Uncategorized

Published on: February 16, 2012

Defendant was Arrested by the Police for Alleged Robbery

by Stephen Bilkis

On January 22, 1979, a man was arrested by the police for robbing a local bank. He was put on trial for this three times. The first time, he was found guilty, but the court reversed the judgment because there was a mistake in the charge to the jury. The second time, the jury could not come up with a decision and a mistrial was declared. The third time, he was found guilty again. The defendant then appealed to the Court of Appeals.

The main issue that the Court debated on was if there was enough evidence to show that the defendant was guilty of first degree robbery. Majority decided that there was enough to show that he was guilty. They voted to affirm the decision of the last trial. Justice O’Connor however, disagreed. He argued that there was an issue of misidentification, an error on the court’s (court during the last trial) part, a violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights, and that the testimonies presented by the prosecution were unreliable.

Published on: February 15, 2012

On July 29, 1991, a man was found guilty of third degree robbery

by Stephen Bilkis

On July 29, 1991, a man was found guilty of third degree robbery, fourth degree grand larceny, and fifth degree criminal possession of stolen property by the Trial Court. He appealed for a review of the case and to have the charge of third degree robbery removed.

According to the defense and the prosecution, the most important thing that should be considered is the testimony of the victim. There were no witnesses to the robbery. According to the victim, she was walking along the street, with the handle of her handbag wrapped around her fingers. Suddenly, she felt a tug on the hand holding the bag. When she turned to look, her handbag was gone. However, she did not see or hear anyone. Neither was she pushed to the ground or hurt. The suspect was caught later with the handbag. One end of the handbag’s strap was broken.

Published on: February 14, 2012

Mark H. Dewine was arrested for sex crimes in Wyoming

by Stephen Bilkis

Mark H. Dewine was arrested for sex crimes in Wyoming, his home state after he had inappropriate sexual contact with one child under the age of 11 and another under the age of 14. Mr. Dewine was arrested in Wyoming and served his incarceration in that state. Upon his release, he was placed on active parole in the state of Wyoming. At the time that Mr. Dewine was on probation in Wyoming, New York passed the Sex Offender Registration Act known as SORA

On January 21, 1996, the Sex Offender Registration Act went into effect in New York. The Sex Offender Registration Act requires that persons convicted of certain crimes that are sexually motivated must register with the state. The Sex Offender Registration Act applies to all sex offenders in the state of New York who were incarcerated, on parole, or on probation at the time that the law became effective.

Published on: February 13, 2012

This offense took place in the presence of his children

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant, Jose Bermejo, represented by Tamara Harris, a Lawyer, was indicted in August of 2008 for raping his wife, Blanca Mizhquiri. This offense took place in the presence of his children. During the assault, Mr. Bermejo demanded sex from his wife and she refused. Mr. Bermejo then proceeded to punch, slap, bite, pull her hair, threaten her, and forcibly have sexual contact with her. Mr. Bermejo was found guilty of the offenses.

Before Mr. Bermejo was sentenced, he filed a motion with the Courts through his lawyer, Ms. Tamara Harris to set aside the guilty verdict. The Court denied the motion on July 20, 2009. On July 27, 2009 Mr. Bermejo was sentenced to 90 days in jail for Forcible Touching and one year each term on Assault and Endangering the Welfare of a child. These sentences were to be served concurrently. Mr. Bermejo asked the Court to vacate his conviction.

Published on: February 11, 2012

This decision refers to two separate cases for criminal crack cocaine possession

by Stephen Bilkis

This decision refers to two separate cases for criminal crack cocaine possession and criminal possession of drug paraphernalia which occurred in separate incidents, involving two separate and distinct defendants. They were charged separately and were tried separately but the appeals are here resolved jointly because of similarity of issues.

In the first case, two police officers were in the vicinity of Broadway when they saw a speeding car with its tires screeching. Pedestrians on the crosswalk jumped and ran back to the curb so as not to be hit by the speeding car. The two police officers chased the car and pulled the car over.

Published on: February 10, 2012

Incarcerated offenders often apply to the Supreme Court

by Stephen Bilkis

Incarcerated offenders often apply to the Supreme Court to have their convictions overturned. In order for the Supreme Court to hear a case, it must be a case that involves an issue of law or of constitutional significance. If a person has been incarcerated and they believe that their case qualifies for Supreme Court review, they can submit a motion to the court to be heard.

One such case involved a defendant who was convicted of felony charges in connection with two narcotic sales that he made to undercover New York State Police Investigators. The defendant alleges that the Rensselaer County Court made a mistake in denying his motion to suppress his identification as the subject who sold the drugs. He contends that the photo array that was presented to the officers was unduly prejudicial.

Published on: February 9, 2012

In drug cases, the City of New York is entitled to seize an impounded vehicle

by Stephen Bilkis

In drug cases, the City of New York is entitled to seize an impounded vehicle that has been used in a drug operation. They must, however show that the vehicle that is being seized is not co-owned by someone who is innocent of any wrongdoing. That co-owner must be given an opportunity to demonstrate that his or her ownership of a seized vehicle outweighs the City’s interest in seizing it.

In one particular case, a couple purchased a 2002 Mitsubishi Montero. They purchased the vehicle in March of 2002 and have made monthly payments of $600 drawn on a joint checking account to pay off the vehicle. In December of 2004 when the vehicle was seized, it had a fair market value of $16,000.00.

Published on: February 8, 2012

In a domestic violence case, the victim’s information is kept confidential

by Stephen Bilkis

In a domestic violence case, the victim’s information is kept confidential. In this case, a not-for-profit corporation that houses victims of domestic refused to provide the address and telephone number of one victim when asked by a court to produce such in relation to a domestic violence case the victim filed against her partner. The victim’s partner is charged with various felonies arising from domestic assault.

According to the non-profit corporation, Social Services Law prohibits the release of the actual address where the victim is being sheltered. The non-profit corporation also asserted that the information sought is also shielded by a common-law victim-counselor privilege.

Published on: February 7, 2012

The paramount consideration with respect to a change of custody determination must be the best interests of the child

by Stephen Bilkis

The paramount consideration with respect to a change of custody determination must be the best interests of the child. A home environment of constant fear where physical or psychological violence is the means of control and the norm for the resolution of disputes must be contrary to the best interests of a child.

A 30-year old man filed a petition in court seeking custody of his son alleging that the son’s mother is mentally ill and mentally abusive to their son. The mother asserted that she has had de facto custody of the child since birth and she has provided him with a stable home. The mother also said the father was criminally abusive.

Published on: February 6, 2012

On June 19, 1997 two twin boys were born in the Dominican Republic

by Stephen Bilkis

On June 19, 1997 two twin boys were born in the Dominican Republic. Their mother was tormented by their father. She moved to the house of her mother and filed for a protection order in the Dominican Republic. She then took steps to move her residency and her boys to the United States. She left her boys with her mother while she went to New York to establish residency. While she was gone, her ex-husband filed a custody order with the Dominican Court System claiming that she had abandoned the boys and left the country. The mother agreed to a temporary custody arrangement that would enable the boys to live with their father until she had established residency in New York.

When she returned to the Dominican Republic to visit the boys, she found out about the custody procedure that the father had initiated claiming that she had abandoned her boys. At that hearing, even though, the mother filed an appeal, the boys were given to their father with full custody.