. He represented the man when he was made to stand at a lineup later that day.

The man was convicted by a jury of attempted murder (for having shot the woman in Queens with the gun in his possession), assault in the second degree and criminal impersonation.

The man appealed his conviction claiming that the statement he made to the police during the custodial investigation was in violation of his constitutional right to have a lawyer present.
The only question before the Supreme Court was whether or not the custodial investigation conducted by the police violated his constitutional rights because he had already asked for a lawyer and should not have been interrogated.

The Supreme Court ruled that the man’s conviction should be overturned and reversed as the evidence presented against him during the trial were obtained in violation of the man’s constitutional rights.

The Supreme Court held that when the man told his girlfriend to call his lawyer at the time that he was arrested he had already requested the presence of a lawyer of his own. A Long Island Criminal Lawyer said he should not have been subjected to custodial investigation or interrogation anymore by the police detectives until his lawyer appeared.

When the man waived his right to remain silent, he waived his right without the presence of the counsel he had requested. The police had no right to question him at all.

The police officers claim that the custodial investigation conducted was about a different crime committed in the past in Nassau County and not the crime for which he was arrested in Queens. The Court held that it didn’t matter what the interrogation was all about, for a past crime or for a present crime committed, the police had no right to interrogate him.

At the trial, the police officer who conducted the custodial investigation was called to testify. He testified that the interrogation was not about the crime for which he was arrested in Queens but for the crime he committed in Nassau and for which he was standing trial. The police officer also testified that the man admitted to possession of a gun and use of the gun in the commission of the crime. The man objected to this part of the testimony of the police officer and orally moved for a mistrial.

The Court ruled that the testimony should have been suppressed and the motion for mistrial should have been granted for the testimony prejudiced the jury against the defendant because it showed the man’s disposition to crime.

The Court concluded that these two errors of the trial court judge were reversible errors. The Court ordered a new trial.

Stephen Bilkis and Associates has New York City Gun Crime Lawyers at their law offices in the New York area. The attorneys from Stephen Bilkis and Associates are ready and willing to assist in your defense, whether you have been charged with sex crimes, a weapons charge or drug crime. Their legal team can present evidence and argue in your behalf. Call Stephen Bilkis and Associates today and speak to any of their NY Gun Crime Lawyers to begin the process of building your defense.

On 23 March 1975 at about two o'clock in the morning, a murder occurred. It was witnessed solely by a nonparticipant to the crime which led to the defendant’s arrest.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the eyewitness had planned to arise at 2:00 A.M. of 23 March 1975 and set her alarm clock accordingly. Just before the alarm went off, she heard a noise that sounded like a fire cracker. She got up looked what it was. Thus, she turned off her alarm and walked to her front door. There, she then noticed that an automobile was parked right outside her house, on the north side of the street, facing west. Illumination was provided by a mercury vapor overhead streetlight. The car was parked under the light. The eyewitness viewed the killing from about 80 feet away.

The eyewitness saw the defendant fire a gun three times and run very quickly east on Park Avenue. A few minutes later, after she had dressed, she went out and saw the victim lying dead in the street. She notified the police immediately.

The eyewitness testified that she recognized the defendant (accused) from having seen him in the neighborhood on several occasions. She was at first reluctant to admit to the police that she had recognized him, for fear of reprisal, but finally did admit it and testified against the defendant at the trial.

Defendant was charged of the crime of murder (common law) in the second degree; in violation of the criminal law, a felony.

In the course of the police investigation, the defendant, in a signed statement dated 21 April 1975, admitted to the police that he was present at the scene during the murder. In his statement, however, he claimed one other individual was the killer. However, no such person was ever found.
On 22 December 1977, defendant was convicted of the crime charged.

When defendant appeared for sentence on 26 January 1978, he claimed that another individual, a fellow inmate at the Nassau County Jail, was the real murderer. Defendant said he knew his inmate committed the crime "when it first happened" but that the latter admitted his involvement only after defendant was found guilty.

Consequently, defendant moves to set aside the judgment on the ground of newly discovered evidence.

The issue: Is the alleged newly discovered evidence sufficient to grant a new trial and acquit defendant?

The criteria necessary for the granting of an application for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence are as follows: (1) It must be such as will probably change the result if a new trial is granted; (2) It must have been discovered since the trial; (3) It must be such as could have not been discovered before the trial by the exercise of due diligence; (4) It must be material to the issue; (5) It must not be cumulative to the former issue; and, (6) It must not be merely impeaching or contradicting the former evidence.

A Long Island Criminal Lawyer said here, the testimony or confession of the inmate, his memory of the details of the killing incident and the geography of the scene, was something less than convincing and at great variance with the testimony given by the eyewitness and the statement of the defendant himself.

