Articles Posted in Uncategorized

In this case, the court granted the appellant’s motion for a stay of the temporary injunction issued by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said respondents were the owners and operators of a motion picture theatre which has been showing the film, ‘I Am Curious (Yellow).’ They were indicted by the Suffolk County Grand Jury for possessing with intent to exhibit an obscene film in violation of Mass.Gen.Laws, c. 272, § 28A. Subsequently, respondents brought an action in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts to enjoin future prosecutions for the showing of ‘I Am Curious (Yellow)’ and to declare that prosecution and the Massachusetts statute unconstitutional.

The indictments were then dismissed, and new indictments were thereafter returned. Respondent’s request for a temporary injunction barring the second prosecution was denied by the District Court. Respondents were convicted of the state obscenity offense.

The plaintiff in this case is the Banco Nacional Ultramarino. The defendants in the case are Maria F. Chan et al. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in New York County. Justice Lorraine Miller is overhearing the case.

Case Introduction

This case deals with complex financial transactions in the amount of $6,580,150 in stolen funds from the plaintiff (white collar crime). The transactions spread across four continents, U.S. Secret Service, IRS, Interpol, the FBI, the United States Drug Enforcement agency, the United States Customs Service and both federal and foreign tribunals as well as banking institutions located around the world. The motion in this particular case deals with approximately $1,000,000 of the funds that are in New York.

Continue reading

Two officers of the police department were assigned to the prisoner van component and while driving in one of the avenue they saw the man with another individual. As the two walked north, the officers saw the man adjusting the right side of his waistband. The officers thus decided to follow the men as they walked around the block. A New York Criminal Lawyer said deeming the man to conduct a crime as indicative of his possession of a firearm and given what they characterized as a circuitous route, the two took in a high-crime area and decided to stop the men.

The officers approached the two men and ordered them to stop. The other officer approached the man’s companion to question him, turning his back to his companion. While the other officer approached the man to search him and removed from his right pants pocket a firearm. The two officers then arrested the man for criminal possession of a weapon.

The man was detained at the precinct and subsequently transferred to a correctional facility. Consequently, the man was indicted for criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. A Mapp hearing was held and the arresting officer testified. After the trial, the charge against the man was dismissed.

Continue reading

A man was charged with four counts of the drug crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance, four counts of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and seventh degree.

The charges contained pertaining to four sales and cocaine possession allegedly made by the man to two undercover police officers. The incident took place in a public school, a junior high school, where the man was employed as a security guard.

At the trial, the case against the man is consisted of the testimony of a detective and a police officer. The detective testified that he was assigned to the narcotics unit of the police department as an undercover police officer and he was instructed to conduct an investigation inside the public school. The investigation was done with the knowledge of the board of education which provided him with bogus credentials. The detective was identified as another person and a staff analyst for the board. According to the detective’s testimony, during the first few days at the school he became acquainted with staff members, initiated conversations about the subject of drugs with some staff members, who were under age forty, since persons of that age were more likely to be involved in drugs. The investigator first spoke to the man, who the witness knew to be a security guard. Another conversation with the security guard was done by the investigator and followed again by another person but neither one of those occasions did they discuss the subject of drugs.

A man and his girlfriend double-dated with another couple. They all went to a nightclub where they imbibed alcohol. The man got upset because he lost his stash of drugs. He went to the parking lot and searched the trunk of his car. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said when his girlfriend asked what he was doing, he lost his temper and they began arguing.

Soon after, witnesses around the parking lot heard gunshots. Thereafter, the man asked the other couple to bring his girlfriend home. He drove off from the parking lot. The police came just a few minutes after the man drove off and in the parking space his car occupied there were empty 9 millimeter shell casings.

The man drove on the wrong side of the road for about five miles and radar readings showed he was driving at 75 miles per hour. The vehicles on the road moved away from the man’s car to avoid colliding with him.

Continue reading

On August 15, 1985, a police officer on patrol, at about 2:40 in the morning, made note of the description of a car used in a robbery and gun crime. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the vehicle, that was described as a shiny, 1970s Chevrolet with chrome wheels. The suspects wanted for the robbery were only described as three black males. About ten minutes later, as the officer patrolled the area adjacent to where the robbery occurred, he observed a vehicle matching that description occupied by three black males near Fulton Avenue and North Franklin Street in Hempstead. The robbery had taken place in the Blimpie’s parking lot on Fulton Avenue just a short distance from that location. The officer watched the vehicle and the occupants for a few minutes and then he notified the radio operator that he would be stopping the car. When he stopped the car, the officer executed a full felony traffic stop and approached the car with his gun drawn. He ordered the occupants to show their hands. One of the men who was seated in the back seat, later filed a motion to suppress evidence.

Four other police officers arrived, and the scene was secured. The occupants of the car were directed to exit and keep their hands in view. The man in the back seat, exited the vehicle and was directed to one of the backup officers. A New York Criminal Lawyer said he made a spontaneous statement to that officer that he had two bags of marijuana in his pocket and that he had been selling the drugs. The officer immediately searched the man’s pockets, located $160, and five “nickel” bags of marihuana.

While the officers waited for the victims of the robbery to be brought to the scene to identify the subjects, other officers began the inventory of the vehicle prior to impound by noting the objects that were located in plain view. As the officer looked into the car, he noticed a gold chain in the car behind the front passenger seat. The item was removed and logged. The victims arrived and identified the man who had been in the backseat as the person who robbed them. The officer who had recovered the gold chain asked if one had been taken in the robbery. The victim stated that it was and upon seeing the gold chain that the officer had recovered from the car, he identified it as belonging to him.

