New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whether you have been charged with sex crimes, drug possession or a weapns charge, call Stephen Bilkis and Associates for advice. Our legal team can argue your side of the case and make sure that your rights are protected.

Please know that In addition to solving your drug related concerns, Stephen Bilkis and Associates will recommend other Drug Crime Lawyers who will help you

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

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

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

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

Upon the defendant's conviction of two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree, he was sentenced to consecutive indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 2 to 7 years. Taking into account his previous conviction of a sex-related crime involving this victim and the predatory nature of the crimes that carry a high risk of recidivism, the higher court did not consider the sentence harsh or excessive.

Getting involved in a lawsuit carries a lot of problems. Skilled legal counsel will see to it that you will see through it with ease. Stephen Bilkis and Associates are here to provide legal counsel and ensure your rights are protected. With offices located throughout the New York Metropolitan Area.

On September 8, 11 and 12, 1972, an undercover police officer bought cocaine from a man at the Franz Segal Park. The police officer’ back-up team in the area did not actually see the exchange of money for the cocaine. The police officer just showed his back-up team the evidence of the cocaine he bought from the man in the park which was confirmed to be cocaine.

On September 13 and 18, 1972, the defendant again sold cocaine to another undercover police officer at the same area of Franz Segal Park. When the police arrested the defendant in his apartment they discovered marijuana in a bookcase and cocaine hidden inside the inner door of a refrigerator.

The man was charged with selling cocaine on September 8, 11 and 12, 1972. He was charged also for cocaine possession and selling on September 13 and 18, 1972. And he was charged for marijuana possession and cocaine possession for the drugs found in his apartment during his arrest.

During the trial for selling cocaine on September 8, 11 and 12, 1972, the defendant pleaded guilty to the other charges of selling and possession of cocaine and marijuana discovered in his apartment during his arrest on September 22, 1972.

The defendant testified in his own defense. During his cross-examination, the prosecutor asked detailed questions regarding his guilty pleas in the two other cases for criminal selling and possession of cocaine. The questions extensively probed the similarity of the areas; the similarity of the time of day of the sales; and the variety and amount of the cocaine. He was also asked regarding the separate charges for the September 13 and 18, 1972 cocaine possession. The defense counsel objected that the questions were prejudicial to the defendant but the trial judge overruled the objections.

According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, he defendant was convicted by a jury on all three counts of cocaine selling on September 8, 11 and 12, 1972. The defendant appealed on the ground that the cross-examination was improper and prejudicial. The manner of the questioning tended to prove his tendency or propensity to sell drugs.

The Supreme Court of Bronx County agreed: under criminal law, the extensive cross-examination about the other drug cases were improper and highly prejudicial as the questions showed defendant’s propensity of possessing and selling drugs. Cross-examining the defendant on prior criminal acts is permitted but solely to impeach his credibility as a witness. It cannot be used to lead the jury to believe that the prior criminal acts are proof of the commission of the present charges of cocaine and marijuana possession and selling. It cannot be used to show that defendant was a regular trafficker in dangerous drugs.

The defendant’s conviction was overturned and he was granted a new trial.
Losing a loved one and being involved in a lawsuit for their wrongful death is difficult for all. ANew York Drug crime Attorneys will stand by you and help see you through your case. A New York Criminal Lawyer can argue your side and make sure that you and your loved ones are compensated.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates and their skilled legal team has convenient offices throughout the New York Metropolitan area. Whether you have been charged with sex crimes, drug possession or a weapons possession charge, our can provide you with advice to guide you through situations where an injury resulted because of another’s negligence. Without a New York Drug crime Attorney you may lose your rights which may cost you a significant amount of money.
Please know that in addition to Criminal Law Stephen Bilkis and Associates will recommend New York Criminal Lawyers who will help you.

Consider the following phrase: Tax season. What thoughts come to mind? If you find yourself cringing, you are not alone. Several notable celebrities have failed to maintain their obligations to Uncle Sam, as observed by a New York Criminal Lawyer.

Did you ever consider that Batman might have tax trouble? A popular star of “Batman Forever” fame was issued a $498,165 IRS lien last November for failing to fully pay taxes in 2008, according to the Associated Press. However, the star righted this wrong in a responsible way in 2009 by paying up, according to an entertainment website called TMZ.

What about the "A-list" “National Treasure” star who faced several successive IRS tax liens in the past few years, which at one point amounted to a tab of $13.3 million owed. The details included a disagreement between the star and a financial advisor/manager as well as a legal action on the part of both men, against one another. Again, a Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer notes that the actor smoothed over his troubles responsibly: according to People.com he is “under new business management and am happy to say that I am current for 2009.”

But wait: A star of the “Blade” trilogy, has also found himself on the “watch list” of the IRS. In 2008, the star was found guilty of “willful failure to file” income tax. This originated in 1998, when he decided to claim himself “a non taxpayer” and subsequently racked up around $15 million in back taxes over the following decade. This actor's story does not end quite as well as the other men in this account, he began serving a 3-year sentence in December 2010.