The inmate didn't know the color of his victim's car, although it was bathed in a bright illumination. Nor did he know if the victim sported a beard at the time. He claimed that after shooting at defendant once and at the deceased three times, two with telling effect, he left the scene by going west on Park Avenue to Brush Hollow Road, which is again at variance with the testimony of the others then concededly present.

Moreover, defendant testified in his own behalf at the hearing and said that he never knew that Johnson was the killer until the latter confessed. However, when asked to explain his statement on 26 January 1978 that he knew his inmate committed the murder "when it first happened", defendant replied that the District Attorney was interpreting his statement incorrectly and reiterated that he never knew his inmate did the shooting until after the confession.

At this point, defendant had set himself upon the horns of a dilemma. On two occasions, first in a signed statement to the police on and second at the subject hearing where he had placed himself at the scene of the crime at the time of the crime.

The story concocted by the inmate and defendant transcends belief and even if the court were inclined to give credence to defendant’s testimony, the fact that his testimony, if believed, was available to defendant on the very night of the murder shows a definite lack of due diligence in bringing the issue to the attention of the police authorities.

Accordingly, defendant has not borne his burden; he is guilty of the crime charged.
The defense of a criminally accused person depends largely upon the ability of the legal representative; and not only on the actual facts of the case. The lawyer functions to protect the rights of the accused/defendant and see to it that justice is served. Thus, for best representation, contact Stephen Bilkis & Associates. Whether you have been charged with murder, sex crimes or theft, let in touch with our office and have a free consultation with our Nassau County Criminal Lawyers or our Nassau County Arrest Lawyers.

On March 28, 1982, a young woman was alone in her apartment in Nassau County New York, when an assailant broke in to her apartment. A New York Lawyer said the assailant gagged her and put a belt around her neck. The young woman died that night due to asphyxiation as a result of the strangulation caused by the gag and belt. Her body was found the following day. The detective assigned to the case discovered that a man who was known to be a burglar of the type that had broken into the woman’s apartment, was known to her.

On March 31, 1982, the detective went to 46 Elm Avenue. He had information that the suspect lived there. He spoke to one of the suspect’s neighbors and left his business card with them to have him call. At 9:25 in the morning April 1st, the suspect called the detective ad agreed to meet with them on April 2nd; The suspect did not show up for the meeting. Upon looking into the suspect’s whereabouts more closely, the detective discovered that the suspect was on parole and had been at the time of the murder. He notified the suspect’s parole officer. The fact that the suspect had been requested to contact the police on April 1st and that he had not notified his parole officer was in essence a parole violation that the suspect could be arrested for.

On April 3rd, the detective met with the parole officer and the parole officer informed the detective that he had been unsuccessful in locating the suspect at his last known address. The police informed the parole officer that they had been informed by the suspect’s girlfriend that he had moved out of that apartment and that she did not know where he had moved to, but that he had not committed a gun crime.

On April 8th, the suspect contacted his parole officer and told him that he had hospitalized himself in a residential drug program in New York City. A Bronx Criminal Lawyer said the parole officer instructed him to report to the parole office on April 12. He then contacted the detectives and informed them that the suspect would be there at around ten in the morning on April 12th. The suspect did arrive at the parole office and he had a companion with him. The parole officer interviewed him for several minutes in reference to the change of address and drug treatment programs in violation of his parole. When he was convinced that the suspect was not going to abide by his parole guidelines and inform him that he had been contacted by the police, the parole officer arrested him and handcuffed him to a chair. He informed him that he was being arrested for violation of his parole. The parole officer had not obtained a parole violation warrant prior to making this arrest.

A Manhattan Criminal Lawyer said at about eleven in the morning approximately 30 minutes after the parole officer had handcuffed the suspect to the chair, the detectives arrived. As soon as they arrived, the handcuffs were removed from the suspect and he agreed to cooperate with the detectives by going to their precinct to answer some questions about the murder. His companion was allowed to go with them and they left the parole office. The parole officer later testified that he had decided that his parole violation warrant was not necessary any longer since he changed his mind about arresting the suspect once he agreed to be cooperative in the police investigation. He advised that he had not obtained a warrant prior to the suspect’s arrival at his office because he had not made up his mind that he was going to arrest the man. If the suspect had come in to his office and freely notified the parole officer that he had been contacted by the police, then the parole officer would not have placed him under arrest.

The suspect was taken to the police station and asked about where he had been on the night of the murder. He gave a questionable account of his whereabouts. He was asked to take a polygraph test, which he agreed to. At around 12:50 P.M., he was taken to a different detective to be questioned about the case who was a polygraph examiner. The polygraph examiner informed the suspect of his rights under the Miranda ruling and informed the suspect that the results of the polygraph test were not admissible as evidence. He did tell him that any incriminating statements that he made during the test could be admitted into evidence. The suspect agreed to take the polygraph test after acknowledging freely and voluntarily waiving his rights.

