Sex Crimes

Published on: August 17, 2012

Plaintiff Claims They Were Denied Due Process

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case, Plaintiffs brought suit against the Defendants for: harassment, blackmailing and conspiring to boycott their classes and attempting to have them terminated from East Texas Police Academy (“ETPA”) in retaliation for their testimony in a case against another police officer involved in a shooting incident. Plaintiffs also claimed violations of: their rights to testify freely under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2); their right to freedom of speech under the First and Fourteenth Amendment; their right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment; and tortious interference with business relations. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the plaintiffs were instructors at the ETPA, in Kilgore, Texas, which provides basic and advanced training for law enforcement officers in the greater East Texas area. Defendants are the police chiefs or sheriffs from seven cities and counties within the greater East Texas area and who possess final authority over the training of the officers employed by their respective agencies.

Before the fall of 1998, Defendants enrolled their officers in ETPA courses on a regular basis, including courses taught by the Plaintiffs. The defendants were not contractually bound to continue using either the ETPA’s services or the services of Plaintiffs in particular. In August 1998, Plaintiffs voluntarily testified as expert witnesses against a police sniper from Kerrville, Texas who fatally shot a teenager. The said police officer was not trained at the ETPA nor belongs to the police agencies headed by the Defendants. In the said case, Plaintiffs testified that the Kerrville police officer used excessive force and that the Kerrville police department failed to implement the proper policies necessary to direct the conduct of officers acting as snipers.

The said testimony irked the Defendants and threatened the ETPA that they will all stop engaging their services for officer training. One of them said that Plaintiffs testimony “is in direct conflict with the basic fundamentals and expectations that we have come to enjoy from Academy instructors.” It created “conflicts of interest” and violated principles of “cooperative responsibility.” A Suffolk County Criminal Lawyer said they believe that an unacceptable conflict of interest exists whenever a police instructor testifies against a police officer, regardless of location and regardless of whether the instructor had trained the officer. Such a conflict does not exist when an instructor testifies for police officers.

Published on: August 17, 2012

Petitioner Demands Evidentiary Hearing

by Stephen Bilkis

The petitioner was a Florida prisoner on death row, having been convicted of first degree murder. The district court granted a writ of habeas corpus setting aside his conviction and sentence. The United States Court of Appeals reversed the decision of district court. The issues involved are whether or not the petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the State violated the Brady rule.

An illicit love affair ensued between a man, a real estate broker with ties to Boston’s criminal underworld, and a woman, who was married to a wealthy citrus grower. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the man and the woman conspired to kill the wealthy husband by hiring petitioner as an assassin to murder husband. Unfortunately, the murder did not signal the beginning of a blissful life on the estate for the lovers. The man allegedly wanted more money and continue to harass the woman and her child. Terrified, the woman went to the authorities and implicated the man as the person behind her husband’s murder.

During the trial, the man discredited the woman as prosecution’s star witness. Trial proceedings were tainted with evidentiary irregularity leading to the unavailability of key witnesses. The man was discharged from prosecution in the crime of murder. The court then granted the petition to destroy certain physical evidence held for man’s prosecution.

Published on: August 17, 2012

Court Conducts Risk Assessment for Sex Offender

by Stephen Bilkis

Defendant was arrested for acting in concert with another in allegedly committing the crimes of Kidnapping in the First Degree (Penal Law § 135.25 [1]), Rape in the First Degree (Penal Law § 130.35 [1]), Sodomy in the First Degree (Penal Law § 130.50 [1]), and Unlawful Imprisonment in the First Degree (Penal Law § 135.10), against the victim on May 3, 2000, in the vicinity of East 233rd Street and White Plains Road in Bronx County. Defendant and co-defendants were subsequently indicted for all of the above charges. In the felony complaint, it was alleged that the Defendants detained the victim in a car and refused to let her leave when she requested to do so. Further, when she attempted to get out, she was pulled back inside and her mouth covered when she tried to scream for help. The defendants then held the victim down while Defendant inserted his penis into her vagina and Scott inserted his penis into her mouth, both without her consent. At the time of his arrest, when told that he was being charged with rape, Defendant responded, “I kind of had that feeling.” He was subsequently identified by both the victim and an eyewitness in separate corporeal lineups.

