New York Criminal Lawyer Blog 24/7

Published on: September 3, 2012

Court Decides Whether Bail is Appropriate for Non-Violent Drug Crimes

by Stephen Bilkis

The court in this case was tasked to determine if the defendant should be allowed bail even if he was charged with a drug crime of illegal possession and sale of drugs. As for his sentence, the defendant was given an indeterminate sentence which means he could be sent to prison for year or for the rest of his life. The defendant claimed that he should be eligible for bail under the equal rights protection law.

Under the new provisions involving reduced sentencing of defendants with first class felonies or drug crimes, the defendant should be allowed bail because they are allowed to enjoy the right of equal protection of laws. The indeterminate sentence given by the court was based on the general sanctions provided by the law.

Published on: September 2, 2012

Supreme Court Decides Sex Offender Status Level Should be Reduced

by Stephen Bilkis

On May 2, 1975, at around 4 am, a 21-year-old man along with three other men burglarized a New Rochelle home. The home was that of a man who was said to be a drug dealer. The dealer lived in the home with his wife and three daughters who were ages two, five, and seven at the time. The children were sleeping when the men broke into the home. The two younger girls were sleeping with their mother. The armed intruders wore masks and demanded money.

When the purported drug dealer said that he had no money, the intruders said that they were going to kill the children. When the purported drug dealer stated that he had no money, the intruders said that they were going to kill the children if he didn’t tell them where the money was. He still contended that he had no money. The men decided at that point that they would kidnap the two-year-old girl and hold her for ransom. The men took the mother into the bathroom and held a gun to her head and threatened to kill her if she did not tell them where the money was. She stated that she did not have any money and the men bound and gagged her. They locked her into a closet and kidnapped the two-year-old. The woman managed to get free and discovered that her baby had been taken.

Published on: September 1, 2012

Defendant Denied Right to Cross Examine Witness and Appeals

by Stephen Bilkis

In January of 1996, a man offered a woman $1,500.00 to use her apartment for a drug deal. She accepted and the man and another man moved into the woman’s apartment to wait for a large amount of heroin to be delivered from San Francisco by another man. While in the apartment, the woman saw that one of the men, the defendant, had a small caliber handgun. When the man from San Francisco who was delivering the heroin arrived in New York, the woman and two men went to his hotel.

Several days later, the defendant and the woman returned to the hotel and searched it for the heroin. When they found it, they returned to the woman’s apartment where the other men were watching television. The woman stated that she was in the living room when the defendant and the other men went into the back bedroom. They came out about 15 minutes later without the man from San Francisco. She testified later that she went in to the back bedroom and discovered the San Francisco man lying on the bed face down with blood pouring from his head. The defendant and the other two men divided the heroin among them and then convinced the woman to help them wrap the body in a rug. They dumped the body along Riverside Drive in Upper Manhattan where it was quickly found and identified.

Published on: August 31, 2012

Defendants Move to Dismiss Indictments Based on Lack of Jurisdiction

by Stephen Bilkis

In May of 2001, the defendant allegedly assaulted a woman because she had helped police with a drug investigation that involved the defendant’s brother. The investigation was multicounty in the scope and revealed a distribution network that implicated the defendant’s brother. The Attorney General’s Organized Crime Task Force appointed a District Attorney from another county who was the Assistant Deputy Attorney General for the task force as an Assistant District Attorney for this case. The defendant was charged with intimidating a witness in the second degree and assault in the third degree. The District Attorney from the other county presented the case to the Grand Jury and obtained the indictments.

The defendant moved to dismiss the indictments saying that the District Attorney from the other county was not a person authorized to present the case or to obtain indictments. The County Court dismissed the indictments in agreement with her. The State appealed the decision.

Published on: August 30, 2012

New York Court Discusses Custody Where Child is Afraid of Father

by Stephen Bilkis

In August of 1973, an orthodox Jewish woman married an orthodox Jewish man in Brooklyn, New York. They were married for 32 years and had four children. The eldest daughter was age 32 and the youngest age 13 when the couple divorced. At the time of the marriage, the husband was 22 years of age and had just graduated from college. The wife was eighteen years of age and was a high school graduate.

Over the first few years of their marriage, the father completed dental school and set up a thriving dental practice. The wife encouraged him in his career and was active within his practice. She did most of the hiring for his practice. The wife purchased the family home and decorated it. She returned to school when he was working in his practice and ultimately obtained a bachelor’s degree in education, a master’s degree, and a post-graduate degree as well as a social work certificate. On June 10, 2005, the husband was granted a divorce.