Following the polygraph examination, the detective informed him that he was convinced that he had lied and was responsible for the murder of the woman. They spoke for one hour and the detective spent much of that time discussing with the suspect the benefits f confronting one’s own guilt and confessing.

At around 5 P.M. the suspect was taken back to the Homicide Squad Room where he was read his rights again and again waived them. At about 6:25 in the evening, after an hour and 25 minutes of interrogation, the suspect looked at the detective, began to cry, and admitted that he was responsible for killing the girl. He followed his initial admission of guilt with several oral and written confessions of the events of that night. He was formally arrested and charged with the murder. He was arrested and indicted in Nassau County Grand Jury for three felony counts of murder in the second degree, One felony count of robbery in the first degree, and on felony count of burglary in the first degree. He made several pretrial motions to suppress his statements to police and his confessions.

His argument for suppression was that he was illegally arrested without a warrant by the parole officer and that any statements following this illegal arrest should be excluded under the Exclusionary Rule as Fruit of the Poisonous Tree. In other words, anything that happens as a result of an illegal action of the police, either a search, seizure, or arrest is inadmissible in court because of the initial illegal action. There are several exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule. However, the court ruled that the Exclusionary Rule is not applicable in this case because the arrest was valid.

The court ruled that the parole officer had not made up his mind about arresting the suspect until he appeared in his office and did not take steps to rectify the problems that put him in violation. Because that was the case, the parole officer did not have to have the warrant in hand at the time that he placed him under arrest. They further decided that even if the arrest had been illegal, there was ample time for that illegality to have dissipated by the time that the suspect made his confessions.

Since he was not handcuffed, and his friend was allowed to accompany him, the court ruled that a reasonable person in the same circumstances would believe that they were no longer under arrest. Because the arrest that was in question was removed, there is no reason for the taint to have lingered. Besides, the suspect was Mirandized two times after that and repeatedly waived his rights.

It is important that anyone who has been arrested for a criminal offense contact a Nassau County Criminal Lawyer. A Nassau County Arrest Lawyer can advise you of your rights and help you decide if you want to make any statements.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After a jury trial, a man was convicted of attempted murder in the second degree, two counts of attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, three counts of assault in the first degree, 15 counts each of kidnapping in the second degree and kidnapping in the second degree, five counts each of assault in the second degree as a hate crime and of assault in the second degree, and three counts each of criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees, and sentencing him, as second violent felony offender, to a cumulative term of 240 years.

In the main charge on the insanity argument and its response to notes from the deliberating jury, the court properly read the jury instructions pattern which charge on the said subject. The court properly declined to add language instructing the jury to consider the man’s capacity to know or appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct from a subjective point of view relating to the false beliefs that he allegedly held as a result of psychiatric illness. The standard language permitted the jury to accept the man's insanity argument under the theory that his asserted mental disorder caused him to sincerely believe that society would approve of his immoral acts because they were divinely commanded. The court was not obligated to add the language to that effect or to give any special instructions concerning a false belief. The court also concludes that the supplemental instructions were meaningful responses to the notes. The court further notes that there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could conclude that the man did not have any delusions or hallucinations about being divinely commanded to commit his criminal acts.
The man’s first trial resulted in a mistrial when the jury was unable to reach a verdict. On his retrial, the man was convicted of 53 counts, including attempted murder and assault, both as hate crimes, and was acquitted of attempted murder in the first degree. The only defense raised was that the man was not responsible by reason of mental disease when he committed the criminal acts. The psychiatrist called by the Court found that the man was legally sane when he acted, but other examining psychiatrists found man to be seriously delusional and/or insane.

The court properly denied the man’s contentions for cause to a potential juror who despite of her self-professed strong opinions on the insanity argument based on research she had conducted while in college and declared that she could follow the Court's instructions and be fair. The man's claim under psychiatric illness does not warrant reversal. The documents at issue did not qualify as material. The court have considered and rejected the man's remaining claims.

The man’s counsel challenged the potential juror for cause, arguing that she did not know if the potential juror could be fair, given her strong opinions, and that she posed a danger of becoming an expert in the jury room. The court agreed to question the potential juror in further.
Subsequently, the court denied the challenge for cause, forcing the man’s counsel to apply an unconditional challenge to remove the potential juror. Before applying the challenge, the man’s counsel noted for the record that the potential juror had indicated she was coming to the case with a bias that would affect how she would listen to and evaluate the evidence. Thereafter, the man exhausted all of his remaining challenges during the oath of competency.

The potential juror in the case indicated that she would try to follow the judge's instructions and never said that she could not be fair, she twice stated that because of her wide research into the insanity argument, she was biased about how it should be applied, and that she felt her background would affect her interpretation of the law. In contrary, the court find that in the context of the whole record, the potential juror's self-acknowledged bias about the insanity argument was not the definite assurance of impartiality to which the man was entitled. Therefore, the trial court has granted the challenge for cause.

