New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

Published on: February 29, 2012

Probable Cause Questioned in DWI Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant was charged with violation of traffic laws because he was driving while under the influence of alcohol. The court conducted a hearing to determine if the defendant’s three separate statements have any legal implication.

In this DWI case, there are three different statements being deliberated. In the first statement of the defendant, she had said that she had a fight with a male friend since she was too intoxicated to driver her vehicle. The statement also indicated that she had 2 drinks. The second statement was allegedly given by the defendant after she was arrested by the police. In that second statement, she claimed that she only took one drink at her friend’s house and was heading to another destination. The third statement said that the defendant had three drinks and was about to go to her friend’s house.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that the three statements are obviously in conflict with one another. The only witness to this case was the police officer who arrested the defendant. According to the officer’s statement, he and his partner were patrolling their usual route. The officers received a radio call and proceeded to respond to a dispute between drivers on the road. They went to the location of the dispute. When the police officers had arrived at the scene, the lead officer noticed the three people who seemed to be arguing. The woman, who was also the driver of the vehicle, was identified as the defendant.

Published on: February 28, 2012

Court Decides Probable Cause for DWI Arrest

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant in this case was charged with DWI and violation of traffic laws. Upon receiving all statements of the parties involved, the court has scheduled a hearing to determine if the statements made by the defendant should be admissible as evidence.

According to the case files, the defendant gave an initial statement to the police regarding the circumstances of his traffic violations. The defendant first drank four beers before moving on to another place to take two more beers. The defendant then proceeded to drive home. He got out of his car sometime later and walked home instead. The defendant further told the police that he was driving his car home when he the police car approaching. It was during that time that he got out of the car and ran away to walk home.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said he police officer was named the only witness in this case. According to his statement, he and his partner were on their usual patrol but they were not in uniform. The police officer was driving an unmarked car. While patrolling, they received a radio call that a suspicious-looking car was parked along the side of the road. The police officer then proceeded to the direction of the reported vehicle.

Published on: February 28, 2012

Court Decides DWI Case Where Weapons Were Involved

by Stephen Bilkis

The respondent in this case had a license to carry firearms. The same license was suspended by order of the court. All guns owned by the respondent were to be turned over to the sheriff’s department pending the hearing of the case. The permit to carry firearms was reinstated after the proceeding of a DWI charge.

The court was tasked to determine the circumstances leading to the arrest of the respondent. According to the witness who was also the arresting officer, he arrived at the house of the respondent as back up. The officer had responded to a call made on the emergency hotline involving a dispute between a husband and wife. When the officer spoke to the husband and also the respondent in this case, the respondent said that it was his wife’s fault. The respondent claimed that his wife assaulted him. He did not do anything to his wife. The officer noted the behaviour of the respondent as uncooperative. The respondent kept on telling the officer to get out of the house.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that the officer also noted that respondent showed signs of intoxication. The officer arrested the respondent for his disorderly behaviour. During the investigation of the police regarding the dispute, the respondent kept on harassing his wife and the officers present. Upon arrest, the respondent was brought to the court to be arraigned. The respondent continued to be in an unruly mood while inside the premises of the court. The charge at this point was changed to obstruction. At the request of the respondent’s wife, the court granted an order of protection. The officer imposed the order by seizing the guns of the respondent.

Published on: February 27, 2012

Court Rules on DWI of Underage Driver

by Stephen Bilkis

Two state police troopers were parked at a corner when a red pick-up truck sped past the intersection. The radar in the police trooper’s patrol car registered that the vehicle was going at a speed of 65 miles per hour in a 45 miles per hour zone. The police troopers then followed the red pick-up truck and while they were right behind the red pick-up truck, the police radar was still tracking the speed of the red pick-up truck.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that then the red pick-up truck parked into the parking lot outside a bar, the police officers got out of their patrol car and asked the driver for his license and registration. They noted that the driver was only 20 years old. The officers noticed the strong smell of alcohol on the driver and his red, watery and glassy eyes. One of the officers asked the driver if he had been drinking that night and the driver said he had been drinking beer. He also stated that he knew that he should not have been drinking that night.

At this point the officers asked the driver to take sobriety tests at the parking lot. The driver was staggering and swaying when asked to stand still. He failed to follow with his eyes a pen that the officer moved in front of him. The driver succeeded in walking heel to toe in a straight line for about nine steps. But the driver could not keep his leg up to stand on just one leg without staggering or swaying. He could not recite the letters of the alphabet correctly and stopped midway. He was not given a breath analyzer test. After this, the state troopers then placed the driver under arrest for DWI.

Published on: February 27, 2012

Defendant Appeals DWI Charge for Lack of Sufficient Evidence

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant has filed an appeal for his conviction. The court found the defendant guilty of DWI. He was also found guilty of violating traffic rules and regulations. The defendant reportedly failed to stick to the right side of the road while driving and went over a hazard marking.

The court finds the defendant guilty of the DWI after he went off the rural road while driving and as a result, his car hit the telephone pole. The defendant allegedly left the scene without reporting the incident to authorities. After his trial by jury, the court sentenced him to 1 to 3 years of imprisonment. The defendant has filed a motion for appeal.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that the defendant asserted in his appeal that the proof of his intoxication while driving should be declared as legally insufficient. According to his statement, the defendant claimed that he did not become intoxicated until after his accident involving the telephone pole.

