Criminal Procedure

Published on: April 13, 2012

Court Discusses Integrated Domestic Violence Division

by Stephen Bilkis

In January 2004, the Chief Judge of a State promulgated the establishment of Integrated Domestic Violence (IDV) parts in Supreme Court. The rule directed that the specialized part be devoted to hearing and determination, in a single forum, of cases that are simultaneously pending in the courts if one of them is a domestic violence case in a criminal court and the other is a case in Supreme or Family Court that involves a party or witness in the domestic violence case; or if one is a case in criminal court, Family Court or Supreme Court and the other is a case in any other of these courts having a common party or in which a disposition may affect the interests of a party in the first case.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the intent of the IDV directive was to allow matters involving a single family to be resolved in one court by the same jurist, thereby eliminating fragmented judicial adjudication and relieving the parties of the burden and costs of having multiple actions pending in different courts. In addition to streamlining the litigation process for litigants and providing better access to community services for families, the new IDV parts also increased judicial efficiency by avoiding duplication of effort by multiple courts, reducing scheduling conflicts and avoiding inconsistent outcomes.

Soon after the Chief Judge issued part of the IDV, the Chief Administrative Judge implemented the new rule by adopting part of the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts, which defined those IDV-eligible cases subject to transfer to Supreme Court. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that under the rules, cases that meet the criteria are sent to an IDV part where, within five days, the cases are screened to determine whether transfer will promote the administration of justice. If so, a formal transfer order is issued and the case is retained by the IDV part for disposition. If not, the case is returned to the originating court.

Published on: April 13, 2012

Defendant Objects to Prior Convictions Being Brought in as Evidence

by Stephen Bilkis

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

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

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

Published on: April 12, 2012

Defendant Contends he is Eligible for Judicial Diversion Program

by Stephen Bilkis

A man was arrested during the execution of a search warrant in his reported residence. The search warrant was based in part upon an undercover police officer’s sworn allegations that on 13 separate occasions the man, while acting in concert with co-accused sold cocaine and heroin. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the accusation charges the man and his companion, with felony conspiracy for cocaine and heroin and conspiring to commit Criminal Sale of Controlled Substance.

The Criminal Procedure Law defines those accused persons who are eligible for Judicial Diversion as ones charged with certain Class B, C, D, and E felony drug offenses, or those charged with specified nonviolent offenses as long as they do not have a disqualifying condition listed in the law. If the District Attorney consents, a non-eligible accused will be deemed eligible. The list of eligible crimes is specific and does not include every nonviolent felony.

Robbery in the Third Degree and felony DWI, both nonviolent offenses, are not specified eligible crimes. Disqualifying conditions include convictions within the past ten years for felony or a violent felony; those who have a prior second violent felony or persistent felony offender adjudication; and those who are presently charged with certain violent felony offenses. Prior adjudications for disqualifying crimes may also be considered by the court in determining eligibility.

Published on: April 12, 2012

DWI Defendant Contends Roadblock was Illegal

by Stephen Bilkis

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

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

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

Published on: April 12, 2012

Defendant as a Defense to Domestic Violence Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

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

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

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

Published on: April 12, 2012

Domestic Violence Defendant Contends use of Medical Records Inadmissable as Evidence

by Stephen Bilkis

A woman had a boyfriend since she was 14 years old until she reached the age of 20. They broke up and went their separate ways living separate lives. Years later, the boyfriend and the woman met up again. The boyfriend did not have a place to live. So for old time’s sake, the woman allowed her old boyfriend to stay in the spare bedroom in her apartment.

The old boyfriend paid rent to the woman. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the woman saved up the money he had been paying as rent and she planned to give it back to him when he has finally found a suitable place to live.

During the course of their living arrangement, the old boyfriend needed to break his five dollar bill into quarters so that he can do his laundry at the laundromat. He took five dollars in quarters from the coin purse of the woman and put in a five dollar bill. Later, he told the woman what he had done. The woman got upset because she suspected that her old boyfriend was going through her personal belongings.