If a family member is a mentally challenge individual or incidentally acquired mental illness and unfortunately committed a crime, such as robbery, theft or even murder, you can ask the help of the NY Criminal Lawyers together with the NY Domestic Violence Lawyers at Stephen Bilkis and Associates.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A 27 year old man was extradited to Long Island from California to face murder charges on a 2009 fatal shooting that took place in a local nightclub. He is facing a charge of 2nd degree murder on the shooting of a victim Valley Stream. The victim was pronounced dead at a local hospital in Manhasset. A New York Criminal Lawyer has been called to defend the suspect. No date has been set for a trial but because of the serious charges, one will be set soon.

The laws that govern homicide in New York are governed by Section 125.00 of the New York Criminal Proceedure Law. There are many different factors that come into play when a charge of murder is involved. Courts will look at the intent of the party. What is planned, or an act of recklessness? Determining the defendant's intent will be very important to assess their guilt or innocence, and what particular charge of murder they may receive.

If you or someone you know is facing criminal charges you may need the assistance experienced legal counsel. Depending on your charges, you could be facing prison time, community service, monetary fines and probation. Speak to Stephen Bilkis and Associates for advice and guidance.We will provide you with sound legal advice and a free consultation. We have offices located throughout the New York area for your convenience, including locations in Manhattan, Staten Island, Queens, the Bronx and Brooklyn. On Long Island, we have locations in Nassau County and Suffolk County on Long Island, as well as Westchester County.

The sooner you contact us, the better. We will provide you with an aggressive defense, and ensure that your rights are protected throughout the legal process. Call us today to schedule a free consultation at 1-800-NY-NY-LAW.

Even though the body of a 10-year old disabled girl has been found, authorities have not had any luck finding the girl's severed head. The girl's stepmother has been charged with killing the girl and dismembering her body, reports a New York Criminal Lawyer. Law enforcement officials were able to locate the girl's body with assistance from the stepmother, who has been charged with the murder.

The stepmother, who has also been accused of abusing the girl prior to her death, appears to show little remorse for her actions. The girl, born in Australia, developed bone cancer when she was young and lost one of her legs and much of her hearing. She lived with her father and stepmother in the United States. Her biological mother still lives in Australia. Neighbors, friends and others report having seen bruises on the girl and also witnessed verbal and emotional abuse. The stepmother was apparently married to another man when she married the girl's father. The man lived across the street from the girl and her family and pretended to be the stepmother's brother.

Even though she was reported missing on October 9th of last year, law enforcement officials believe the girl went missing earlier than that. At the end of October, law enforcement found the girl's prosthetic leg and were able to identify it as hers using the manufacturer's serial number. Skeletal remains were found on November 3 and in the days that followed.

In addition to the kidnap and murder her stepdaughter, the stepmother also forged a ransom note. The ransom note asked for 1 million dollars. The stepmother is also being charged with hindering an investigation because police had to spend time to determine whether the note was real. The father has not been charged with any crime even though the stepmother has accused him of inappropriate behavior after the girl's remains were discovered.

While charges are pending against the stepmother, formal charges have not been filed because the girl's head has not yet been recovered. It is hopeful that the stepmother will reveal the location of the severed head so the girl may be put to rest in a compassionate manner. So far, the stepmother has shown little guilt or remorse for her actions and instead blames the girl and the father for her behavior.

Stephen Bilkis and Associates can help you through your legal troubles by providing insight and advice. Contact us today for a free consultation.

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 30-year-old PA veterinarian was arrested Tuesday in connection with last week's alleged murder of a 27-year-old co-worker and their unborn son. The police reported that the suspect has been charged with one count of criminal homicide and one count of criminal homicide of an unborn child. The suspect was arraigned Tuesday morning and was denied bail.

The woman was last seen alive last week outside her apartment, according to a previous police report. PA State police found her body on Friday morning, after more than a day of searching. According to court documents received by a NY City Criminal Lawyer, the victim had been shot three times, twice in the head and once in the back.

Those court documents also revealed that after the woman was initially reported missing, police received a call concerning a suspicious vehicle left in an area parking lot. After arriving on scene, the authorities determined that the car belonged to the missing woman. More concerning still, court documents confirmed that the car’s windshield was broken and investigators found a large amount of blood, human tissue, and gun-shell casings inside the vehicle.

Police interviews with the victim’s roommate revealed that the woman was two-months pregnant with the suspect’s child and was planning to meet with the suspect the night she went missing, police said. The autopsy determined the woman was pregnant with a healthy male fetus.
.
According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, state police went to the suspect’s home to speak with him, and received permission to search his car. Their search revealed a gun in the trunk of the vehicle, and police revealed that theshell casings found inside the victim’s car matched that gun. After obtaining a search warrant to further search the suspect’s car, the victim’s cellphone was also believed to have been found under a seat in the suspect’s car.

