New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

Published on: February 22, 2012

Court Rules on Defendant’s Second DWI

by Stephen Bilkis

In this DWI case, the defendant has formerly entered a guilty plea to the charge of driving while intoxicated. The guilty plea of the defendant was found to be satisfactory for other charges like resisting arrest and the failure to undergo a sobriety test. Following the arraignment, the legal counsel of the defendant had filed several motions.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the motions filed were subsequently contested until a hearing to establish probable cause was scheduled. However, the hearing did not push through on that date. The matter was dismissed later on. On the same day, a conference before the trial was held in chambers with counsels also appearing. During the conference, the prosecution offered the defendant to make a guilty plea on his charges to reduce his sentence if convicted.

Before taking the plea offer of the prosecution, the court advised the defendant of his constitutional right to appear before the jury and stand on trial. The court also advised him that the prosecution had the burden of finding evidence against him. This means that the jury must be unanimous in convicting the defendant.

Published on: February 22, 2012

Court Resolves Custody Issue Surrounding DWI Arrest

by Stephen Bilkis

According to a New York DWI Lawyer, an alcoholic father appealed that the court should grant him full custody of his child without any visitation rights to the mother. The mother was granted sole legal and physical custody with visitation to the father. The couple had been before the Family Court on numerous occasions in the course of which the father’s alcohol dependency had been a factor in visitation. He had previously been ordered to successfully complete alcohol treatment before unsupervised visitation would be allowed and was prohibited from consuming alcohol for 24 hours prior to or during visitation.

A few months after the order was entered, another series of proceedings were commenced between the couple after the mother refused to turn the child over for visitation one afternoon because the father showed up visibly intoxicated. The incident prompted the father to file violation and modification of custody petitions. The mother, in turn, filed a modification petition alleging that the father was once again consuming alcohol on a regular basis and seeking, among other relief, to suspend visitation pending successful alcohol treatment and a family offense petition, alleging that the father made repeated threats to remove the child from the state. In her modification petition, the mother also noted that the father had recently been arrested on another alcohol-related offense.

A New York DWI Lawyer said that based on records, the Family Court dismissed the father’s petitions for failure of proof and modified the prior order by directing him to undergo alcohol treatment and permitting supervised visitation on the condition of his active engagement in such treatment. It also denied a motion for a new trial.

Published on: February 21, 2012

Court Rules on Drug Possession Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

Several police officers were charged with various crimes arising out of their conduct in connection with their search for a lost police radio. According to a New York Drug Crime Lawyer, the records of the case, the police officers went to two apartments to pursue a lead regarding the radio. The radio had been lost during an arrest related to a drug crime in the area several days earlier. The records said the police officers pushed their way into two apartments, ransacking both, and unlawfully detained the individuals encountered within the apartments. In searching the second apartment, the police officers discovered vials of crack coccaine and threatened the occupants therein that they would be charged with coccaine possession if the radio were not promptly returned. The police officers allegedly told the apartment occupants that they would “forget” about the drugs if the radio was returned. Administrative proceedings were then commenced against the police officers by conducting hearings.

Following a jury trial, each police officer was found guilty of unlawful imprisonment, coercion, criminal trespass, and official misconduct. Two of the officers were also convicted of falsifying business records. Prior to sentencing, the police officers moved to set aside the verdict alleging improper use of their statements in connection with the indictment and trial.

A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said that among the numerous issues raised on appeal, the police officers challenged the sufficiency of the trial evidence, the cour’ts charge on unlayful imprisonment, alleged inconsistencies in jury verdict and the court’s restriction on cross-examination of certain witnesses. Each of the police officers gave similar statements essentially denying any wrongdoing. The policemen testified in court that they saw one of the occupants of the apartment in the alley and he dropped the cocaine when he saw the police officers. One of the policemen said he has arrested the same person for marijuana possession prior to the incident.

Published on: February 21, 2012

Court Rules on Sex Crimes Case

by Stephen Bilkis

Whether or not the sex crime committed is way too harsh or not, it is important to handle it well especially with the help of an expert legal counsel. It is a fact that our modern society today is filled with a lot of sex crime offenders not just due to personal deficiencies but also triggered by the advance media especially with the onset of online technology. This particular case that was tackled by a New York rape lawyer can be very educational especially when you find it too difficult to understand such crimes committed.

