Criminal Procedure

Published on: August 7, 2012

Defendant Charged with Third Degree Rape

by Stephen Bilkis

Incidents of rape and sexual assault cases involve many different laws. Each case is reviewed in relationship to how it addresses each element of each law. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the most appropriate law or multiple laws are then charged by the prosecution. In some case, a charge is reduced to a lesser included offense because the jury or prosecutor decides that the lesser included offense if more appropriate to the actions of the charged offender. One case of this type occurred in 2008.

On May 21, 2008, a man was charged with rape. He was convicted after a jury trial on May 28, 2008 of third-degree rape, which is detailed under New York Penal Law § 130.25(3). This charge was determined by how the victim expressed her lack of consent to the sexual assault. This victim apparently never stated the actual term “no,” but rather testified that she had been crying the entire time and stating that she just wanted to go home. The court concluded that any reasonable person observing this situation would conclude that the victim was not consenting to the act. The defense maintained that he did not consider her actions to be a refusal because she never actually stated that she did not want to have sex with him. The court evaluated the totality of the evidence which included the fact that this was his second or third offense of sexual assault.

They also reviewed the fact that the offender forced the woman into his apartment against her will and used threats of physical injury to prevent her from leaving. The court determined that when viewed in their entirety, the circumstances surrounding this assault clearly contained all of the necessary elements to be considered a rape. Because of this, the offender’s request to have his conviction overturned was denied.

Published on: August 7, 2012

Defendant Contends Unlawful Stop and Frisk

by Stephen Bilkis

Police patrol officers encounter a wide variety of calls for service. Some of these calls are hazardous some are humorous. Some of these calls are somewhere in between the two. That was the case when two seasoned patrol officers in New York responded to a radio call in the early morning hours on August 4, 1979. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the radio operator advised the officers that an anonymous call had come in to the radio call center regarding an Hispanic male with an afro style haircut wearing light blue pants and a light shirt. The description involved his height which was listed as five foot ten inches tall. The caller advised that the subject was concealing a handgun inside a white shirt that he was carrying.

The officers responded to the location and observed several persons at that location, but none of them fit the description that was provided by the radio operator. They began to check the area and noticed the defendant walking on Amsterdam Avenue. He was wearing a light short sleeved shirt and was carrying a white shirt in his right hand. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the shirt that had been described in the radio transmission was a t-shirt, but this subject had on a banlon shirt. The officers determined that it would be accurate to assume that someone observing him from a distance would think that the shirt was a t-shirt. They observed the subject walk up 95th street and stop in front of a building. He walked up the first three steps and began to open the door with his left hand. He was having difficulty with the door, so he set down the white shirt that the informant had stated concealed the gun.

One of the police officers came up beside him and put his hand over the shirt on the ground so that the defendant would not be able to pick it up. He stated that as soon as he placed his hand on the shirt, he could feel that it concealed some type of handgun. The defendant began to struggle with the officer. Both officers were in uniform when the second officer approached with his firearm out. He ordered the man to stop fighting and not to move. The officers discovered that the white shirt contained a .22 caliber handgun. The subject was placed under arrest and was transported to the jail. He filed a motion to suppress the evidence of the gun.

Published on: August 6, 2012

Court Hears Illegal Abortion Case

by Stephen Bilkis

In 1955, abortion was illegal in New York State. That meant that the only termination of a valid pregnancy was if it was necessary to save the life of the mother. In the case of an abortion to save the life of the mother, it is called a therapeutic abortion. In legal terms, an abortion is any pregnancy that is spontaneously or induced to be terminated. In a spontaneous abortion, the pregnancy is terminate by a cause that is a natural act that is either normal or abnormal. The key is that a spontaneous abortion is one that occurs without any outside force being placed upon it either legally or illegally. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the code section that applied to abortions in New York in 1955 was the Sanitary Code of the City of New York § 224. At the opposite end of the spectrum defined by §224, is the induced abortion. An induced abortion is one that is caused by a person by artificial means. An induced abortion may be caused by a doctor, nurse, layperson, or even the woman herself.

A spontaneous abortion is most commonly referred to as a miscarriage and cannot be governed by the laws of society. In 1955, the prosecutors became concerned that there were illegal abortions being performed by a local hospital. The District Attorney of Kings County went to the Grand Jury of Kings County and requested an inquest to determine if the hospital was covering up illegal abortions. A Nassau County Criminal Lawyer said they stated that they thought that the doctors were not reporting the illegal abortions that were brought to them.