The victim’s family released the following statement to local area 69 News: "We are very thankful an arrest has been made. Please understand that we are dealing with preparing our family for the next two days. Our focus has been and will continue to be (mother) and her child. She was a loving kind peaceful girl. She and her baby did not deserve this. She was so happy to become a mom and share motherhood with her family. We ask for you to respect our privacy and allow us to grieve (mother) and her baby boy."

Continue reading "Man killed Girlfriend, Unborn Son" »

Mustafa Mohamed Abdel-Jalil, a former Libyan justice minister, claims that Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi ordered the bombing of PanAm Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland on December 22, 1988. Many of the passengers on the plane were American citizens. Eleven Scottish citizens on the ground were also killed. In an interview with Kassem Hamade of The Expressan newspaper, Abdel-Jalil says that Colonel Gaddafi tried very hard to get convicted bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi out of Scotland. Al-Megrahi was granted “compassionate release” from a Scottish prison in 2009 because he has prostate cancer. Scottish officials released him because they were told he would die within months. Al-Megrahi is still alive and living in Libya.

Even though Gaddafi has compensated the families of victims over the years financially and admits that Libya was responsible for the bombing, he has never taken responsibility for personally ordering the attack.

Though Abdel-Jalil claims to have evidence that Colonel Gaddafi ordered the bombing, he has not presented any evidence to newspapers or government officials. Abdel-Jalil recently stepped down as justice minister to protest Colonel Gaddafi’s handling of uprisings throughout Libya. It has been estimated that over 1,000 people have died since government protests began.

After the announcement of Al-Megrahi’s release, families of victims and others in the United States and Britain were furious because they felt “compassionate release” was not the right decision to make considering the number of people killed. There were allegations of UK officials making trade deals with Scottish officials and Libya in exchange for Al-Megrahi’s release. Over the years, more and more people have begun to believe Gaddafi had more to do with the bombing than it was originally thought, explains a source.

Other people, however, do not believe Abdel-Jalil’s claims or that Britain or Scotland were part of any secret deals with Libya or each other. These people cite evidence that Al-Megrahi does have prostate cancer and that people who have prostate cancer can live longer than expected. Al-Megrahi’s health is not good and may be getting worse, says a comrade. He is at home with his family in Tripoli.

After the bombing two men were arrested; Al-Megrahi and an unnamed suspect. Eventually, only Al-Megrahi was charged and convicted in the Lockerbie, Scotland bombing. This was considered one of the worst acts of terrorism to happen in the UK, reports a source.

Continue reading "Former Libyan Justice Minister Says Colonel Gaddafi Personally Ordered Lockerbie, Scotland Bombing" »

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" »

Was a criminal attorney really necessary? A study reviews one case brought before the Supreme Court justices because a jilted wife was charged under a federal law for trying to poison her husband’s girlfriend.

The federal law in question was first written in order to implement a chemical weapons treaty. The treaty was designed against chemicals which were deadly and used during times of war. Unfortunately the federal law was written in very broad terms thus used against this scorned lover who is facing a severe penalty for trying to poison her husband’s lover, formerly her best friend.

The twist comes in the fact that the woman’s guilt or innocence is not in question. She admits to trying to poison the woman pregnant with her husband’s baby. She is questioning her sentencing under this federal law, stated a source. This questioning of a federal law has raised eyebrows on the political front. The question has arisen of whether or not someone, a regular citizen, has a right to sue over a law that was written for a different purpose. Who truly has the right to challenge the government? Her lawyer is former Bush administration solicitor Paul D. Clement and he is quoted as saying his client should not be deprived the right to challenge the government. His exact words are that she should have the ability “to challenge the constitutionality of the federal statute under which her liberty is being deprived…” and this “should not be open to question”. Even the federal government agrees that she should have the right to challenge the federal law even though they also feel she would not win the challenge.

An expert reconstructs the conversations held by justices during the arguments. Justice Alito shared his skepticism of the original law and its broadness saying that the law could be applied even if something as simple as pouring vinegar into a fish tank had occurred because it may cause the death of the fish. The lawyer, Clement, states that he has a hard time applying a law about chemical warfare to ingredients that can be purchased on Amazon.com. It should be noted that the lover was only mildly affected by the ingredients used to poison her. The issue was once again broached by Ginsburg of whether the defendant had a right to challenge her conviction based on the law under which she was punished.

Should government be allowed to decide who can challenge a conviction and who cannot? Should the spirit of a law be taken into consideration? No matter how one feels about those questions, if trouble arises a smart person can help in criminal legal matters.

A plea of guilt was given Wednesday from a Montgomery County woman in an ice pick murder case. This case included a false promise of sex, an argument over child custody and the fact the a new husband was willing to kill using an ice pick, reported a police source.

This woman may get life in prison for this murder. She lured a man to her house and as she hugged him in her front yard, the new husband came out from behind a tree and killed him. The victim was stabbed 13 times and quickly died after being stabbed in the heart and lungs, according to a report.