A skilled lawyer recognizes the importance of paying taxes on time and in full. As clearly shown above, even those who enjoy celebrity status make errors in regards to tax payments and are investigated accordingly! Be assured that excellent legal counsel and viable solutions will be afforded you and those important to you, all you need to do is make the call.

Whether you have been charged with embezzlement, fraud, sex crimes or drug possession, quality legal counsel can make all the difference. Speak to Stephen Bilkis and Associates for advice and a free consultation. We will ensure that your rights are defended at every stage of the legal process.

Wherever you are in New York, we have an office hearby. In New York City, we have offices in Manhattan, Queens, the Bronx, Brooklyn and Staten Island. We also have locations in Nassau County and Suffolk County on Long Island, and Westchester County. Call us today to schedule a free consultation at 1-800-NY-NY-LAW.

A former police officer was convicted of sex crimes and now faces many years in prison for his crimes. He abused his position of power and used that power to victimize two women. The now ex-cop offered jobs and child care programs to two women when he was not in authority to offer either to the women. He was convicted by a jury trial and one of the female jurors used the term "disgusting" when referring to the Defendant and his actions. He was also convicted of other charges at the trial including official misconduct and unlawful imprisonment.

Following his conviction, the ex-cop now faces up to seven years in prison for his illegal activities. He is due to be sentenced in July unless there is an extension of his sentencing date, according to a New York Criminal Lawyer.

His legal problems do not end with this sentencing. He was fired from the New York City Police Department last January for allegedly propositioning a teenager for sex. No further information is available at this time in regards to any further legal procedures involving this accusation. He also now faces a rape trial for charges related to two alleged assaults. He is accused again of abusing his position of power by luring two women to provide personal information to him while he was in uniform. He then took their personal contact information to get in touch with the two women at another time. Meeting up with the women he then allegedly attacked them sexually. The rape trial is pending.

If you or a loved one has been accused of rape or other sexual crime, please call Stephen Bilkis and Associates. Your future depends on the best representation, and only skilled legal counsel can provide that.

A Kane County judge found an Elgin, Illinois man guilty of aggravated DWI and unlawful use of a deadly weapon. He was also found guilty of violating an order of protection. The judge dropped the most severe charge of armed violence and harassing a witness charge, a New York Criminal Lawyer was told.

The police were called to the residence of the 32-year-old man’s former girlfriend’s residence. They found the man asleep in a Jeep with a butcher knife outside the apartment complex at 2:45 a.m. April 7, 2010. The woman called the police because the man had knocked several times throughout a four-hour period. She never answered the door. Instead, she hid in fear until he went away.

At the trial, the police officers, who responded to the 911 call, testified that the man appeared intoxicated. He threatened his former girlfriend, one of the police officers said in court. At the time of the incident, he had been released on bond for an arson charge where he set fire to a house where one of his children, who was two-years-old, was inside. The child was not injured. The home belonged to his parents.

The man could face two to 10-years in prison for the charges because of the guilty verdict. He was been in custody since the incident in April.

The insurance company responsible for his parent’s home has filed a civil lawsuit against him because of the damages caused by the arson. They are requesting $410,000 from the man.

Contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates for guidance, whether you have been charged with sex crimes, arson, drug or weapons possession. We will use our years of experience to keep the fines and sentencing low. When you come in, we will provide you with legal guidance and a free consultation. We have offices throughout New York, including offices in Manhattan, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island. We also have locations in Nassau County and Suffolk County on Long Island, as well as Westchester County. Call us today for an appointment at 1-800-NY-NY-LAW.

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

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

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

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

Should government be allowed to decide who can challenge a conviction and who cannot? Should the spirit of a law be taken into consideration? No matter how one feels about those questions, if trouble arises a Stephen Bilkis and Associates can help in criminal legal matters. Whether you have been charged with a felony matter, sex crimes, drug possession or theft, we can provide you with a strong defense, and ensure that your rights are protected. Come into any of our convenient New York locations for a free consultation today.

A driver, police believe was driving drunk, will face charges after her 17-year-old passenger suffered severe injuries from the crash. The 22-year-old woman driving crashed into a tree, a New York Criminal Lawyer was informed.

Police were called to the scene of the accident around 2:40 a.m. Sunday. The 17-year-old male passenger was unconscious when officials responded. He had visible facial injuries. The accident happened in Morgan Hill, California.

The driver is not the only person believed to have been drunk during the time of the crash, the minor was believed to have been under the influence too, as police officers reported to a New York Criminal Lawyer. A helicopter transported the 17-year-old male to a nearby hospital in California. At this time, the male is in critical condition, but the hospital was not able to go into any further detail about his health.

The driver also complained of pain in her ankles and wrists. It is unclear if they were wearing seat belts at the time of the crash. She has since been released from the hospital and booked by Morgan Hill Police. She was booked under the suspicion of DUI. She was taken to Santa Clara County Jail to await her day in court. It is unclear if she has a lawyer.

Do not be caught without a qualified legal counsel by your side. Do not let just any lawyer represent you; speak to Stephen Bilkis and Associates today. Whether you have been charged with a DUI, drug possession or a theft crime, it is important to speak obtain legal guidance right away. It is important to ensure that your rights are protected and that your case is presented to the court in the best possible light. Call us today for legal advice and a free consultation. We have offices located throughout New York City to serve you, including locations in Manhattan, Staten Island, the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Queens. We also have locations in Nassau County and Suffolk County on Long Island, as well as Westchester County. Call us today to schedule a free consultation at 1-800-NY-NY-LAW.

