murder

Published on: May 26, 2012

Defendant Charged With Murdering his Girlfriend

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is being heard in the State of New York Supreme Court. The plaintiff of the case is the People of the State of New York. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the plaintiff is represented by the District Attorney of Kings County, Charles J. Hynes and the Assistant District Attorney, Michelle Kaminsky. The defendant in the case is Jerry Bowens. He is represented by Izabel Olszowa Garcia Esq. and Wayne C. Bodden, Esq. The judge that is overseeing the Supreme Court case is Matthew J. D’Emic.

Prosecution Argument

The defendant, Jerry Bowens has been charged with murdering his girlfriend, Catherine D’Onofrio. The plaintiff has moved to have evidence introduced that includes prior bad acts made by the defendant. Additionally, the prosecution looks to bring forth evidence that shows that the relationship between the defendant and the victim, Ms. D’Onofrio, was unraveling and that his life was falling apart.

Published on: May 25, 2012

Sex Crime Causes Court to Weigh Penal Law 125.27

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is being heard in the Kings County Supreme Court. The Justice overseeing the case is Joel M. Goldberg. The defendant in the case is Otis Carr who is represented by Robert M. Baum from the Legal Aid Soc. The plaintiff in the case is the People of the State of New York. The People are represented by the Kings County District Attorney Charles J. Hynes and the Kings County Assistant District Attorney John Barker.

Case Issue

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the matter at hand involves whether the statutory language that is found in Penal Law 125.27 and states “more than 18 years old” means “at least 19 years old” as contended by the defendant.

Published on: May 14, 2012

Court Decides Murder Case

by Stephen Bilkis

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

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

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

Published on: May 10, 2012

Court Discusses Felony Murder Rule

by Stephen Bilkis

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

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

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

Published on: May 2, 2012

Defendant Contends He was Improperly Interrogated

by Stephen Bilkis

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

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

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

Published on: April 28, 2012

Court Rules on Murder Case

by Stephen Bilkis

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

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

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

Published on: April 27, 2012

Victim Killed During Burglary

by Stephen Bilkis

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

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

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

Published on: April 22, 2012

Court Decides Infant Murder Case

by Stephen Bilkis

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

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

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

Published on: April 18, 2012

After Multiple Charges, Defendant Pleads Insanity Defense

by Stephen Bilkis

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

In the main charge on the insanity argument and its response to notes from the deliberating jury, the court properly read the jury instructions pattern which charge on the said subject. The court properly declined to add language instructing the jury to consider the man’s capacity to know or appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct from a subjective point of view relating to the false beliefs that he allegedly held as a result of psychiatric illness. The standard language permitted the jury to accept the man’s insanity argument under the theory that his asserted mental disorder caused him to sincerely believe that society would approve of his immoral acts because they were divinely commanded. The court was not obligated to add the language to that effect or to give any special instructions concerning a false belief. The court also concludes that the supplemental instructions were meaningful responses to the notes. The court further notes that there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could conclude that the man did not have any delusions or hallucinations about being divinely commanded to commit his criminal acts.

The man’s first trial resulted in a mistrial when the jury was unable to reach a verdict. On his retrial, the man was convicted of 53 counts, including attempted murder and assault, both as hate crimes, and was acquitted of attempted murder in the first degree. The only defense raised was that the man was not responsible by reason of mental disease when he committed the criminal acts. The psychiatrist called by the Court found that the man was legally sane when he acted, but other examining psychiatrists found man to be seriously delusional and/or insane.

Published on: February 26, 2012

Court Discusses SORA Registration

by Stephen Bilkis

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

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

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