Published on: April 12, 2012

Court Rules on Divorce Case Based on Domestic Violence

by Stephen Bilkis

The parties were married in August 1973. The wife is presently 52 years of age and the husband is presently 56 years of age. On the date of their marriage, plaintiff was 22 years of age and a college graduate. Defendant was then 18 years of age and a high school graduate. During the course of the marriage, four children were born to the parties, the two youngest children, remain unemancipated. During the course of the litigation the youngest son resided in Israel or was a resident student at a university. It appears the youngest son is fully and voluntarily supported by the father and does not permanently reside with either party, although he does reside with the mother during the summer recess from school.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the husband commenced this action in December 2004 after the wife withdrew an action commenced in November 2004. The parties litigated in Family Court from 10 November 2004, through January 31, 2005. The husband also brought a writ of habeas corpus under a separate index number against the wife and her mother which was dismissed. The Family Court action was consolidated into the Supreme Court action, on consent. The wife was granted a divorce, on consent, after proof, on 10 June 2005, on the grounds of constructive abandonment and shortly thereafter the husband gave the wife a Jewish divorce. A law guardian was appointed for the youngest daughter, and a neutral forensic evaluator, was appointed by the court.

On 29 November 2005, the day set for trial on the issue of custody, all issues of custody and visitation were resolved by stipulation on the record. The agreement inter alia provided that the parties would share joint decision making of the youngest daughter, age 13, that the wife would have physical custody, there would be a parent coordinator and that the husband, the wife and child would separately enroll in therapy. An NYC Criminal Lawyer said that the wife voluntarily, without prejudice, withdrew her request for a temporary order of protection and same was vacated, on consent. The agreement further provided for supervised visitation and a mechanism for the child and father to re-establish their relationship.

Published on: April 12, 2012

Convicted Felon Passes Bar and Wants to Practice in NY

by Stephen Bilkis

What defines good moral character? How long after a youthful infraction, has good moral character been restored? Is it ever possible to know? What types of jobs are appropriate for someone who committed a felony, served their prison sentence, and completed college? How long does the smear of a felony conviction ruin a person’s name? All of these questions are valid ones. There are no set answers. So when a convicted violent felon is released from prison, completes college, and then law school, passes the New York State Bar Exam, the problem becomes one of moral character. The New York Bar rules state that no one will be admitted to the bar who is not of good moral character to practice law. So what establishes his moral character. Even though his crime was violent and drug related, is it enough that the offense occurred thirty years ago?

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the question at hand is best illustrated using a case that was heard in New York. A man was convicted 30 years ago of running a Quaalude sales ring. At first, he was making large sums of money and living a lavish lifestyle. But, as the police began to close in on his operation and his life was falling apart, he took a gun and convinced his girlfriend that he wanted to see her. Once he was with her, he took her captive and held her at gunpoint. He told her that he was going to commit suicide and she believed that he intended to kill her as well. In an attempt to save her own life, when he went to the bathroom, she jumped from the second story window to the ground below. She was severely injured, but survived. As she was running from the location, he fired several bullets at her. He did not hit her with any of them.

He was arrested for the ,offenses and went to Federal Prison first. He was also convicted at the state level and served his sentenced concurrently. Unbelievably, he was released after only seven years on a 12 ½ to 25 year sentence. He completed college and law school. He took the bar exam and passed it. He applied for acceptance to the bar in several states. In all but New York, he was accepted. After all, his crime was committed more than thirty years before he passed the bar. Since that one infraction, he has not committed any crimes and has led an exemplary life.

Published on: April 12, 2012

Defendant Brings Motion to Supress Physical Evidence in Drug Possession Case

by Stephen Bilkis

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

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

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

Published on: April 11, 2012

Court Prohibits Sex Offender From Seeing Wife as a Condition of Release

by Stephen Bilkis

In 1999, petitioner was arrested for rape in the first degree and thereafter convicted, upon his plea of guilty, of sexual abuse in the first degree. The victim, who was his girlfriend at the time and is a petitioner in this proceeding, later married petitioner while he was serving a subsequent prison term in connection with a 2004 conviction of burglary in the second degree. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that the petitioners participated in Family Reunion Program visits three times between October 2006 and October 2007.

In November 2008, petitioner appeared before the Board of Parole, which issued a decision setting the conditions for his anticipated release from prison. In light of the sex crimes committed by petitioner against his wife, as well as evidence of a history of domestic violence between the two, the Board imposed several conditions, including the requirement that petitioner refrain from “associating in any way or communicating by any means with his wife without the permission of” his parole officer.

Petitioners requested the removal of the aforesaid special condition with the Division of Parole but were, thereafter, denied. Hence, petitioners commenced the instant proceeding challenging the condition.