A Sag Harbor woman was charged with driving while intoxicated after she ran her car into a utility pole, according to reports from a New York Criminal Lawyer. The driver and her two small children sustained injuries in the crash.

The 34-year-old mother was charged with an aggravated felony, DWI, and a misdemeanor, endangering the welfare of a child, following the accident, a New York Personal Injury Lawyer was told. In Southampton Town Justice Court, her plea was not guilty, sources told New York Car Accident Lawyers. She was released on $5,000 bail.

The woman lost control of her vehicle while driving in Bridgehampton. She swerved into the northbound lane and knocked over several poles, dropping live wires over the road. Authorities had to close the street for several hours.

The woman and her children, ages 2 and 6, were taken by Fire Department rescue workers to Southampton Hospital, where they were quickly treated and allowed to go. Grandparents claimed the children at the behest of county Child Protective Services workers. No one could reach the mother of the children for comment.

A car accident is a traumatic event and having to go through legal proceedings does not make it easier. Whether you have been charged with a DWI, drug possession or sex crimes, it is important to obtain skilled legal guidance. When the time comes for you to be represented in court, speak to Stephen Bilkis and Associates for guidance and a free consultation. We have offices to serve you in New York City, including locations in Manhattan, Queens, Brooklyn, the Bronx and Staten Island. We also have locations in Nassau County and Suffolk County in Long Island, as well as Westchester County. Call us today to schedule an appointment at 1-800-NY-NY-LAW.

Officers of the New York Police Department have been accused of allegedly sodomizing a man during an arrest and claims to have proof, according to a New York Criminal Lawyer. The Brooklyn man, 27, claims to have information that the police officers altered the underwear he was wearing at the time of the event.

The attorneys for the man had called for a press conference to announce the new accusation but cancelled the event when the lawyers for the police officers demanded an emergency hearing and a gag order. The police attorneys succeeded in obtaining the gag order and a federal judge requested that the Plaintiffís attorneys not release the pictures demonstrating the proof of the altered underwear.

The man claims that the police baton used at the time of his arrest would not have produced the tear that was in his underwear. If the tear was from the baton, there should be a flap of cloth in the same area but the flap is no longer present. The Plaintiffís attorneys have concluded that the underwear was altered following the arrest suggesting tampering with evidence.

The new evidence is important in that during the police officer's criminal trial, an expert witness for the police officers testified that a flap should have been present. The officers were acquitted but the jury did not hear the evidence of the underwear tampering. Pictures taken at the
time of the arrest of the man did show a flap and this is the proof of tampering that he wants publicized.

The police officers and the NYPD are being sued, and do not want the tampered evidence presented to the jury. Prosecutors, on the other hand, stated that the jury did see all the evidence including the pictures obtained before the tampering
and still acquitted the officers.

Being charged with sex crimes is a serious offense. It is important that your rights are protected. There is no better representation for you than Stephen Bilkis and Associates.

A woman in Arizona was found guilty of participating in the deaths of a father and his daughter. The killings took place in 2009. The woman, an anti-illegal immigration activist, and two men forced their way into the family's home, claims a New York Criminal Lawyer. The two men shot and killed the man and his daughter and wounded the man's wife. The wife survived and called the police to report the killings. She says that she misses her family and blames the woman for destroying her life.

The woman, who is the head of an anti-illegal immigration watchdog group called the Minutemen American Defense, claims she is innocent and did show any remorse for her actions during the trial. This lack of remorse may have prompted the jury to sentence her to death, reports a New York Criminal Lawyer. In addition to being convicted of first-degree murder, the woman is the third woman in Arizona currently on death row. According to the district attorney, even though the woman may not have actually shot the man and his daughter, she planned the attack and got the two men to follow through with her plans.

It is suspected that the woman suffers from emotional problems and may have been abused as a child. She claims she targeted the man because he was a suspected drug dealer. She told news reporters when asked about what she had done that no one with children should sell drugs. No drugs or other illegal substances were found at the home when police arrived on the scene. The apparent motivation for invading the man's home was to steal jewelry, money, drugs and other items to help fund the Minutemen American Defense, says a New York City Criminal Lawyer. Jewelry belonging to the family was found by police at the woman's home. After finding the jewelry, the woman was arrested and taken into police custody.

To gain entry into the home, the woman and two men posed as border patrol officers. The man, his wife and daughter were all natural-born United States citizens. They lived ten miles from the Mexican border. The two men suspected of firing the weapons that killed the man and his daughter go on trial sometime this year. The two men may also receive the death penalty if convicted of killing the man and his daughter.

Whether you have been charged with murder, sex crimes, a drug or theft crime, it is important to seek legal guidance as soon as possible. Stephen Bilkis and Associates there at your side throughout the legal process to offer advice and counsel.

This is a disturbing case in which a man under the influence of alcohol started to drive his car after his girlfriend had been arrested. He was taking over and trying to drive as there was no one else around to drive him. Sadly, the man drove his car into a tree and killed the woman’s 5-year-old boy, reported the New York Criminal Lawyer.

