Sex Crimes

Published on: November 29, 2012

Court Discusses the Elements of Conspiracy

by Stephen Bilkis

This involves a case where the court dismissed the indictment against defendants for conspiracy in the fourth degree (two counts), hindering prosecution in the third degree (two counts) and official misconduct (two counts).

a New York Criminal Lawyer said that in the early 1960s, JF, a resident of Queens County and meter reader for a company, entered upon a scheme under which he accepted money from various investors, agreeing to pay them a return of 1% A week and explaining to them that this high return was being paid by a factoring company which loaned out moneys to various companies in the fur, textile and other industries where there was a need for immediate cash. In fact, there was no factoring company and JF was merely repaying these people from their own moneys. Among the hundreds of persons who invested with him were members of the staff of the District Attorney of Queens County, including defendants.

In March of 1971, after being the victim of a real or apparent robbery, and being ostensibly unable to continue to pay off investors, JF fled New York City and went to San Francisco. His whereabouts were unknown to the authorities until a year later, when he was discovered by two irate investors and was returned to New York City by them. Within two weeks, he was indicted for 35 counts of grand larceny by a Queens County Grand Jury upon presentation of the case by the District Attorney’s office. At that time, defendant was the District Attorney of Queens County, his son-in-law, was the Deputy Chief Assistant District Attorney and another defendant was a County Detective in the District Attorney’s office.

Published on: November 29, 2012

Court Decides if it Erred on Classifying Accused as a Level One Sex Offender

by Stephen Bilkis

A man lived in his mother’s house with his sister who was a minor. One day, the man chanced upon his sister in the bathroom of their house. The man tried to rape his sister. The sister resisted and was able to escape from her brother. A New York Criminal Lawyer said she reported the incident to their mother and she reported the incident to the police.

Her brother was charged with attempted rape in the first degree and sexual abuse in the first degree. Prior to the arraignment, the lawyer for the man asked the trial court to order a psychiatric evaluation of the accused. Two psychiatrists examined the accused and they had similar findings. The first psychiatrist rendered an opinion that the accused suffered from psychiatric disorders which were not specified. A second psychiatrist rendered an opinion that the accused suffered from psychosis. A New York Criminal Lawyer said both of them agreed on the finding that the accused was a threat to himself and to others but that he was fit to stand trial because he was capable of understanding the nature of the charges against him and he can assist in defending himself. Both psychiatrists also recommended that the accused be hospitalized. For this reason, the accused was placed under the custody of the Commissioner of Mental Health.

The accused pleaded guilty to sexual abuse in the first degree and he was sentenced to six months imprisonment and ten years probation.

Published on: November 28, 2012

Court Decides Fourth Amendment Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

On February 26, 2001, Detective McSherry, Sergeant MC and Police Officer F., assigned to anticrime patrol in an unmarked Chevrolet Blazer and traveling northbound on Valentine Avenue in Bronx, were stopped at a red light at the intersection of Valentine Avenue and 184th Street, a high crime area. The Chevrolet Blazer was the first in line at the red light. Detective MS and Sergeant MC, both in plain clothes, sat in the front of the vehicle. Sergeant MC was the driver. Officer F., in uniform, was a passenger in the rear of the vehicle.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, while they were stopped, Detective MS observed three young males, one of whom was appellant, crossing the street in front of their vehicle. MS testified that as the trio passed in front of the Blazer, they looked inside. One of the three “did a double take” and all of them “appeared to become startled.” Although the three males stayed together, their pace quickened. When they reached the other side of the street, walking southbound on the sidewalk, appellant separated from the group and, “walking closer to the building than the other two” “made a gesture like he’s putting something down by the building, by a doorway in the building which would lead to an alley.” As the detective explained, “He made a motion with his hand which looked to me he was casting something away, putting something down.” Appellant then joined the other two young men, who were walking southbound on Valentine Avenue.

The police vehicle then made a U-turn and pulled up alongside the three boys. Detective MS and Officer F. rolled down their windows “to gauge their reaction.” Appellant “turned, looked at their car, looked right at MS,” “panicked” and “took off running southbound on Valentine.” The other two young men remained standing where they were.

Published on: November 28, 2012

Court Contends Mental Hygiene Hearing was Unnecessary

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case for appeal being heard in the Third Department, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the State of New York. Mark S. is the appellant of the case and the State of New York is the respondent. Mark S. is appealing two orders that were made by the Supreme Court. The orders found the appellant to be to be a dangerous sex offender and confined him to treatment in a secure facility.

Case Background

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that the defendant has an extensive criminal and psychiatric history that includes being convicted for two rapes and forcibly touching three different females. He was charged with third degree rape, third degree sodomy, and endangering the welfare of a child by having sexual relations with a girl who was less that 17 years old in June of 2003. The defendant states that the sex with the young girl was consensual and he thought that she was 17, even though he had been told that she was younger. He pled guilty to the third degree rape charge in May of 2004 to satisfy all of the charges that were made against him. He was sentenced to five months in jail and ten years of probation.

