New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

Published on: February 19, 2012

Court Decides Whether Defendant Will Attend Sex Offender Program

by Stephen Bilkis

Sex crime violators are very rampant these days according to a New York Criminal Lawyer who once gathered surveys and studies about it. The factors that led to this are way too many to mention but what is important is that there are solutions and programs provided to help even the offenders to pay for what they have done or be treated if it was found out to be some kind of mental sickness. This is the same as the case here of Gonzalo Gonzales. He was fighting for his ability to complete the specific sex offender program set for him.

Based on the facts presented, it was last April 24, 2006 when the counselors from the correction program asked him to sign a form stating that he refused to take the said treatment which means failure of acknowledging his responsibility for the crime he was accused of. According to Gonzalez, he did not sign it for he never denied that responsibility for what he has done. He was very certain of himself that he did comply with the program.

The counselor Groge Pundy is responsible for screening and interviewing the sex offender program candidates. According to him who was further interviewed by Queens Criminal Lawyer, Gonzales did not take the program while still being in New York and under the custody of the state’s correctional services. One of the main requirements for the program is that the offender must be responsible to pay what’s due for the crimes he has done. If in the screening process alone, the responsibility is denied, then this just means refusal to enter the program as well.

Published on: February 19, 2012

Court Decides Issue of Probable Cause for DWI Stop

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant was charged with DWI including various traffic violations. A suppression hearing was scheduled to determine if the statements admitted for evidence were allegedly given by the defendant. The hearing will also determine if the breath test results of the defendant will be placed under suppression.

The only witness in the hearing was the police officer who arrested the defendant for driving while intoxicated. The court was tasked to make a decision regarding the motion to suppress by reviewing the facts and the precedents of the case.

According to a New York Crirminal Lawyer, the police officer who arrested the defendant is an experienced female officer who already had several DWI arrests under her belt. On the day of the arrest, the female officer was on her usual patrol when she pulled over the defendant’s car. When the officer approached the car, she asked to see the license and registration. While the defendant produced the needed documents, the officer asked the defendant if he knew why she asked him to pull over. The defendant remarked that he was driving like an asshole.

Published on: February 18, 2012

Court Rules on Cocaine Possession Case

by Stephen Bilkis

According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, 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 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.

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 18, 2012

Court Orders Mental Health Treatmet For Sex Offender

by Stephen Bilkis

Every New York Sex Crime Lawyer these days finds a way to lessen the number of sex crimes that have been happening in our society. And one of the many effective strategies that can be done include informing citizens of how such proceedings go just like in the discussions of cases like this. This involves the case of a sex crime offender hidden behind the name of Robert V. It was in July of 2010 that the Attorney General of the State of New York ordered that he be detained and he should be supervised in a Mental Health facility for his treatment.

He was expected to continue being supervised by the office of Mental Health of New York after he has completed his sentence. It was in February of the following year that Robert filed his complaint saying that he was not convicted of a sex crime for it was never proven. And hence his robbery is not at all sexually motivated when he has done it in the past. He thinks that the need to get into a mental health facility is totally unconstitutional for it deprives him of his rights.

According to a New York Sex Crimes Lawyer, even if one crime committed seem to not be sexual, it can still fall under that if it belongs to a list of crimes included under the SORA or SOMTA law in New York. In this case of Robert, there were clear an solid evidences presented in court and that it was proven that he is a frequent sex offender. Such repetitions in sex crimes are great proof that there is something not normal with the behavior or mental status of the accused.

Published on: February 18, 2012

Sex Offenders Display Early Signs of Mental Illness

by Stephen Bilkis

When you ask an expert New York Criminal Lawyer these days, it is common to hear that most sex offenders suffer from severe mental abnormality or disease. To help you further understand this, we take a good example of this case of John Suggs. He is a known detained sex offender who suffers gravely from being mentally abnormal. During his trial, two expert psychologists presented in court to prove and offer their opining that John truly suffers from mental abnormality. The doctors are named as Dr. Krishner and Dr. Peterson.

One of the doctors rendered a summary report that described his childhood, teenager and adult history when it comes to history of trauma and abuse. It was outlined comprehensively as they recount all the helpful things that may have happened in the past of the accused. As a child, it was discovered that he was not taken good care of by his parents. At the young age of three, he was already wandering the streets and since then has become such a great rebel in school and even in the immediate community he was in.

According to another New York Criminal Lawyer, he also once set fire to a dormitory and even was convicted of the death of his own mother at one point. He even attempted to commit suicide at the young age of 11 by thinking of drinking mercury straight from a thermometer. It was at the age of 1 when he committed his first rape case. He kidnapped a female college student by pointing a knife straight at her and raped and stole some money from her in a room. The lawyer who once studied this case believes that this is such a case of extreme mental abnormality.