The ultimate result in this case was that the man was found guilty of aggravated driving under the influence and will do three to fourteen years in prison. This crash was particularly horrific in that it happened at high-speed and the little boy had no chance.

The facts of the case appear to be that the man driving the car stated that the police ordered him to drive after his girlfriend was arrested. He claims he argued with them that she was his designated ride. However, that argument didn’t go over with the police, as the girlfriend was driving with a suspended license.

The man took off in the car and a high rate of speed, slammed violently into a tree, bounced off the tree into a fence and the eventually tore up a pine tree by its roots. When arrested, his blood alcohol level was twice the legal limit. The little boy was alive when emergency response crews arrived at the scene, but died later in hospital.

Despite what this case may have looked like on the surface, there was a stated defense for this man and that was he was a victim of entrapment and necessity – meaning that he only got into his car to drive because a police officer ordered him to drive and said he’d be arrested if he didn’t do as he was told. The girlfriend in this scenario informed the police the man was drunk.

However, there was rebuttal testimony that indicated the girlfriend had actually pleaded with the police to let the man drive the little boy home.

Whether you have been charged with DWI, sex crimes, gun possession or assault, it is important to ensure that your rights are

An elementary school principal has been arrested for obstructing officers. The incident occurred Monday evening as police responded to a burglary call and was in the process of arresting the boyfriend of the principal’s daughter. At some point during the time that police were on the scene, the principal became loud and belligerent which led to the accumulation of a crowd outside. It was at that point that police say they had no other choice than to arrest the principal as her commotions were arousing the gathering crowd of onlookers. The principal’s daughter has stated that her mom was only questioning the officers and had done nothing wrong.

The day following the incident, the principal was noticeably absent from school, as the local school board had placed her on suspension with pay pending an investigation, which they say is standard procedure. The local parents and students were left wondering what happened and why should the incident have led to her being suspended from her job when she was apparently doing a good job with the children. Some other parents, however, are asking some different questions, such as how can a school principal lecture their children on anger management when she cannot control her own temper.

A New York Criminal Lawyer has also learned that the principal has had some controversy in the past that was a function of her job. The resulting investigation of the on-campus spanking was inconclusive.

There are so many other factors that have not discovered as of this writing, and we are still awaiting comments from local law enforcement officials and from the local school district. Both are continuing their investigations. Thus far, there have been no indications as to why the principal lost her cool, or why she did not heed the law enforcement officers when they advised her to remain calm or they would have to arrest her.

In the meanwhile, the principal was released on a $150 bail and is awaiting the results of the schools investigation that will determine how soon or even if she can return to work.

When you have an encounter with the legal system, it can be a frightening experience, as many just do not understand the way it works. Whether you have been charged with sex crimes, burlgarly, assault or other criminal matter, it is important that your rights are protected. our legal team and Stephen Bilkis and Associates are fully qualified to stand up for you or your loved one and work to resolve the issue and get you back on the path that you need to be.

It’s a tough environment these days when it comes to finding work to pay the bills. Sometimes that means taking jobs you might not normally consider, because you know you need to keep food on the table. In this case, indicated a New York City Criminal Lawyer, a former cocktail waitress found herself in a difficult situation at work. She stated in her federal lawsuit that she was fed handfuls of drugs and then expected to have sex with the customers.

There was no doubt a hostile work environment for this woman. She worked for one of the largest club operators in her area as a cocktail waitress. The work conditions just got to be too much for her and she chose to quit, move on and file a lawsuit.

The lawsuit was actually filed with several allegations in it that included assault, sexual harassment and conspiracy. Now this lady would have had a choice as to which type of lawyer she would need to file her complaint seeking compensation.

Given that it’s a federal lawsuit, she may have opted to discuss her situation with an employment lawyer. Since many lawyer’s specialize in more than one area, it’s like the attorney would have also been able to handle the other issues listed in the complaint as well, from a plaintiff’s perspective, added the Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer.

However, if this case was to proceed criminally, the defendant would also need legal counsel, as all defendants charged with a criminal offense are entitled to a thorough and well thought out defense in response to the charges.

Considering this case from the defendant’s point of view, the charges may well be refuted and proven wrong is there was any evidence that the woman who brought the lawsuit had a history of using drugs. In the alternative, if she was considered to be an escort or other sex trade worker then that information could also be used at trial to rebut her allegations.

In addition, there would likely be some background investigative work done on a case like this to check into the woman’s work history and find out what her friends and co-workers have to say about her, on and off the job.

Whether you are contending with a sex crimes charge, a weapons charge or theft crime, it is important to ensure that you rights are protected at every stage of your legal proceedings. Contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates for advice and a free consultation at 1-800-NY-NY-LAW today. We have offices located in all boroughs of New York, including the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, Manhattan and Staten Island. We also have locations in Nassau County and Suffolk County on Long Island, as well as Westchester County.