Published on: August 29, 2012

Based on Changing Circumstances Court Modifies Current Orders for Spouse

by Stephen Bilkis

On January 24, 1992 a man and a woman from Ecuador were married in Brooklyn, New York. The husband was seven years younger than his wife. She had one daughter from her previous marriage to this man’s cousin. The cousin died a few years before. The couple had two children of their own. The husband is a business and property owner, the wife was a stay at home mom. She had immigrated to the United States illegally. She would occasionally get jobs doing piece sewing in factories before most of the factories shut down. In May of 2001, the couple separated.

Family Court issued a temporary order of protection demanding that the husband not go near the wife, children, or marital home. The wife cited numerous occasions of domestic violence that have left her with memory problems and limited cognition. She reports that the daily beatings where she was yanked into walls by her hair caused permanent brain damage.

Published on: August 28, 2012

In 1992, a young man who had been born in Albania returned for a visit

by Stephen Bilkis

In 1992, a young man who had been born in Albania returned for a visit. While he was there, he met a young Albanian girl and they began to date. He returned to the United States to work and the following year went back to Albania for an additional visit. During this visit, he asked the girl to marry him and she accepted. They were married in September of 1995. After the marriage, he moved his new wife into his parents’ home and returned to the US. The following year, she gave birth to their first child, a son. The husband did not see his new son until the boy was two months old. In 2001, the husband moved his family to the US and over the next years had four more children. The youngest was born in March of 2006.

During this time, the young mother was hiding a horrible truth. She was the victim of domestic violence. It began in November of 1999 while her husband was in Albania for a visit. He became angry because his young son needed to go to the bathroom which was located in an outhouse. When the mother tried to take the boy to the bathroom, the husband became enraged. He said that the boy was lying and did not need to use the bathroom. He then grabbed the mother by her head and smashed it into a wall. She had a black eye, hearing problems, and bruises to her ear. The recovery from these injuries was several weeks. This attack occurred in front of the couple’s oldest son.

Published on: August 22, 2012

Court Decides Defendant Not a Good Candidate for Judicial Diversion Program

by Stephen Bilkis

On May 24, 2011, a Kings County, New York man was arrested during the execution of a search warrant. The search warrant was the result of an undercover investigation that covered more than four months. On 13 separate occasions, undercover police officer’s observed the man in possession of heroin and in possession of cocaine. They also observed him sell heroin and cocaine on these occasions.

The case was referred to the Brooklyn Treatment Court on August 16, 2011. The man had requested to be considered for Judicial Diversion of his case. Judicial Diversion is a program that was designed for certain felony offenders spelled out in Criminal Procedure Law Article 216. It grants the judges authority to decide which nonviolent offenders have committed their offenses as a result of substance abuse or dependence. They are then given the opportunity to avoid a jail sentence by contracting with the state to complete a court monitored treatment program.

Published on: August 19, 2012

Defendant Appeals Drug Conviction, Arguing Violation of 8th and 14th Amendments

by Stephen Bilkis

On November 7, 1974, the Supreme Court of Monroe County, New York was called upon to hear the appeal of a drug possession conviction. A New York man was convicted after a jury trial of “Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance in the First Degree based on a $5000.00 sale of cocaine, Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Fifth Degree, and Criminally Using Drug Paraphernalia in the Second Degree.” The appeal of the offender’s cocaine possession and sale case was based on the contention by the offender that the state’s statute was written in violation of the United States Constitution.

The offender claims that the punishment imposed on Class A drug felons is cruel and unusual in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The defendant argued that the sentences for drug offenses in New York are disproportionate to the offenses themselves. He sites in his behalf that other jurisdictions have lowered their mandated sentences when they were determined to be disproportionate. He contends that New York’s failure to do so makes them in violation of the United States Constitution.

Published on: August 17, 2012

Defendant Argues that Integrated Domestic Violence Court Didn’t Have Proper Jurisdiction Over His Case

by Stephen Bilkis

New York has created a system designed to streamline the problems that arise in prosecuting domestic violence cases in the court system. Historically, cases of domestic violence are often heard in several courts at the same time because of the very nature of the offenses. This is especially true if the domestic violence issue escalated through its continuation. A domestic violence case could conceivably begin as a subject violates traffic laws to either harass the other party or to get away from the other party. Since traffic infractions are considered to be minor legal torts below that of a misdemeanor. It would be historically sent to traffic court.

If after committing the traffic violation, the suspect then commits a misdemeanor crime, that crime would be heard in the state court of misdemeanor crimes. Felonies would be heard in the superior court of the state. Because, domestic violence cases often have elements in each of these courts, New York decided to pass the one case one judge policy. In this system, called the Integrated Domestic Violence system, one judge is assigned to one family. All of the cases that involve that family, from the most minor traffic to the highest felony are then heard by one judge appointed to their problem. In order for the judge to be able to hear all of the cases, the judge has to be a Supreme Court Justice.