Nassau

Published on: May 8, 2012

Defense Contends Jury Instructions Were Incorrect

by Stephen Bilkis

During the armed robbery of a jewelry store in New York City, three men entered the jewelry store and while robbing the store, they hurt and wounded the wife of the owner. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the fourth man was outside, in the van, waiting for his friends. He drove his friends to the jewelry store and drove them away from the premises after they came out of the jewelry store.

The driver was charged with robbery in the first degree and assault in the first degree. During the deliberation of the jury, they asked the trial court to explain if the driver of the car could be found guilty of the robbery if he did not know in advance that his friends were going to commit armed robbery. The trial court told the jury that a person who aids in the escape of those who committed armed robbery is equally guilty of the armed robbery.

The jury then also asked if the driver could also be found guilty of the assault even if he did not know and did not participating in the assault of the proprietor’s wife. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the trial judge said that those who participate in the commission of the armed robbery are equally responsible of all those who committed the crime.

Published on: May 7, 2012

Court Discusses Relation Back Rule

by Stephen Bilkis

On 10 December 1992, near the intersection of Elizabeth and Broome streets in New York County, a robbery occurred during which an individual grabbed a necklace after a brief struggle. Thereafter, a New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said at the fifth police precinct the victim identified defendant from photographs as the perpetrator.

On 20 January 1993, defendant was arrested for the robbery when he kept his regularly scheduled appointment with his parole officer. At that time, defendant was also carrying seven glassines of heroin, which he allegedly admitted to his parole officer that he was intending to sell.

On 21 January 1993, defendant was arraigned in Criminal Court on a felony complaint charging the crimes of Robbery in the Second Degree and Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree.

Published on: May 5, 2012

Court Decides on What Constitutes Admissible Evidence

by Stephen Bilkis

On 13 November 1966, defendant shot his divorced wife with a shotgun in the presence of their two daughters in Baldwin, Long Island. A New York Criminal Lawyer said a gun crime has occurred. Immediately thereafter he drove to the Bronx and told a priest what he had done. Thereafter, the priest went with defendant to Nassau County, where he voluntarily entered the police station and gave himself up.

Defendant, after being warned of his Miranda rights, made an oral waiver of such rights and proceeded to make certain statements to the police in response to their questions. During the questioning he admitted that he had shot his wife but added that his gun had accidentally discharged. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said after completing their interrogation, the police officers asked if he would like to sign a statement incorporating his oral statements. Defendant refused to do so until he gets to see a lawyer. He was then asked if he wanted an attorney, and he said, “Yes”.

In the afternoon of that same day, a doctor presented himself to defendant. He said he was there on behalf of the District Attorney and told defendant he did not have to talk to him if he did not want to. The doctor then conducted an examination of defendant which lasted for about an hour and a half.

Published on: May 4, 2012

Defendant Brings Moton too Supressed Confession

by Stephen Bilkis

Two men entered a gas station in Long Island on February 18, 1976. With a gun, one of them forced the 16-year old gas attendant to give him all the cash in the till. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the man ordered the boy to kneel down and to face away from them. He then shot the boy who died later.

At the start of the police investigation into the robbery with homicide, the police had no idea as to the identity of the robbers. They received a tip from a woman who was in the same house as the two men. She remembers that on the same night of the murder of the 16 year old boy at the gas station, the two men suddenly left the house because they had a job to do. They came back highly excited and told the woman that they had to shoot someone. This tip was put in the records of the investigation.

One month after the shooting of the 16-year old, the police chased a suspect in a car theft incident. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said two men were involved in the car theft but only one suspect was caught. The police saw the suspect they were chasing: he slowed down the car and threw something out. A week after the car chase, a little girl turned in a loaded gun she found in the place where the chase took place. The police checked the gun and it turned out that it was the same gun that was used to kill the 16-year old gas attendant at the gas station in Long Island.

Published on: May 3, 2012

Sex Crimes Victim Sues Charity Who Failed to Help Her

by Stephen Bilkis

Two counties of New York entered into a contract with a Catholic charitable group to provide residential domestic services. In October 1988, a woman contacted the charity asking their help to escape the domestic violence perpetrated against her by her husband.

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the woman was afraid of her husband and she needed a safe place to go. All the residential facilities operated by the charitable organization were full. The employee of the charitable group suggested that she go to a shelter in the next county but the woman did not want to go so far away.

The employee of the charitable organization then contacted social services and asked for their approval to place the battered woman in a motel. The employee drove over to the house of the woman and picked her up and took her to the motel. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said she battered woman was bruised and intoxicated. The employee of the charitable organization volunteered to drive the woman to a hospital but she refused.

Published on: May 2, 2012

Court Rules on Divorce Based on Domestic Violence Allegations

by Stephen Bilkis

On 21 May 2002, plaintiff commenced the action. The parties were married on 24 January 1992, in Brooklyn, New York. The husband is 37 years of age and the wife is 46 years of age. The parties have two (2) children, a son born on 31 March 1988, and a daughter born on 27 September 1995. The husband is a business and property owner. The wife is a homemaker and factory worker.