The case involves a Mark S. as the appellant whose case was related to the Mental Hygiene Law article 10 by the court which handled it. He is considered to be a very dangerous sex offender that he was sent to a treatment facility for further observation. To add more, Mark also was convicted already in the past with two rape cases that involved him implementing force in touching three victims, all females. He was only 23 when he was charged rape right on the third degree already. According to a New York sex with minor defense lawyer, he was also guilty of endangering the life of a child for having sexual encounter with a minor female who was only 17 years old then or even younger than that.

The New York Criminal Lawyer who once helped in the case by gathering facts, the victim herself said that she consented on having a relationship with the accused. But things turned out differently when she was always forced to have sex with him even when there are times it was totally against her will. Of course, Mark pushed on the legalities of their relationship but the lawyers defended that it was still illegal. He also said that he has the knowledge she was 17 but not anymore younger than that.In another scenario, same accused was charged of touching an 18-year-old employee by force as he simply gabbed her most sensitive parts.

Published on: February 21, 2012

Court Rules on Rape Case

by Stephen Bilkis

Sex crimes cases are the crimes that many wish would really go down in numbers these days. This is because majority of the victims of these cases are the women and the minors. This particular case is about Webster L. Chapman who was convicted of sex offenses that deal with a minor. The incidents happened last 2006 in the months of March and February. The victim involved was the cousin of the defendant who was 17 years old then. The rest of the convictions included vandalism acts in the home of Joan Osbourne who used to be the mother in law of Webster. It happened during the time when his former wife and three kids were still residing there.

According to the New York Criminal Lawyer who studied the case, there are no solid evidence presented for the convictions of rape he was accused of. The testimony of the victim did not straightly say that there were physical force dealt on her for it all started when she was just lying in bed and he started touching her in the most sensitive parts of her body. At first, the victim said that it was somehow consensual. But when the time came that she wanted to stop already, he forced himself on her still.

The victim also said to another NYC Criminal Lawyer who was part of the team that she has attempted to leave the house for a lot of times already but still returned on her own liking. She said that the accused can be way too loud and mean especially when it is under the influence of alcohol. There were also threats coming from Chapman on several occasions when she would refuse to have sex with her. If the court would just base its judgment from these testimonies, then it truly is not sufficient to win the case against the accused.

Published on: February 21, 2012

Defendant Challenges Sex Offender Rating

by Stephen Bilkis

It is common to find with any sex crimes that the offender appeals to the court of lessening the risk level category that they were assigned to in going through the treatment program for their benefit. This case of Allan Barnes, the offender,who takes issue to his being rated as a level three offender. It was clear that he never denied the physical injury he has done to his victim like scars and stitches on the victim’s lip and legs. Not to mention the memory problems she has suffered from due to the head injuries Allan inflicted too.

It was just a bit weird how he never denies this but keeps on telling the court that all these may have just been hearsay for the absence of convincing proof. It is more uncomfortable to unravel that despite his challenge on the judgment, he did not present any other version of the facts, at least his very own. A New York Criminal Lawyer said such proceedings are suggested by the court for the protection of the rest of the citizens of the community.

It is likely that a sex crime offender may reoffend again. The court does not deprive the offender to present any evidence that would not limit him in fighting for his own rights and for the greater interest of his liberty. When basing on the criminal background of the criminal, he has been an offender since his younger days charged with a burglary case. In Georgia, he was also once convicted of a drug possession way back in the early 80s. It was also interesting according to a New York child pornography lawyer who also studied this appeal that he was also once involved in a case for cruelty to animals.

Published on: February 21, 2012

Court Rules on DWI Case

by Stephen Bilkis

A motion was filed by the defendant to declare the evidence presented by the police officer as inadmissible. The court denied the motion since the police officer had reasonable reason when he approached the defendant’s vehicle, according to a New York DWI Lawyer.

According to the officer, he saw the vehicle of the defendant parked along the crosswalk and approached it. The officer noted that the vehicle had people asleep inside. The officer woke the occupants of the car and asked for identification. He noted that the driver showed signs of intoxication such as glassy eyes and slurred speech. The officer asked the driver to take the sobriety test.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that the officer in this case had probable cause to arrest the defendant if he was found to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol. According to the analysis of the court, the questions of the police officer were not interrogative in nature. Since this was the case, Miranda warnings are not required. During the arraignment of the defendant, he was charged with operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or DWI.