The law stated that anytime that a woman arrived at the hospital and the doctor believed that she had attempted to perform an illegal abortion on herself that they had to call the police and report the incident. The police would arrive and charge the woman with the misdemeanor offense of inducing an abortion in violation of the laws of the state. If a woman presented at the hospital and someone else had attempted to perform an illegal abortion on her, the doctors are responsible for notifying the authorities to come to the hospital and investigate the situation. The hospital administrator is responsible for keeping track of all of the numbers of miscarriages and abortions that are treated at the hospital. These statistics are turned in to the state and are reviewed. In reviewing these statistics, the District Attorney determined that they were not accurate. He had no proof that they were not accurate, only that he believed that they were not being reported correctly.

Published on: August 4, 2012

Defendant Set Up in Sting Operation

by Stephen Bilkis

When police officers make an arrest, it is important that they do so in the proper jurisdiction. The case must then be presented to the Grand Jury if it is a felony. A New York Criminal Lawyer said hat Grand Jury must be in the correct venue to draw an indictment. If it is not, then the case is not legal. One such case was served as a motion from a defendant on June 5, 2005. The defendant claimed that the indictment against him needed to be dismissed because the crime had not occurred in New York County.

The police detective contends that over a period of several weeks, he had telephone conversations with a confidential informant. This informant provided him with information that the defendant and several of his friends had a plan to rob some drug dealers. He stated that the group planned to stockpile some weapons (possession of a weapon) and create a robbing gang. This gang would target drug dealers and rob them of their drugs and cash. The informant contacted the police department. The police detective told the informant to give this robbing gang bad information about a non-existent drug dealer who had 60 kilos of cocaine and a large amount of money. The gang began to make their plans. The detective told the informant that the address that he was to give to the gang was an address in the Bronx. The defendant and his accomplices were arrested and indicted. They maintained that none of the telephone conversations that were the crux of the case occurred in New York County. Because they did not occur in New York County, the state could not prosecute the crimes of conspiracy to commit a crime and the numerous other charges that the gang was indicted on.

The prosecutor makes the argument that the intended target was an address in the Bronx which was in New York county. The prosecutor contends that the intended target would make the case venue New York County. The Supreme Court disagreed. A Long Island Criminal Lawyer said they made several disparaging remarks directed at the prosecutor and at the detectives involved in this case. They contend that the detective did not ascertain the jurisdiction that he or the confidential informant were in at the time that the phone calls were made. Since the jurisdictional issues cannot be formulated based on the locations of each party to the calls, then the court is not able to establish venue for the hearings. They contend that the argument that would apply the jurisdictional issue to the proposed target location is not realistic. The court contends that the crime took place at the location in which one or both of the parties to the telephone conversation were located at the time of the conversation. If the jurisdiction cannot be determined, then the case is not able to continue.

Published on: August 3, 2012

Court Determines if New Sentencing Statute Applies

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

On 15 December 1981, defendant was convicted of several drug crimes (which includes marijuana possession, heroin possession, etc.), viz: Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance in the First Degree, Conspiracy in the Second Degree and Criminal Use of Drug Paraphernalia in the Second Degree. Defendant was sentenced to various terms of imprisonment.

The Issue:

Published on: August 2, 2012

Defense Argues Probable Cause Not Present

by Stephen Bilkis

A woman is charged with three counts of Criminal Possession of a Weapon. She has moved to suppress the firearms that were seized from her and her boyfriend’s house following the issuance of a search warrant that was targeted not at her, but at her boyfriend. She contends that the search warrant violated her constitutional rights because there was an absence of probable cause to search the premises. Furthermore, there was a lack of sufficient evidence to believe that the woman’s boyfriend lived at the house and the inclusion in the warrant of a no-knock provision was unjustified.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that in June 12, 2008, a police officer obtained a no-knock search warrant to search the premises of a house in New York, where the woman resides with her boyfriend. Specifically, the warrant was sought to permit a search for marijuana possession, firearms, and ammunition.