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the parties were born in the Country of Ecuador and knew each other in Ecuador prior to coming to the United States. The wife was previously married to the husband’s cousin who subsequently died. It is undisputed that the husband also knew the wife’s two (2) brothers who were the subject of testimony in the instant matter.

When the wife immigrated to the United States in 1987, she did so without permission to permanently reside in the United States and was in the company of her now deceased husband. It appears that the husband and wife herein and the wife’s husband at that time, moved into a two-bedroom apartment which was also occupied by other individuals from Ecuador.

Published on: May 1, 2012

Defendant Claims Malicious Prosecution

by Stephen Bilkis

The appellant in the case is Vicki Trees. She is a juvenile and is represented by her parents, Jerry L. and Jewell Trees. The appellee in the case is the K-Mart Corporation located in the town of Lake Park in Florida. Additional appellees in the case are Frank Cardinal, Frank Helm, and Paul Friedman.

Appeal

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said Vicki Trees was a plaintiff in a false arrest and malicious prosecution suit. She is appealing the verdict of the case, stating that the original trial court admitted evidence improperly that showed her participation in a collateral crime.

Published on: April 28, 2012

Court Discusses Search and Seizure Incident

by Stephen Bilkis

Search and seizure incidents, especially those that involve gun crimes or other weapons usually come down to issues of legal precedent. A New York Criminal Lawyer that means that officers have only seconds to decide what their actions are going to be. The courts have months to dissect these actions and make determinations of what the officer should have done in that second or two decision. Because of this, it is not unusual for seizure of weapons to be ruled illegal and excluded from court under the Exclusionary Rule. The Exclusionary Rule states that any item, person, or other object, which is seized by illegal means, is excluded from court. Any item, person, or other evidence that is implicated following the illegal act is also inadmissible in court because it is fruit of the poisonous tree of the illegal means.

In some situations, the rulings do not agree with the law. In some situations, the rulings are completely unrealistic. In both of these circumstances, the court of appeals is called in to correct the injustice. The case at hand is one of those cases.

A police patrol officer was on patrol in Nassau County, New York and observed a subject intentionally impeding the normal flow of traffic. The officer watched as the man turned to walk away. He saw a clip in the man’s back pocket and a metal portion of some object sticking out of the top of the pocket. The officer knew based on his knowledge, experience, and training as a law enforcement officer that the object was either an illegal gravity knife, or an illegal firearm.

Published on: April 28, 2012

Police Officer Charged with Domestic Violence

by Stephen Bilkis

Domestic violence is a big problem in the world today. It is an even greater problem when it involves the very police officers who are impressed with the responsibility to protect the citizens from these crimes. In the face of this issue, many states have enacted reporting guidelines that affect police officers in domestic violence situations personally.

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said any peace officer who engages in any act of domestic violence will lose their certification as a police officer. It will end their careers. It is because of this that most police officers are very careful to not engage in any act that could be perceived as an act of domestic violence.

In March 1998, a ten-year veteran police officer was admitted to a psychiatric hospital suffering from depression and suicidal ideation. She was out of work for several months and then returned to light-duty. Light duty relieves the officer of the expectation of carrying a weapon. She remained on light duty until September of 2001. After that, she was unable to return to work at all. In 2003, she requested that the police department allow her to retire under full duty disability retirement benefits. She stated that she was permanently disabled due to post-traumatic stress disorder and depression. The judge denied her request. She then filed an appeal requesting a hearing and a redetermination of the essence of her case. A hearing was held and the Hearing Officer upheld the denial of retirement benefits. She filed another appeal.

Published on: April 27, 2012

Defendant Contends that Key Evidence Proving his Innocence wasnt Allowed

by Stephen Bilkis

On March 10, 1987, a man was convicted of burglary in the first degree, burglary in the second degree, petit larceny, tampering with a witness in the third degree, criminal trespass in the second degree, criminal mischief in the fourth degree, possession of burglary tools and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said he immediately filed an appeal requesting that his conviction be reversed.

He contends that the trial court committed an error when they refused to allow the defendant to present evidence that he felt was exculpatory to his case. His contention was that his ex-girlfriend, who testified against him was not a reliable witness. He stated that although in trial, she had testified that she was no longer using drugs, that was a lie. He contends that at the time of the trial, she was still using drugs and that the needle marks on her arms were proof of that fact. He states that her testimony that she witnessed the burglary and then he threatened her if she ever told on him was not trustworthy because of her addiction. He further maintained that criminal trespass is a lesser included offense to the felony offense of burglary. He stated that since it is a lesser included offense, that he should not have received a sentence on it separate from the burglary. On this one contention, the justices agreed and reversed his conviction for criminal trespass.

As far as intimidating a witness, the facts of this count of his conviction are uncontested. Directly after committing the offense, the man threatened her about telling anyone what he had done. He intimated that she would encounter violence if she ever told anyone about the burglary. The defendant contends that this threat does not constitute intimidation of a witness because she was not a witness against him at the time. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the offense had occurred after his arrest, then he would have been guilty of attempting to influence a witness. Since it did not occur after the arrest, but before it, he was not intimidating a witness. The justices agree. This count of the charges are overturned and vacated.