Published on: February 18, 2012

Court Rules in Sex Crime Case Where Victim was a Minor

by Stephen Bilkis

Frank Grady was indicted for two counts of third degree sodomy upon a victim identified as J.P; three counts of third degree sodomy upon a victim identified as C.V.; and one count of second degree sexual abuse against a victim identified as L.G. The third degree sodomy counts were classified as E felonies and the sexual abuse count as a Class A misdemeanor. The counts were all categorized as statutory in nature due to the ages of the victims, who were 16, 14 and 13, respectively.

Mr. Grady’s criminal defense attorney filed a motion with the Albany County Court to dismiss the indictment because of insufficient evidence. According to Section 130.16 of the New York Penal code, a person cannot be convicted of consensual sodomy, attempted consensual sodomy or similar sex crimes that includes lack of consent as an element if the failure to consent stems solely from the victim’s age. In cases of sexual abuse, molestation or other sex crimes involving an underage victim, the child’s testimony must be supported by additional evidence to prove that sexual contact occurred or was attempted. Essentially, the defense argued that the victim’s testimony should not be considered sufficient on its face value to render an indictment since they were all underage when the alleged sex crimes occurred.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that the court held that the defense’s arguments were illogical and noted that in common law, testimony offered by victims in sex offense cases was not required to be corroborated. The requirement for corroboration of victim testimony was fairly new at the time of Mr. Grady’s trial and applied to cases involving forcible or statutory sodomy.

Published on: February 18, 2012

Court Decides DWI Case

by Stephen Bilkis

According to a New York DWI Lawyer, the defendant has filed a motion to deny the request made by the prosecution that he should be sentenced as a felony offender for the first time. The defendant had given a guilty plea for attempting to sell illegal drugs. The defendant was convicted for assault charges which he admitted he was guilty. He was sentenced to a prison term of at least one or one and half years. The maximum sentence is four years. The defendant has already admitted that he was the same defendant who was initially charged for the first felony. The defendant has challenged the conviction made in his second conviction. The defendant contends that he received ineffective counsel from his lawyer.

The defendant presented a memorandum to support his motion. The letter memorandum contained an outline of the defendant’s case. It also includes information that the defendant had informed his lawyer about the facts of his alleged offenses. These offenses were the basis of his current assault conviction.

A New York DWI Lawyer said that the defendant further contends that his previous lawyer failed to present a DWI defense during his previous conviction. The defendant also challenged the prosecution that his guilty plea should be removed from the records since he was denied the effective counsel assistance. To support this statement, the defendant has submitted a letter from that lawyer who affirms the circumstances that are relevant to his guilty plea. The prosecution has opposed the motion of the defendant and filed a motion for the court to sentence him for his second felony conviction. It has been noted by the court that the defendant did not submit to a letter from the previous case’s lawyer that should have explained the circumstances involved.

Published on: February 18, 2012

Court Decides Drug Case

by Stephen Bilkis

Two adult men appealed from judgments of a state court convicting them after a joint trial of the drug crimes of sale of a dangerous drug and marijuana possession and sentencing each of them to seven years imprisonment.

According to a New York Drug Crime Lawyer, one of the accused argued on appeal that the court had previously accepted a plea of guilty to the lesser crime of attempted criminal possession of a dangerous drug, a Class E felony, to cover the entire indictment; that thereafter, the court unilaterally set aside that plea and directed a trial upon which the defendants were convicted of the Class C felony for which they were indicted and for which they have now been sentenced. In essence, they assert a claim of double jeopardy.

Sources, however, showed that during the joint trial the accused applied to withdraw his plea of guilty and the court granted that application, and this was the understanding of all at the time. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said it is apparent that the court thought that the defendant was moving to withdraw his plea and not that the court was acting unilaterally.

Published on: February 17, 2012

Court Rules on Sex Crimes Case

by Stephen Bilkis

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.

Published on: February 17, 2012

Court Rules of Complex Drug Possession Case

by Stephen Bilkis

According to a New York Drug Crime Lawyer , a 33-year old man was indicted by a jury and charged with marijua posssession. Court records showed that the defendant was a second felony offender but not a violent offender. During the course of plea negotiations, the defendant was offered by the State a plea to a B felony in satisfaction of the indictment with a minimum sentence of four and a half years to nine years in state prison. Prior to defendant’s plea, the New York State Legislature passed the Drug Law Reform Act, which was signed into law in 2004.

The People took the plea with a minimum sentence but the sole issue in contention is, what is the minimum state prison sentence now allowed by law given the passage of the new law.

A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said that the defense attorney argued that the newly enacted DLRA should be applied retroactively and authorized not only a plea to a B felony reduction from an A-I felony but also the appropriate sentence should be a three and a half year determinate prison term with postrelease supervision set by the court at a determinate time of the minimum of one and a half years to a maximum of three years.