A Bronx Criminal Lawyer said that, in the course of the Grand Jury presentation, it was established that the victim was with a friend. The friend knew Defendant and talked to him while the victim was standing close by. The victim and friend got into the back seat of the vehicle. When the friend got out purchasing some cigarettes or marijuana, Defendant drove off with the victim. The victim called to the friend for help. However, the defendant pulled her back into the car. Defendant proceeded to drive to a parking lot. He then got into the back seat, grabbed the victim’s thigh and demanded that she place his penis into her mouth. Thereafter, Defendant removed the victim’s pants, held her hands down, and engaged in sexual intercourse (rape) with her against her will. The defendant then inserted his pturbated into her mouth while Defendant held her hands down as she was repeatedly shouting, “No.” Scott then struck the victim in the mouth. Afterwards, the victim was driven to within one block of her home and forcibly thrown out of the car.

DNA tests performed on the victim and Defendant revealed that his semen and that of another male were found on a vaginal swab of the victim as well as on her panties.

Published on: August 17, 2012

Thirteen Year Old Robbed at Knife Point

by Stephen Bilkis

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

Case Background

On the second of June in 2005 at around 3:20 in the afternoon, the victim, who was thirteen years old at the time, was on her way home from school. She was going down the well lit stairs of the subway station near the corner of Essex and Delancey Streets in Manhattan. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said she was descending the stairs a man she did not know approached her and asked for some change. The man stood face to face with her and she states that she did not think he was going to hurt her. She says that she looked directly at him and told him that she didn’t have any change.

Published on: August 16, 2012

Court Looks at Elements of Sexual Abuse

by Stephen Bilkis

The People of the State of New York are the plaintiffs in a case against the defendant Stan Miller. This case is being heard in front of the Criminal Court of the City of New York in Kings County. A New York Criminal Lawyer said 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. These actions caused the child to become alarmed and annoyed.

Published on: August 16, 2012

Defendant Previously Tried in Military Court

by Stephen Bilkis

This matter involves Harvey O. Booth and Lee Clary as the Judge of the Jefferson County Court as the respondents. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the appellant in the case is James T. King as the Jefferson County District Attorney. The other case involves the respondents Leslie Bridgewater and Lee Clary as the Judge of the Jefferson County Court and James T. King as the Jefferson County District Attorney as the appellant.

The District Attorney of Jefferson County is appealing two cases. He is seeking to overturn the grant of writs of prohibition that prevent his office from prosecuting serious crimes that were committed by two solders on military property. The soldiers were off duty at the time.

The petitioner soldiers were tried and convicted by a general court martial for identical conduct that they were indicted for in Jefferson County. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the issue in each of the cases is whether a military tribunal is considered a court with any jurisdiction in the United States. If a military tribunal is considered a court with jurisdiction than the double jeopardy protection laws of the state of New York would bar the successive prosecution of the issues in these cases.

Published on: August 15, 2012

Court Hears Motion for Dismissal

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a matter being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, and Fourth Judicial Department. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the case deals with the State of New York as the petitioner and respondent and Nushawn Williams, who is also known as Shyteek Johnson, as the respondent and appellant.

The respondent and appellant, Shyteek Johnson is appealing a decision made in the Supreme Court of Chautauqua County that denied the motion made by the respondent/appellant to dismiss the proceeding.

Case Background

Published on: August 15, 2012

Court Reverses Rape Conviction

by Stephen Bilkis

The People of the State of New York are the respondents in this case. The defendant and appellant in the matter is Edward Murphy. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the case is being heard in the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. The defendant is appealing an order made by the Supreme Court of Bronx County that convicted him after a jury trial of the crime of rape in the first degree and sentenced him to a lesser sentence concurrent with a conviction of rape in the first degree.

Court Records

In review of the case it is found that the defendant offered statements to the court standing by his plea of guilty. He bargained for this plea and did not want to withdraw it. The statements made to the probation officer that were thought by the court to be a protestation of innocence were not inquired into the court in any extent. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the order of the court to vacate the guilty plea must be set aside in this particular case.

Published on: August 15, 2012

Defendant Moves to Have Verdict Struck

by Stephen Bilkis

The People of the State of New York are the respondents in this case of appeal. The appellant is James Lavender, 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

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said 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.

Published on: August 14, 2012

Defendant Contends Miranda Rights Were Violated

by Stephen Bilkis

The respondent of this case is the People of the State of New York. The appellant in the case is Martin Tankleff. This case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department. Martin Tankleff is appealing a decision that denied his motion to vacate two judgments from the same court that convicted him of murder in the second degree.

Case Facts

On the 7th of September, 1988, Seymour and Arlene Tankleff were attacked fatally in their home located in Belle Terre, New York. A New York Criminal Lawyer said when the police arrived at the scene of the crime, the defendant, who is the son of the victims and was 17 years old at the time, repeatedly told the police that his father’s business partner, Jerard Steuerman committed the murders.