This was a really rough case for the local community and for all those involved in the search for a missing girl. The ten-year-old had lost her hearing and one leg as she fought bone cancer, said a New York Criminal Lawyer. Unfortunately, the girl was reported missing in October. It wasn’t until November that her body parts were found. Additionally, the police felt that the girl had been missing even before she was officially called in as a missing person.

The child’s stepmother was charged with murdering, abusing and desecrating her body. The police were unable to find the girl’s head despite a massive search over two different locations. There were indications of tool marks on the bones that were found, a fact that indicates the girl was dismembered after she was dead.

Based on evidence collected over the course of the investigation, the police were able to determine that the stepmother had consistently relied on verbal, physical and psychological abuse when interacting with her step-daughter, reported the New York Criminal Lawyer. Because the woman was in a position of trust, she was able to take advantage of that to kill the girl and then hide her body to delay detection and prosecution.

There were no reasons given why the stepmother chose to kill her stepdaughter. However, there were further allegations that the stepmom wrote a fake ransom note for one million dollars and that she wrote a letter while in jail, admitting the girl was dead and she felt sorry that she was caught. She tried to diffuse public reaction to her alleged crime by pointing a finger at the husband.

Even though this case does not look hopeful on the surface, it may not be what it looks like. This is the main reason to not assume that the woman is guilty of anything, until a case is actually made and she is proven to indeed be guilty. There are many criminal defenses that may be used to protect the stepmother’s rights and to make sure she is well represented, she would be best advised to speak to skilled legal counsel right away.

Everyone one, whether they are charged with a crime or suspected of a crime, including sex crimes, weapons charges or drug offenses , is entitled to a defense. That is why the whole foundation of the criminal justice system is innocent until proven guilty. To find out what your legal rights would be in a case like this.

If or a loved one has been charged with a criminal offense, it is important to speak to qualified legal counsel right away to ensure that your rights are protected throughout your legal proceedings.

A question of individual rights regarding a child who was rumored to have been allegedly sexually abused by her father has caused great controversy in the courts and between different interest groups

In 2003 in the state of Oregon, a nine-year-old girl was suddenly removed from her public school classroom by a child protection investigator who was accompanied by a deputy sheriff. Operating under presumed intelligence that the young girl had been sexually abused by her father, the two men interrogated her for a period of approximately two hours and sought confirmation that she had in fact been sexually abused. A New York Criminal Lawyer reports that allegedly, the young girl finally confirmed their suspicions; however, at a later date she confessed that she had only given the two men an affirmation because she was afraid and wanted to escape the interrogation.

The father of the girl was arrested, but later released when charges were dropped in regards to this specific case. However, it seems that the father agreed to a plea deal that involved a different charge of sexually assaulting a minor. In response to the interrogation by the deputy and child protection investigator, the family of the young lady filed a lawsuit, which was heard in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, located in San Francisco. A Bronx Criminal Lawyer notes that the case eventually made it to the Supreme Court, following an appeal by the state of Oregon.

A Bronx Sex Crime Lawyer commented that the divisive nature of this issue is evident by the claims made on both sides. Those who support the actions of the deputy sheriff and child protection investigator, such as the state of Oregon and certain child advocacy groups, make the claim that such an action should be allowed. They argue that the protection of the child is the most important factor, not the authority of the parents and the privacy of the family. Those who oppose the interrogation of the girl, such as the Family Research Council and the family themselves, argue that while the best interest of the child is definitely important, the repercussions of future “interrogations” and acts of government-sanctioned family separation have the potential for great abuse. A major concern seems to be: if this landmark case results in greater freedom for authorities to engage children without the knowledge of the parents, then conceivably arbitrary reasons for investigation would endanger the child and unnecessarily undermine the sanctity of the nuclear family.

Such landmark cases as this, which made headway in the Supreme Court, have a special importance. In the future, it may be that such cases become more common, due to the attention shown this one.

Sex crimes are complicated offenses, particularly when a child is the victim. Often the alleged perpetrator is a family friend or relative, which causes even more shock and pain for those involved. Whether or not the accused is guilty of the crime, these charges carry with them an emotional stigma, which creates very real challenges for the accused. The accused may experience difficulties with personal relationships, and problems with housing an employment.

If you have been charged with a crime, it is important to seek legal assistance as soon as possible. The sooner you seek the guidance of qualified counsel, the better your chances are for a positive outcome in your case.

Continue reading "A divisive case of child abuse and parental rights launches to the Supreme Court" »

A city official referred to as the “Street Czar” and entrusted with serving the community of San Diego was recently charged with a serious sex crime: he allegedly subjected an underage female to molestation, as documented by a New York Criminal Lawyer.

According to court documents, the young woman, now 21, was younger than 14 at the time of the alleged sexual misconduct charges, which happened around seven years ago. The accused city official is relatively new to his line of work, being commonly referred to as the “Street Czar” for the city of San Diego. A Bronx Criminal Lawyer notes that on February 28, the 47-year-old man pleaded not guilty in court. The exact statement from the prosecutor in the case says that the defendant allegedly enticed the then-underage victim to touch his private area, a claim that is also said to be corroborated by an external evidence source.