The idea of using an ice pick came from a friend that claims to have killed many people using one and it’s considered a clean kill without a lot of external bleeding. A very brutal and violent way to die. This killer even stabbed the victim in the back as he tried to get away, explained a policeman.

A lady was driving down the road and happened to see the victim laying in the street and assumed he was drunk. It wasn’t until an autopsy was conducted that the use of an ice pick was found. This was all tracked back to the lady and her new husband because of a child custody dispute. The victim still had his identification on him and was easily identified. The detectives found the ice pick in a desk drawer at the woman’s house.

Continue reading "An ice pick murder case involves a woman" »

Hospira Inc. has decided to stop producing their anesthetic that is frequently used to terminate the life of those who are faced with charges like murder meriting the death penalty. A study shares further insight, that a drug company, Hospira Inc., that is based in Lake Forest, Illinois has chosen to discontinue the production of their drug: thiopental sodium. This drug is commonly used by many states when the lethal injection becomes necessary.

This decision has thrown a permanent hitch in the justice systems process of capital punishment. Though, it might be possible to switch to a different drug, for the use of lethal injections, a switch like that requires a great deal of paper work, and approval—something that certainly wouldn't be happening overnight. According to a report, since the drug company's choice to halt production, many prisons have already run out of thiopental sodium, causing a delay in executions. The company planned to resume their production that was based out of their Italian plant, but a person explains, that the Italian government refused to have this Italian-made drug used in lethal injections.

However, a substitute drug has surfaced: pentobarbital. This drug was commonly used to euthanize animals in Oklahoma, but due to the shortage of thiopental sodium, the drug was approved by a US District Judge and used as to no longer further delay the execution of two Oklahoma inmates. In the early 1970's Oklahoma was the first state to approve the use of thipental sodium in lethal injections, and perhaps they may be the state to lead the way again, promoting the use of a new drug in lethal injections that will put our nation's capital punishment system back on track.

Continue reading "How a Drug Company Puts the Death Penalty On Hold" »

Federal court authorities plan to move the trial of alleged Tucson gunman Jared Lee Loughner to San Diego due to the extensive publicity following the Jan. 8 shooting that killed six and critically wounded Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz). Among those killed was the state's chief federal judge, John M. Roll. Rep. Giffords was holding a rally at a shopping center when the shootings took place, according to a reporter.

Larry A. Burns, a federal judge based in San Diego, has been appointed to hear the case due to Arizona judges recusing themselves from hearing the trial. It is expected that Lougher's legal team will request the change of venue. It is anticipated that prosecutors will vehemently oppose any attempts to have the trial moved out of the state of Arizona a source stated.

If moved, the trial will most likely be moved to San Diego, first because the Burns is based there and secondly because San Diego is the closest federal district. Although change of venues for trials are not granted on a regular basis, high-profile cases are generally given special consideration. For example, the trials for Timothy J. McVeigh and Terry L. Nichols were moved from Oklahoma City to Denver due to the publicity after the Oklahoma City bombing, offers a person close to the case.

Loughner is charged with murder and attempted murder and is being held at the medium security Federal Correctional Institution in Phoenix. For his own protection, he is housed in solitary confinement and allowed an hour a day for showers and exercise.

Continue reading "Tucson Shooter's Trial To Be Moved" »

A popular Portuguese celebrity journalist was found murderedhttp:// and mutilated in his New York hotel room, a friend was told by police. The police said the victim had told a close friend that he had started to feel threatened by his young lover.

The victim was a gay activist and society columnist. He was beaten to death. His scrotum was also severed with a wine glass that had been broken during a fight with his lover, who is a fashion model.

The 65-year-old journalist was found in a puddle of his own blood. He was found face up in his room at Inter Continental New York Times Square hotel room on W. 44th St.

He had earlier told a close friend that he was scared to be with his lover. His friend returned home early from a trip to check on him, but she was too late. The friend actually saw her friend’s lover in the hotel lobby before discovering her friend’s body.

The police are holding the journalist’s lover. Police were not able to find him for several hours.
The lover took a cab to the Roosevelt Hospital to have several wrist wounds bandage. The police believe they may be wounds from a failed suicide attempt, said a source.

Later, the cab driver recognized the man’s picture on the late night newscast and called 911 shortly before midnight. A nurse at the hospital where he was being treated also caught the same newscast and called in the cops, she informed a reporter.

He was arrested at the hospital. Charges against him are pending as the police await a psychiatric evaluation from the Bellevue Hospital.

Continue reading "Portuguese society columnist murdered in his hotel room" »

A Judge shared with a confident about having Public Defenders show to the newspaper media, the billing records for the defense provided to two murders who were convicted. The battle in court was long and costly over this matter. There were a lot of mixed feelings about this in the media and in the judicial system.