Published on: November 27, 2012

Court Discusses Concept of Double Jeopardy

by Stephen Bilkis

In April, 1973, as a result of a joint major Federal-State narcotics investigation, an indictment was filed against defendants #1, #2, and #3, along with 10 other large-scale heroin merchants, for conspiracy to violate Federal drug laws. To support the conspiracy count, covering a period from May, 1971 until the filing of the indictment, 10 particular incidents, including meetings and drug deliveries, were specified as overt acts. A number of substantive drug crimes of heroin possession were also charged.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, the instant appeals arise out of a separate concurrent State prosecution in which the three defendants were charged with sale and heroin possession of dangerous drugs. The indictment states that on each of January 8, 12, and 22, 1973, Defendant #1, #2, and #3 possessed and sold over 16 ounces of heroin. These sales had neither been specified as overt acts of the Federal conspiracy nor had they been the subject of the substantive counts in that indictment.

The Federal charges were disposed of first. Defendant #1 and #3 pleaded guilty, among other counts, to conspiracy. Defendant #2 , on the other hand, went to trial and was found guilty on all counts charged. The evidence at that trial although not mentioned in the indictment included testimony concerning the three January drug sales that are the subject of the State prosecution. All three defendants received substantial Federal sentences.

Published on: November 27, 2012

Defendant Claims Grand Jury Direction was Incorrect

by Stephen Bilkis

The People of the State of New York are the plaintiffs in this case against the defendant L.P. This case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in Bronx County, Part C. The People have moved for an order to amend the direction of a duly empanelled Grand Jury from Bronx County to include the phrase “acting in concert with others” in the proof that was submitted in the case.

Case Background

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that on the 19th of February, 1986, the Grand Jury heard evidence against the defendant, L.P. in regard to crimes that allegedly occurred on the 11th of February, 1986. The incident included the defendant, two other males that were not found and a fourteen year old girl complainant. The complainant accused the defendant of accessorial sodomy and accessorial rape.

Published on: November 26, 2012

Defendant Argues Complaint Insufficient to State Cause of Action

by Stephen Bilkis

The People of the State of New York are the plaintiffs in a case against the defendant S.M. This case is being heard in front of the Criminal Court of the City of New York in Kings County. The defendant in the case has been charged with attempted sexual abuse in the second degree, attempted sexual assault in the third degree, unlawful imprisonment in the second degree, harassment in the second degree, and endangering the welfare of a child. The defendant has moved to have the charges against him dismissed.

Case Facts

The complaint in this case comes from a thirteen year old girl. The defendant is a teacher at the child’s school. On the day that the incident occurred the defendant walked the child to his home. The child wanted to leave the defendant’s home and the defendant proceeded to block the doorway and would not let her leave. The child states that the defendant asked her for a kiss and she said no. She says that he moved his face into close proximity of hers and tried to kiss her. A New York Criminal Lawyer said these actions caused the child to become alarmed and annoyed.

Published on: November 26, 2012

Defendant Contends Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case being heard in the Supreme Court of Bronx County. The case involves the People of the State of New York versus the defendant E.D..

Defendant’s Case

A New York Criminal Lawyer said on or about the 6th of August, 2011, the defendant filed a pro se motion to have his conviction of rape in the first degree, kidnapping in the first degree, and coercion in the first degree from 1977, vacated. The defendant argues that his rights regarding the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution were violated during his trial when the hospital record, including notations made by a resident at the hospital who did not testify, was admitted into evidence.

Published on: November 26, 2012

Court Discusses Immigration Implications Regarding Sentencing

by Stephen Bilkis

The people of the state of New York are the plaintiffs in this case being heard in the Supreme Court of Suffolk County. The defendant in the case is J.C.. The defendant has moved to have his conviction for the Class E felony of Rape in the third degree vacated. The basis for his argument for this motion is that he lacked effective assistance of counsel.

Case Background

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the defendant, J.C., illegally entered the United States with his father in the year 1991 when he was just sixteen years old. Mr. C. never attempted to become a citizen of the United States while he was living here and before he was prosecuted on the charges of rape in the third degree. He was not eligible for any type of program or amnesty after his illegal entry into the country.

Published on: November 25, 2012

Defendant Contends Juror was Forced Into a Decision

by Stephen Bilkis

The People of the State of New York are the respondents in this case of appeal. The appellant is J.L., who is appealing a verdict that was made by a jury in the Supreme Court of Bronx County on the 19th of March, 1984. This verdict convicted the defendant of attempted rape in the first degree and sentenced him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 25 years to life.

Case Background

The appeal in this case is made by the defendant as a result of a jury trial. A hearing testimony was held and took place over a period of four days. The jury commenced into deliberations at close to 12 p.m. on February 6, 1984. After deliberations and a rereading of some of the testimony of the case, the jury went to their hotel for the night at 11 p.m.