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.

Published on: February 26, 2012

Defendant charged with Bribing Witness Not to Testify

by Stephen Bilkis

Nothing can be more painful when the ones who have done the sexual crime is one of our loved ones. It all makes it worse when the victims belong in our family too. This is what a New York sex crimes lawyer wants to share to us with this case of Orlando Roman. He was accused of bribing his ex-wife to not testify in court with regards to his case of abusing his own four year old kid. Janet Roman is the mother of the kid who filed a complaint to the police about his bribe offer to not testify about the sex abuse of their own child.

Roman was offered about $15,000 for the agreement to not testify in the grand jury hearing. She questioned first about the sex abuse and rape case but he did not say anything about it. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that Roman said if the money be taken he would transfer to another state and move away from them. He almost promised that he would never be seen again as part of the incentive. He also said that the victim was just coached and that he did not do anything that have intentionally hurt the victim.

As per the findings of an expert Manhattan Criminal Lawyer, the conversation recorded would be heard out in a separate trial but it will not be admitted as part of the counts of child sex abuse whether it is consolidated or not. But such can take a big part too in the process of proving the accused guilty of the sexual abuse crime he is confronting. Money truly is played dirty just to be able to buy your freedom out or the justice that others deserve.

Published on: February 26, 2012

Court Decides Sex Crimes with Minor Case

by Stephen Bilkis

Sex crimes become all the more complicated when they are set into varying degrees according to the court. With the help of legal counsel, you can be sure to understand the consequences behind each degree and how hard the punishments that come with it. To further understand it, the case of Bruce Thompson is raised. Bruce was guilty of sexual abuse in the first degree and also of sodomy in the third degree.

The first one was his offense of forcing someone to have sexual contact with him while the other crime is engaging a minor to have sex with him. This was also researched well by a New York Criminal Lawyer who handles a lot of sex crime cases which involve minors. The defendant was fighting for the fact that there was no sufficient evidence provided against him. A certain John Gorton who was 15 years old told his story that Bruce approached him in the back of a store and talked him into a lot of things.

Eventually it was found that Bruce fooled him and said that he had stolen coins from him and that he would called a certain store owner to report him. They eventually shared a drink by the river and when the minor was completely drunk, Bruce removed the teen’s clothes and sexual intercourse happened. John only consented to it out of fear that Bruce might harm him especially with the paranoia that many kids were killed in that spot. After the incident, they walked away from the place and John ran away and went home. He asked his father and granddad to call the police.

Published on: February 26, 2012

Court Rules on Endangering Life of a Child Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

Sex crimes vary a great deal in details and the people involved in it according to a long time New York sex crime lawyer. When such crimes happen, it does not just involve men and women for it could also involve some homosexuals who are usually convicted as pedophiles. A certain case that can further explore similar details is that of Thomas Gutierrez. There was a single incident that a person he once invited to see a movie complained of sexual abuse. The other New York rape lawyers who were involved in dealing with the case referred to him as a human predator.

It was found out by another expert New York Crimnal Lawyer that Gutierrez keeps movie tickets as some kind of souvenir and memorabilia of those he abuses inside the theaters. In fact, his exact term was ‘trophy’ for a certain night which somehow means a different night out with another minor, specifically children. The way the prosecutors gave their questions was justified especially with how Gutierrez invited persistently the victims and it was fully emphasized that he is an adult already with the victims being young individuals.

As with another New York Criminal Lawyer who did a close study on the case questioned whether there was improper touching done by the accused to the victims. The complainant said that the defendant tried to put his hands on his pants but this was of course denied by Gutierrez. There may have not been enough proof but the level of guilt that the defendant showed was too overwhelming. Every credible lawyer therefore agrees with the overall judgment of the court that he did sexual abuse and has endangered the life of a child.

Published on: February 25, 2012

Court Rules on Sex Crimes Case

by Stephen Bilkis

Sex crime related cases come in unique stories of its own according to a well versed New York sex crime lawyer who has been practicing his profession for many years now. Here we talk about the case of Mustafa Rashid who was once charged for robbery, burglary, rape and sodomy. He was sentenced to eight to 16 years but was given a supervised parole after having served 11 years inside prison. After this release, unfortunately, he got into another robbery trouble again which just made everything worse for his case.

As per the facts gathered by a New York Sex Crimes Lawyer, he was sent back to prison for the violations he made. He was then again released and yet created a crime again. This happened over and over as it is one big cycle to play. He was even sent to Rikers Island where he would spend his time in a correctional facility. In this case, another lawyer involved in the research who is a New York child pornography lawyer as well believes that Rashid falls under the category of the Mental Hygiene Law. This could not work for those who are already serving their sentence but with an exception to those whose sentences have expired like Rashid.

The court then as heard by a Nassau County Sex Crimes Lawyer took the decision to send him to a treatment facility or hospital as per the Mental Hygiene Law article 9. This involves the law that any person who is mentally ill should go through proper treatment so as to not harm the society. This is just the right thing to do especially for people like Rashid who just cannot seemingly control himself from doing such crimes that hurt others and put others’ lives at risk.