According to his warrant application, the police officer believed that the woman’s boyfriend, whom he had been trying to put on surveillance, was a marijuana dealer. The police officer obtained information from the gas and electric company that an individual identified as the woman’s boyfriend used the gas & electric utility services.

Published on: August 1, 2012

Defendant Moves to Suppress Physical Evidence

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

An NYPD Officer, a nine-year veteran, investigates drug sales in lower Manhattan. He has made 500 narcotics-related arrests.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that on 28 February 2010, the officer and his partner entered the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) building. They were there to conduct a vertical floor-by-floor patrol of the premises during which the officers search for loiterers, drug users, people consuming alcohol and trespassers. In housing projects, unlike police procedures applicable to private apartment buildings, officers may question anyone they encounter to determine whether they are on the premises lawfully. Sometimes, at his discretion, the officer requires that purported residents provide identification or a key. Such individuals must prove that they are not trespassers and persons claiming to be legitimate visitors must also supply corroboration.

Published on: August 1, 2012

Defense Moves to Supress Evidence

by Stephen Bilkis

A detective led a police team that was investigating the deaths of a two man. The bodies of the two victims were discovered in the bathroom of the other man’s apartment. Both men had been bound with duct tape and shot through the head. A New Criminal Lawyer said when the detective and his colleague went to the apartment, they smelled a strong odor of marijuana and observed marijuana residue. The police later discovered that the other man had been a low-level drug dealer.

A witness, who claimed to have been a close friend of the other victim undergone interview with the detective, during their discussions, the witness stated that he knew the victim and they had been friends for fifteen years. The witness also stated that the victim had been a marijuana dealer with regular clientele. He also revealed that he had been present in the victim’s apartment when the victim sold between a half-pound and a pound of marijuana to another man. The witness also asserts that the victim had also been well acquainted with his client, whom he sold the pound of marijuana. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the witness further states that the victim told him about a shipment of 30 to 50 pounds of marijuana and had some out-of-town buyers for it. The victim was nervous about so large a shipment and his client was present when the victim mentioned the prospective sale to the witness.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the police utilized the information from the witness to obtain a photograph of the victim’s client. They put the photograph into a computer-generated photo array which they showed the witness. The witness identified the person pictured in the photograph as the client who purchased the marijuana from the victim. The police also obtained a number of addresses of locations that were linked to the client. A New York Drug Possessionhttp://http://www.newyorkcriminallawyer24-7.com/lawyer-attorney-1732528.html Lawyer said another detective informed the head detective that the victim’s client had a reputation for robbing drug dealers. At about 7:00 pm that same day, the detectives visited one of the apartments in the hope of finding the victim’s client.

Published on: July 31, 2012

Court Decides if Defendant is Eligible for Resentencing

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

On 16 October 1994, defendant was arrested for selling $20 of cocaine to an undercover police officer. On 27 January 1997, he was convicted of Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree and Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree (drug possession). He was sentenced as a Second Felony Offender to concurrent indeterminate prison sentences of 5 1/2 to 11 years. He was convicted in that case of. On 19 May 1999, defendant was released on parole.

Approximately 6 months later, he was arrested for another drug sale charge. On 4 August 2000, he pled guilty to Attempted Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree, a class C felony. A New York Criminal Lawyer said he then apparently failed to appear in court for sentencing and a bench warrant for his appearance was issued on 28 February 2001. He was returned on that warrant a little more than two years later on 2 May 2003. He was sentenced upon that conviction on 12 June 2003 to an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment with a term of 3 1/2 to 7 years.

Published on: July 31, 2012

Teenager Charged with Cocaine Possession

by Stephen Bilkis

On January 23, 1990 a police detective was looking through a one-way mirror at the passengers lined-up waiting for a bus to go to Virginia. The detective noticed a girl who looked no more than 13 years old lined up all by herself without a parent or guardian travelling with her. The detective also noticed that she had a bulge underneath her zipped-up coat.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said aware that some drug dealers used teenagers as drug mules to bring drugs across through state lines, and fearing that the teenager may be a runaway, the detective approached her and talked to her.

The detective sat behind her on the bus. The detective asked her first if she didn’t mind speaking to her and she assented. He asked her if she was travelling alone, how old she was and where she was headed. The girl confirmed that she was travelling alone and that she was on her way to visit family in Norfolk. She also claimed that she was 18 years old.