Though the city-employed defendant will not have to undergo jail time during the time of subsequent hearings, a New York Criminal Lawyer stated that according to an official for the city of San Diego, the defendant had been placed on “administrative leave” that does not include compensation. Upon inquiry, the legal counsel of the defendant declined to comment; at the same time, the president of a local union admitted that the arrest was “surprising”, thought went on to affirm the truth that according to American courts, a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. The union president oversees the employment and economical interests of all but 2,000 city employees in San Diego.

For now, the judge presiding over the case has issued a protective order upon the defendant, forbidding him to associate with the alleged victim in any manner whatsoever. Disobedience toward this order would likely result in further consequences for the defendant. The charge pending against the defendant currently carries a felony status, with a matching maximum term of eight years in prison.

Being charged with a sex crime is serious, and can carry many serious penalties that can include prison time, monetary fines, community service and more. Whether or not you are found guilty of the charges against you, these type of charges can create problems with your personal relationships and employment. While these charges can be stressful and embarrassing, it is important to take prompt action and consult legal counsel. The earlier on in the process you do this, the better you chance you have for a positive outcome.

Sexual misconduct is one of many serious sex crimes that carry serious legal consequences, yet is not beyond the scope of legal proficiency for a skilled legal counsel. Serious repercussions accompany the accused in such cases, and it is wise to seek the representation and counsel of a qualified legal counsel. If you or another of relation are currently experiencing a situation similar to that described above, a Bronx Sex Crimes Lawyer has the resources you need to ensure a fair trial and receive comfort and encouragement.

Contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates for guidance and a free consultation. Whatever your charges, we will provide an aggressive defense and ensure that your rights are protected throughout your proceedings. We have offices to serve you throughout the New York area, including locations in Manhattan, Queens, Staten Island, the Bronx, and Brooklyn. We also have locations in both Nassau County and Suffolk County on Long Island, and Westchester County. Call us today to schedule a free consultation at 1-800-NY-NY-LAW.

A 20-year old college student has been arrested in Boulder, CO, for allegedly picking up a box that contained fake identifications, sources have told a New York Criminal Lawyer. The University of Colorado sophomore had allegedly gone to the local grocery store to pick up a box that had been delivered to the store bearing a friend’s name.

Although the young man initially told police that he simply got “caught in the middle” of his friend’s scheme to distribute fake ID’s, police soon discovered there was more to the story that what they were just told by the suspect. During a routine check for weapons, officers discovered the suspect’s wallet. Within the wallet was a fake id. This was all the arresting officers required in order to charge the youth with “suspicion of forgery, criminal possession of a forged instrument and unlawful acts,” police told the NY Criminal Lawyer.

Authorities were tipped off as to the contents of the package when the package was delivered to the a grocery store by UPS, and an employee opened the package by mistake. She discovered a total of 22 fake ID’s that were grouped in pairs for 11 people. Sources went on to inform a Staten Island Criminal Lawyer that although each of the ID’s did match a real person as well as their address, each of the ID’s listed the person as being at least 21 years of age.

Why the package was shipped to the grocery store rather than to one of the parties, is one question that the police may already have an answer. The youth has been at least partially cooperative with Boulder Police as they investigated during the arrest. His words were to the effect that since he had used the Western Union services at the grocery store to pay his friend for the ID’s, that his friend must have gotten the addresses confused when he shipped the fake ID’s. A critical error apparently.

The investigation is continuing and thus far, the police have not yet made any further arrests in this case. The 20-year old college sophomore has been released on bond.

Whether you are found innocent or guilty of criminal charges, they can have a last effect on your personal and professional life. If found guilty, you could be facing jail time, fines, probation and community service. Even if you are found innocent, criminal charges can affect your employment, housing opportunities and personal relationships. Whether you have been charged with sex crimes, a drug possession charge, or a white collar crime, it is important to your case to obtain legal guidance as soon as possible. The sooner legal counsel is called, the better your chances of obtaining a favorable result.

At Stephen Bilkis and Associates, we will provide you with legal guidance and a free consultation. We have office locations throughout the New York area, including offices in Manhattan, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Staten Island and Queens. We also have locations in both Nassau County and Suffolk County on Long Island, as well as Westchester County.

Continue reading "College Student Arrested for 22 Fake ID’s" »

Over the past several years, DNA science has made extraordinary progress and its implementation in many criminal cases has both convicted the guilty and exonerated the innocent. A New York Criminal Lawyer has learned that one federal crime lab is struggling to keep its reputation afloat following reports that one of its more senior and experienced forensics examiners not only blotched, DNA tests, but also falsified records.

A worker at the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Laboratory, near Atlanta, is being investigated for alleged mistakes that may have allowed the guilty to go free and may have contributed to many to be wrongfully convicted of crimes they did not commit, sources tell.

Unfortunately, the problem appears to go much deeper than just one worker that was making mistakes and then attempting to cover them up. Sources alleged to a New York City Criminal Lawyer that the forensic examiner’s supervisors were not only slow to recognize his mistakes, but also wanted to keep any investigation of these mistakes in-house so that the facility would not lose its accreditation.

Although there have been many instances where DNA results have been retested by a different examiner, this is not one of those instances. Although there have been many problems with having retesting completed on work this individual had done, the U.S. military does not keep DNA evidence in storage beyond a set time-period. After that time has passed, the DNA is destroyed. This military policy has preempted any testing on the results that would have been possible in a similar situation at a civilian lab.