Published on: February 21, 2012

Evidence Questioned in DWI Case

by Stephen Bilkis

A man was arrested for DWI (Driving While Intoxicated) by a New York State trooper while on patrol in the City of Rome. The trooper observed a Chevrolet weaving within its lane and ½ car lengths into the other lane. The weather conditions were dry at that time. As the trooper proceeded westerly onto Rabbit Road he observed no violations, but after the vehicle turned left, he observed the vehicle go over into the other lane upon curves, and went over the center line once. The vehicle then proceeded where it was stopped at the direction of the officer. The testimony did not indicate at which time the defendant entered the City of Rome. Aside from the driver, there were two other occupants in the vehicle. The trooper approached the driver, identified as being the defendant, and noticed an average odor of alcohol upon his breath. The trooper asked the defendant to produce a license and registration which he did and then grabbed a cigarette from the passenger in the back seat.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the trooper asked the defendant to step out of the vehicle so that he could ask him questions. Upon stepping out of the vehicle, the defendant used the door for support. The trooper then asked the defendant where he had been drinking and he responded that he drank in a bar. The trooper also asked him how much had he drunk and the defendant replied that he drank only one and added that he had a couple of beers and shots. He was asked where he was coming from and replied that he went to a funeral before going to a friend’s place.

The defendant’s license identified him. The trooper then asked if he would perform certain field sobriety tests to which the defendant agreed. The trooper conducted a horizontal gaze nystagmus test and stated his background and experience in conducting such tests. A proper foundation was laid for conducting the test for field sobriety purposes. A walk and turn test was conducted but the defendant lost his balance twice by using his arms, did not walk heel-to-toe, made a wrong turn, and walked off the line. The defendant failed the one-leg-stand test by putting his leg down, and a sufficient foundation was established primarily through the cross-examination. On the finger-to-nose test the defendant missed his nose once. An alcohol sensor test was conducted to determine any consumption of alcohol and it was positive for such.

Published on: February 21, 2012

Court Rules on Vehicuclar Manslaughter Case

by Stephen Bilkis

A driver from New York appealed when he was convicted of the crimes of vehicular manslaughter in the second degree and two counts of DWI (driving while intoxicated) and the traffic infraction of failure to keep right.

In tne early morning, following an evening of drinking at a bar, the defendant commenced driving his car with one passenger in the front and the victim, who was acutely intoxicated in the back seat. Shortly afterwards, the defendant was involved in a single vehicle accident, in which his car struck a guide rail, crossed the road and went into a ditch. Although the front seat passengers were not seriously injured, the one seated at the back died. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the pathologist who conducted the autopsy concluded the cause of death was Aspiration gastric contents due to Concussion. A jury found the defendant guilty on all four counts. His subsequent sentence included a prison term, a fine and restitution for vehicular manslaughter, one year in jail on each of the driving while intoxicated counts, and a fine for failure to keep right. All the prison terms were concurrent.

Records revealed that the defendant argues that his conviction of vehicular manslaughter in the second degree was not supported by legal sufficient evidence. When analyzing legal sufficiency, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution and determine whether there is a valid line of reasoning for a rational jury to have found beyond a reasonable doubt each of the essential elements of the crime. Vehicular manslaughter in the second degree is comprised of criminally negligent homicide in which the death is caused by an operator who is driving while intoxicated. The defendant contends that the evidence failed to establish criminal negligence and failed to show that his conduct caused the victim’s death.

Published on: February 21, 2012

Court Rules in Husband and Wife DWI Case

by Stephen Bilkis

This legal action is filed against a restaurant by a husband who seeks to recover damages for injuries he sustained in a vehicular accident. His wife was driving while intoxicated and lost control of the vehicle. He claimed that the restaurant violated a general obligation law because his wife’s intoxication resulted from the restaurant’s serving the alcoholic drink, according to a New York Criminal Lawyer.

The restaurant move for a legal action to terminate the complaint filed to them on the ground that the husband purchased the alcoholic beverages for his wife and thus has no cause of action against them based on a violation of the general obligation law. In support of their action, the restaurant relied on the statement and testimony of the couple.

According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, at around 10 to 10:30 p.m., the couple consumed a bottle of beer from another restaurant then went home. Afterwards, the couple then went to the restaurant which they summoned. The couple arrived at approximately 11:00 p.m. The husband bought beers for his wife and they both drank at least four to five bottles of it. They left the said restaurant at about 1:30 a.m. and the wife was the one driving the vehicle. As they were proceeding north, the car went out of control, crossed over to the opposite bound lane and jumped on a guard rail. The husband sustained serious injuries in the accident.