The Judge told a source that the Supreme Court in Washington State made the ruling quite succinctly. Apparently, the double murders that took place in 2005 came with billing record that were suspicious and that is why the Judge determined that it should be exposed. The defendants had cost the taxpayers up to two million dollars in the defense of their case. It was when the newspaper sued for the information that it was demanded to be released.

The Judge indicated to the audience that the ruling that one of the defendant’s cost for the case had to be revealed, but the other defendant’s billing record was not forced to be released. The newspaper media has reported that the public needs to know about these things since they are the ones paying for these costs. It was a good victory for those who were eligible to know these things.

The newspaper media hopes that this would send a message to the legal system so that public money is given account for because it is very expensive to defend criminally in the court system. The process itself costs the general public enough money.

Continue reading "About the Public Defender Billing Record " »

A man who was originally charged with attempted murder for spitting on an emergency room nurse had his charges reduced to felony and misdemeanor assault. He was also charged with harassment, reports a source.

The man, who knew he had Hepatitis C, deliberately spat on an Emergency Room nurse as she tried to restrain him. The man was considered dangerous because he stated he was suicidal and planned to kill himself, according to a report.

While emergency workers attempted to restrain him, the man threatened to spit on anyone who tried to restrain him. The source states the man proceeded to spit in the face of a nurse. Because the man was infected with Hepatitis C, the nurse is currently being tested for the virus.

Hepatitis C is a blood-borne virus that can lead to several liver diseases and cancer. The virus is generally spread through intravenous drug use, but individuals such as healthcare professionals have contracted the virus through accidental needle sticks. However, according to the Centers of Disease Control, the chances are getting the disease through contact with infected saliva is rare, claims a person close to the scene.

The original second-degree murder charge was based on the rationale that the man had taken “a substantial step” to kill his victim. With the charges reduced to felony and misdemeanor assault, it accuses the man of “recklessly placing the nurse in fear of imminent serious physical injury by means or a dangerous instrument, saliva.” The misdemeanor charges contend the man used offensive physical contact and other forms of conduct to place others in fear of injury.

Continue reading "Man Charged with Felony for Spitting" »

The Family finally got to sit down and have a child support hearing for their case. Their family is involved in a confusing and bitter child custody and child support case, reports a family friend. The case involved the mother, who was murdered, the father who does not have custody and the little boy. Details were not released on the outcome of the hearing or if they reached a settlement even.

The friend says that immediately after a custody exchange with their son, the mother was murdered when she went back to her car. It was later determined at another trial that the mother-in-law was the one who killed her. She did not like the fact that her son and the mother were in a custody dispute over the kids, so she killed the mother. The murder happened in the spring of 2009.

Since the case involved the mother of the father, the father lost custody. There were no details given to the court about if he helped to plan the murder or had even suggested it to his mother. The mother of the child in the custody dispute won full custody of their grandchild. This care was to determine what child support the father was to pay to the grandparents, since they are raising the child. The custody trial was in 2010 and was a long, painful ordeal for all involved since the mother of the child was no longer present. Reports a New York Criminal Lawyer

Continue reading "Child Support Hearing Set for Family" »

The driver in a two-car crash that caused the death of another driver has been arraigned on manslaughter charges. This occurred after a six-count Suffolk grand jury indictment which claimed the driver was under the influence of intoxicating substances, according to official sources.

The 53-year-old driver pleaded not guilty in Suffolk County Court, Riverhead, and was held on $500,000 bond or $250,000 in cash, by order of the presiding judge.

The driver, operating a 2002 Lincoln Navigator, swerved over the yellow divider line on Montauk Highway, near Old South Country Road in Brookhaven, on December 17, 2010.
The Navigator struck a van driving by a 43-year-old man heading home from work, police said. The 43-year-old man was announced dead on the scene, survived by three children and his wife.
A spokesman for the Suffolk District Attorney indicated that blood-alcohol tests showed the driver had a blood alcohol level of .11. According to the spokesman, greater than .08 is legally intoxicated. Police stated that had the man survived the defendant would have been charged with vehicular assualt.

The driver’s attorney is still investigating the entire case, unsure if manslaughter is the appropriate charge.

“We’re early in the process of investigation,” he said. “Certainly it’s a tragedy. He’s incarcerated and this gentleman lost his life.”

The driver has already pleaded guilty over the last 22 years misdemeanors involving controlled substances, among other charges.

Everyone is innocent until proven guilty in the United States. This holds true no matter what the charges or whatever the past might have been. You have the right to a fair trial before a jury of your peers. Accusation and arraignment are not the end of the story. What happens next is largely dependent upon the quality of defense. There is no better defense than a New York City Criminal Lawyer. Such cases will require representation with tenacity, skill, and the ability to use discretion. That is exactly what a real qualified New York City Criminal Lawyer can provide.