While the investigation is ongoing, there have been many questions arise in both military prosecution and especially in defense circles as to the validity of some cases of which an individual was convicted due to what may be a faulty DNA analysis. Many military attorneys had not even heard of the issue at the military DNA lab before the story broke. At least one person who was convicted by means of a faulty DNA test did not learn of this issue from the military. Rather he learned of it from another inmate. Many lawsuits have already been filed and more are expected to be filed in the near future.

The offenses discussed here come under the heading of a white collar crime. These types of crimes generally include criminal acts that are committed by someone of higher social status and respectability, and often involve fraudulent activity.

Whether you have been charged with sex crimes, or a DWI offense, or theft charge, it is important to speak to legal counsel without delay. Whether you are guilty or not, a criminal charge can have lasting impact on your life. If convicted, penalties can include jail time, fines, community service and probation.

Continue reading "Army Crime-Lab Worker Blotched Tests Leaving Many DNA Cases in Doubt " »

There’s nothing sadder than a mother maltreating her own children. This case is about a mother who inspite of having four children already, still didn’t have the maternal instinct to care for her kids. She has two kids from her first partner and twins with a man reported to have been physically and emotionally abusing her.

It was determined by the court and by the Social Welfare Department that the mother has actually sexually abused her eldest son. The court and the Social Welfare Officers are trying to establish if the mother’s behaviour is a result of domestic violence that was brought about by the father of the twins.

The mother has gone through a lot of counselling and therapy. She has also undergone sexual offender therapy because of what she has done to her eldest son. This is very disturbing because this is not a common case. It is not every day that we hear that mothers are involved in sex crimes against their son or daughter. She had actually completed all of the seminars, counselling and therapies except for the sex offender therapy. The reason for this is she refused to admit what she had done.

Despite the domestic violence issue between her and the father of the twins, the true victims in this case are the kids. Her eldest son, because of the sexual abuse has been showing negative behavior that is not normal for a child his age. The mother’s refusal to admit what she has done to him and her failure to recognize the especial needs of her son has created a wide gap between her and her child.

The mother is suffering from a deep behavioral and emotional distress. The Family court has used a lot of approaches to strengthen the ties between the mother and her children, according to a New York Criminal Lawyer. Unfortunately all of their efforts were unsuccessful. The mother still continues to have occasional relationship with the twins’ father despite the domestic violence issue. She also doesn’t have any concrete plans for her children especially about their welfare and wellbeing. She also refused to admit that she has sexually abused her son. Her parenting skills are also in question. Whenever she is permitted to see her children she neglects them and gets easily irritated by their “noise” and activities. She has been reported to show indifferent behaviour to her children during visitations. She often times seen to push the children away and shout at them. She also exhibits negative behavior and says negative things to her children. She even threatens to leave them whenever she feels that their behavior is too much for her to handle.

As a result of her behavior, the children have been placed under foster care. It can’t be told how long the children will be under such care because there are no clear signs that the mother is improving in terms of her emotional and mental state. The mother, however expressed her willingness to let her parents (the grandparents of her children) adopt her eldest son.

This is a true case that has happened in the state of New York. It is a very sad situation. A New York Criminal Lawyer is well prepared to handle cases of domestic violence and other related abuse.

Continue reading "There’s nothing sadder than a mother maltreating her own children" »

It is one of the grisliest murders the locals have seen in a while. The incident is right out of an "America's Most Wanted" episode. An animal doctor was arrested last week for killing in cold blood his veterinarian technician, 27, who was also pregnant. The man has been charged with criminal homicide according to one source and a possible sex crime. The suspect has also been charged with the death of her unborn child. Snyder is from North Whitehall Township near Allentown Pennsylvania. The suspect is a veterinarian at Montgomery County's animal health facility.

Authorities found the victim’s body in a wooded, hilly area outside of North Whitehall Township. Her body had multiple gunshot wounds. Authorities told a N York Criminal Lawyer that on March 17, 2011, they found Snyder's car parked in an industrial park. One of the windows was shattered. Shell casings and blood were found inside the vehicle. Upon reviewing security tapes, authorities observed that a man drove the woman’s car into the park and exited the vehicle after a short time. Upon exiting the vehicle the man, later identified as the suspect, tossed some items into a dumpster. After investigating, police removed a bleach container and some sealed medical records belonging to the victim inside the dumpster.

Friends of the technician told police that they were aware that the 27 year old was going out with her "boyfriend" whom they identified as the suspect. There were accounts that the couple was fighting a lot recently due to her pregnancy. Her roommate told police in the court report that on the fateful day she received a strange text from her phone. She was suspicious as to who wrote the text because it was written differently than her usual texts.

Investigators went to the home of suspect and his wife to question him about his ties to the victim. The suspect at first denied any contact over the past several months, but when confronted with proof that he had seen her recently, he confessed to an affair and didn't want his wife to know.

Later that week police matched the gunshot wounds to the suspect's Glock handgun and the arrest followed soon after. Additionally, it is believed that an autopsy is being down todetermine if a sex crime was commited.

