Articles Posted in Uncategorized

Published on:

In the early morning hours of Sunday March 11, 2007, a Nassau County police officer observed a speeding vehicle on the Long Island Expressway. Trained to visually estimate speed, the officer verified his initial assessment with a laser speed gun and initiated pursuit that further confirmed the speeding vehicle to be travelling at roughly 90 miles per hour. The driver, William E. Lent, was subsequently pulled over.

During their following interactions the officer observed several indicators that led him to suspect the driver might have been intoxicated. Mr. Lent, upon being probed in regard to his questionable sobriety, confessed to having recently consumed one alcoholic beverage. This admission prompted the officer to administer several field sobriety tests, none of which Mr. Lent was able to pass. Mr. Lent was immediately arrested and transported to the Nassau County Police Department Central Testing Unit.

Continue reading

Published on:

Sexual abuse can be everywhere, it might be occurring in our own home. According to a Defense Lawyer, on September 5, 1995, James L. Archer was convicted by the County Court of crimes of sexual abuse and endangering the welfare of a child. During trial, the 13-year-old victim testified that prior to the commission of the crimes, James L. Archer, a 31-year-old live in companion of the victim’s aunt, told her that he wanted to rape her and have a baby with her. She further testified that Archer threatened to kill her whole family if she revealed his feelings about her to anyone. The victim indicated that she believed these threats and, for that reason, did not immediately report the crimes.

Based on the report, Archer’s initial argument on his appeal was that the jury’s verdict finding him guilty of two counts of the crime of sexual abuse is not supported by legally sufficient evidence in that there is no proof of forcible compulsion. As relevant here, ‘Forcible Compulsion’ means to compel by either use of physical force; or a threat, express or implied, which places a person in fear of immediate death or physical injury to herself or another person. The higher court held that given the victim’s young age and Archer’s dominance over her by reason of his age and relationship with her aunt, the jury could have reasonably inferred that Archer accomplished the sexual contact through the use of threats that placed the victim in fear of immediate death or physical injury to herself or members of her family.

Continue reading

Published on:

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.

Continue reading

Published on:

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.

Continue reading

Published on:

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.

Continue reading

Published on:

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.

Continue reading

Published on:

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.

Continue reading

Published on:

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.

Continue reading

Published on:

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.

Continue reading

Published on:

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.

Continue reading

Contact Information