Continue reading "Driver Charged with Manslaughter" »

The murder of a 23-year-old woman has brought sorrow to many, in particular to a Bronx man who dated her for most of a year.

“It’s a tragic situation,” the 27-year-old man told authorities. “It’s shocking.”
The Bronx man was still in contact with the young woman and considered her a friend. He knew he was living with a new boyfriend, the man now suspected of slashing the woman’s face before stabbing her to death in sudden rage. The Bronx man said he’d never heard the victim say anything bad about the suspect who will be charged with the felony.

“She always said he was a good person,” the Bronx man recalled. “It’s a bad outcome.”
He said he dated the victim for 10 months and even lived in the same apartment for a while. He also said they were still friends when they decided to part ways.

“We stayed friends,” he explained. “She was such a good person. She was my friend.”
The victim grew up in a nice Connecticut town, but “moved to the city in 2006 to pursue her dreams,” he said.

“She wanted to be in advertising. She was really creative. She was very intelligent.”
“Her parents and brothers were really supportive of her dreams to be in the city.”
A high school friend reported to police that her former teammates in cross country were in shock.

“She was a gorgeous girl,” the high school friend reflected. “She was amazing. She was beautiful. I know people say it a lot and it sounds like a cliché, but she really was.”
The victim was the only daughter of a prominent financial advisor. According to a former coworker of the victim, “She was beautiful from the inside out.”

In her childhood home, in Riverside, Connecticut, a great number of friends and relatives came to grieve and express condolences to the family. The victim was formerly a student of Hunter College, working in sales. She had aspirations to go into advertising and was studying marketing in order to prepare herself for a future career.

Police all over New York City are aware of this case.

Continue reading "Friends Mourn Horrific Death of Connecticut Woman" »

The attorney for a convicted murderer has introduced a new aspect to the case. The convict may sometimes have trouble trying to “appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct” because of a brain injury. If the attorney is successful in his plea, his client may get an exceptional sentence that reduces his prison term by five years.
In the original trial, the 50-year-old convict pleaded guilty to a second-degree murder charge involving the death of a man by strangulation in January 2010, in Tumwater, Washington. In light of the possibility of impaired judgment, the attorney has asked for a 10-year sentence, though the prosecution would like 15 years. Under Washington law, the judge can reduce a sentence below the standard range under certain circumstances.
The attorney says the brain injury his client suffered in a motorcycle accident in 2006 affected his “capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law was significantly impaired.”
An expert for the defense elaborated on the convict’s condition, saying he had sustained “a severe head injury with ‘bilateral frontal lobe contusions’” and he “bruised the part of his brain responsible for thinking, reasoning and problem-solving,”. “It has been established that [my client] was a law-abiding individual that supported himself and his family before his brain injury,” the attorney wrote in court papers. “After his motorcycle accident, he lost everything. He went from being a law-abiding person to a homeless veteran, brain-damaged and with no family support.”
The convict was invited to stay at the home of his future victim after meeting the victim and his sister at a local welfare office. He was to help them renovate a home on their property.
On the evening of January 14, 2010, the two men were drinking. The victim’s sister testified she heard the men up as late as 4 a.m., still talking. When she woke up, the convict told her he had killed her brother and she ran to her van and drove away. The killer chased her, but she managed to escape.

Continue reading "Brain Injury May Have Affected Convict’s Judgment" »

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

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

A Brooklyn man is accused of strangling his girlfriend – while their 7-year-old daughter was in the house.
The 29-year-old victim was engaged in an argument with her 28-year-old boyfriend, just before 6 a.m. in their apartment on 50th Street in Sunset Park when the alleged attack occurred. Their young daughter was in another room in the apartment at the time, but she did not witness the murder.
The boyfriend said that his girlfriend attacked him with a knife and he was defending himself. Police have charged him with murder in the matter, nonetheless, leaving his fate and the circumstances of the woman’s death for a jury to decide.
A relative of the boyfriend speculated the fight may have been over the boyfriend’s suspicions that the victim was cheating on him. The relative also indicated that the pair had always had a contentious relationship, with arguments and breakups common.
The only one who knows the true story of what happens is the accused. He tells one story and the District Attorney’s Office has another. A jury will have to decide who has the more compelling story. The District Attorney already has trained lawyers for the prosecution, leaving the defendant to fend for himself or take chances with a public defender. It would be much better for anyone is a similar situation to be sure his representation is just as capable as the prosecution, if not more so. That kind of quality legal counsel can be found in a NYork Criminal Lawyer.
It may look like any given case is clearly one way, but there may be details known only to the accused. These details might not seem like much to the common person, but someone with the training of a NYork Criminal Lawyer can make all those minor details relevant to the case. It might result in a reduced sentence. It could even result in exoneration. None of that can happen, though, without first gaining the best legal counsel you can find.

Continue reading "A Brooklyn Man Murders Girlfriend When Daughter Was In The House" »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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