Continue reading

A parishioner who hosted a party and the Parish Church where the party was held was summoned by a party guest who was hurt after he was attacked by an underage guests intoxicated with alcohol and marijuana, a controlled substance. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said hough the Church, as owner of the premises where the injured plaintiff was attacked, owed him a duty to keep its premises free of known dangerous conditions, which may include intoxicated guests, the Church did not host the party at which such drinking took place, but merely permitted a 20-year-old parishioner, to use its hall in exchange for a donation. Under the circumstances, the Church was not under a duty to supervise the said party or otherwise retain control of its premises. Nor can the Diocese, the hostess’ parents, who were present at the party, or another guest who allegedly was one of the few, if not the only adult at the party after the hostess’ parents left, be held liable on a common-law theory of failure to supervise intoxicated underage persons, since they were not the owners of the premises, and do not fall under any of the recognized exceptions to the common-law rule that a defendant generally has no duty to control the conduct of third persons so as to prevent them from harming others. The claims against the adult guests for negligent provision of alcohol should have been dismissed since no such cause of action exists at common law.

A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said that with regard to the plaintiffs’ statutory claims, the adults present at the party’s motions to dismiss the claims based on General Obligations Law should have been granted since it is undisputed that the guests were not charged for the beer served at the party. The said law states that any person who shall be injured in person, property, means of support or otherwise, by reason of the intoxication or impairment of ability of any person under the age of twenty-one years, whether resulting in his death or not, shall have a right of action to recover actual damages against any person who knowingly causes such intoxication or impairment of ability by unlawfully furnishing to or unlawfully assisting in procuring alcoholic beverages for such person with knowledge or reasonable cause to believe that such person was under the age of twenty-one years .

The claim based on General Obligations Law was properly dismissed since it did not sell alcohol to the persons who assaulted the plaintiff. As against the Church, the claim would not be viable even if it knew that there would be beer at the party, and was properly dismissed upon a record establishing that the Church did not play an indispensable role in making the beer available to the underage persons on its premises. Similarly, the claim was properly dismissed as against the Diocese, whose alleged liability appears to be wholly derivative of the Church’s, and as against the hostess’ parents upon a record establishing they were passive participants who merely knew of the underage drinking and did nothing else to encourage it. However, the claim was properly sustained as against the party hostess since she both procured and furnished the beer and as against the adult guest in view of the conflicting deposition testimony as to whether he assisted in procuring the beer. A Nassau Drug Possession Lawyer said that the claim against him based on General Obligations Law should have been dismissed because alcohol is not a controlled substance, and there is no evidence that he sold or assisted in procuring the marijuana consumed by the defendant who confessed to the criminal assault.

Continue reading

James Barbour, an established Broadway actor, was charged with the sexual assault on a a 15-year-old girl in 2001. His attorney, Ronald P. Fischetti, filed a petition on his behalf challenging an order from the Supreme Court which prohibited the defense from publishing the victim’s name in order to investigate her credibility.

A New York Sex Crime Lawyer said that the complaint was first filed against Barbour on April 4, 2006. On October 30, 2006, he was indicted on charges of third degree sexual abuse and committing a criminal sexual act in the third degree. His arraignment hearing was scheduled for December 6, 2006. The day before the arraignment, the District Attorney’s office gave information about the case to the New York Post and the New York Daily News. The news coverage that followed painted Barbour in a negative light and described the alleged sex crimes involved. Both newspaper articles included a telephone number and encouraged anyone with similar complaints about Barbour to call. The day after the articles were published, the New York Post reported that another girl had come forward to claim that Barbour had engaged in improper sexual conduct with her when she was 13.

A New York Sex Crime Lawyer said that on December 20, 2006, the Assistant District Attorney asked the court to direct all parties involved to refrain from making comments to the media about the case. Barbour’s criminal defense lawyer proposed setting up another telephone number for men who had been falsely accused by the most recent victim. The court granted the prosecution’s motion and directed the defense to avoid publishing the victim’s name in order to identify other men she may have made false claims against.

Continue reading

A former sheriff’s deputy from King County, Washington, was arrested in Arkansas. The arrest came as part of an investigation that was prompted when the former deputy applied for a job with an Arkansas Sheriff’s Office narcotics task force.

The former deputy had resigned from his post in Washington in order to move closer to his family in Arkansas. However, prior to his resignation, he was already under investigation in Washington State for first-degree theft, which stipulated that he had kept drugs that were assigned to him as a training tool for his K-9 partner. After the former deputy had applied for the Arkansas position, the U.S. Marshals were then notified to assist in the investigation due to the Washington State charges there were pending.

The King County Sheriff’s Office told NY City Criminal Lawyers that they take their position of trust seriously, and once it was learned that the narcotics was unaccounted for that they began an investigation immediately. The Sheriff’s Office spokesperson went on to add that the public trust means everything to them.

Two men were arrested in Bishopville, MD, on Saturday, sources revealed. The police report indicates that neither the passenger nor the driver of the vehicle would give their names to the police after they stopped the vehicle. Maryland State Police troopers stopped the vehicle after it was allegedly observed at about 11:18 a.m. Saturday morning going 80 mph in a 55 zone.

As troopers began their investigation following the traffic stop, they soon discovered that the driver did not have a legal driving license and nether of the men had any form of identification on their person. Officers were also unable to discover any form of vehicle registration or proof of insurance.

Further exasperating the situation, both men gave troopers fake names, and the driver had actually provided troopers with a second fake name as well. A NY Criminal Lawyer was also made aware that the driver was arrested for DWI after he failed field sobriety tests. Troopers have probable cause to perform these tests due to the odor of an alcoholic beverage as the driver exhaled. The passenger had also thrown beer cans out of the window as officers approached. After a brief foot chase, the passenger was taken into custody.