Continue reading "Animal Doctor Murders His Pregnant Technician" »

A convicted sex offender on trial for kidnapping and raping an 11-year-old girl and keeping her captive for 18 years was expected to give a guilty plea – until his lawyer asserted the grand jury was improperly selected and acted inappropriately.
The public defender in this case is defending her clients against charges of rape, kidnapping, and other charges in an amended indictment, and she urged them to plead not-guilty.
The public defender did not elaborate on her claims regarding the jury, but did say she had questions about the racial makeup and the geographical makeup of the jury that indicted the couple on trial – the kidnapper and his wife. They were indicted mainly for the kidnapping of the 11-year-old girl, who is now 30. The public defender has been instructed to outline her objections in writing.
A second attorney, the one representing the kidnapper’s wife, had earlier said he expected the kidnapper to plead guilty and spend the rest of his life in prison.
The public defender was understandably bothered by that.
“He shouldn’t have been speaking for [my client]. He should speak for his client.”
The wife’s attorney said he did not know about the public defender’s plan until the day before she made her assertions.
The district attorney plans to continue with the trial and expects the grand jury’s decision to be upheld.
“My responsibility is to see that these two are held accountable for the enormity of their actions,” he explained. “We are determined to do that.”
The girl at the heart of the trial was kidnapped from her street in June 1991 as she walked to a school bus stop. During her imprisonment, she bore two daughters, now 13 and 16, to her kidnapper. All three of them were kept in a backyard compound of tents and sheds. They had never been to school or seen a doctor in during the entire period.
The kidnapper and his wife confessed everything and even seemed to want to spare their victim and her daughters from testifying. They were originally charged with 18 counts of kidnapping, rape, false imprisonment, child pornography, and committing lewd acts on a child.

Continue reading "Guilty Plea From Convicted Sex Offender Thought Likely in Kidnapping Case" »

Huntington Beach goes under a transformation every night. During the day, it is a row of stucco building shops, where one can buy beach towels, sunglasses, surfboards, and other beach essentials. At night, the bartenders ply their trade, serving hard liquor under neon and black light.
Bartenders have explained about all the fights they’ve had to break up, or instances of throwing naked men out of their clubs. It has become almost common for a drunk to try to get into the wrong house, causing the police to answer calls for robbery – and the ‘robber’ turns out to be someone so intoxicated, he doesn’t recognize his own house.
All of this leads to a greater problem – Huntington Beach is first in victims killed and injured in traffic accidents related to alcohol, when it comes to cities of its size in California. There are only half as many DUI arrests in Irvine, a college town of about the same size.
New York Sex Crime Lawyers note there have been 1,419 DUI arrests in Huntington Beach in 2010 – a number that everyone agrees is far too high. The City Council has been taking steps to curb the problem, such as eliminating beer pong or drink minimums. Police have begun tracking where people have been drinking before arrest. They were soon able to narrow it down to a three-block area, then down to one bar in particular that had 72 arrests from January 2009 to October 2010, which is ahead of the other bars in the city.
The residents are fed up with the urination, defecation, sex acts, and thefts that occur as a result of the nightly debauchery. One Huntington Beach resident told NY City Criminal Lawyers that she’s had to deal with screeching tires, the occasional fight, and people throwing refuse from liquor into her yard. She lives two blocks from the main drinking area.
This resident, a 34-year-old woman, has learned never to plant anything nice in her garden. She planted purple tulips and waited six long months for them to sprout. The day after they emerged, they were uprooted.
“You can’t leave anything out because drunk people will steal it”.
It is terrible there says a New York Robbery Lawyer

Continue reading "A convicted sex offender on trial for sex crimes inclluding: kidnapping & raping a child & keeping her captive for 18 years was expected to give a guilty plea – until his lawyer asserted the grand jury was improperly selected and acted inappropriately. " »

It has been noted that even though many convicted sex offenders are listed in registries they are still able to acquire jobs that place them in direct contact with children, often working as tutors, coaches and in other positions that place them close to children. Senator Charles Schumer might propose legislation to change that. The legislation would propose that it is illegal for registered sex offenders to work or volunteer in positions that put them in “direct and substantial” contact with children.

A New York Criminal Lawyer says business owners will have to screen the employees to make sure that they are not registered sex offenders. Businesses that are not in compliance would be fined and would face greater fines for repeat offenders. Many believe that a law such as this is already in existence but in actuality it is not. Businesses can check if an employee is registered by contacting the Division of Criminal Justice Services online or at 1-800-262-3257.

This law will be set out to prevent cases such as the one where school teacher who was on probation for a sex offense conviction privately tutored a 15 year old boy in. It was determined that he violated the terms of his probation and was once again arrested. Many sex offenders are not on parole or probation therefore they are not barred from acquiring such positions. The Schumer Legislation will prevent this from occurring.

If you or someone you know was arrested for committing a sex act or for violating probation/parole involving a sex crimes, you may need assistance from Stephen Bilkis and Associates. Come into our office for legal guidance and a free consultation. For your convenience, we have locations thoughout New York City, including offices in Manhattan, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island. We also have offices in Nassau County and Suffolk County on Long Island and Westchester County.