Skip to main content

DISTRICT ATTORNEY VANCE ANNOUNCES SENTENCING OF RAJEEV KUMAR IN 2000 RAPE CASE

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., today announces the sentencing of RAJEEV KUMAR, 31, to at least 15 years in state prison for the 2000 rape of a Manhattan resident. He will also be required to register as a sex offender. On June 7, 2011, the defendant pled guilty to the all of the charges against him: Rape in the First Degree, Sodomy in the First Degree, and Conspiracy in the Second Degree.

According to documents filed in court and statements made on the record in court, in 2000, the victim reported to the police that she was raped. A rape kit was collected from the victim, and although DNA was recovered, no matches were found. In 2009, KUMAR was convicted of arson after setting a limousine on fire in Queens. His DNA, which was collected upon his conviction, matched the 2000 rape.

Following his initial indictment on Rape and Sodomy charges in August 17, 2010, the defendant was also indicted on November 1, 2010, on one charge of Conspiracy in the Second Degree. According to documents filed in court, while in custody at the Rikers Island prison complex between August 2010 and October 2010, KUMAR attempted to hire an individual to murder the victim in his rape case. However, the individual to whom he agreed to pay $5,000 to perform this act was actually an undercover police officer. KUMAR’s sentence in the conspiracy case will run consecutively with prison time for the separately indicted rape and sodomy case.

District Attorney Vance thanked Assistant District Attorney Martha Bashford, Co-Chief of the Forensic Science and Cold Cases Unit, for prosecuting the sexual assault case, and Assistant District Attorney Christopher Conroy, Deputy Chief of the Major Economic Crimes Bureau, for prosecuting the conspiracy case.


Defendant Information:

RAJEEV KUMAR, D.O.B. 3/26/1980
Queens, NY

Convicted:
• Rape in the First Degree, a class B felony, one count
• Sodomy in the First Degree, a class B felony, one count
• Conspiracy in the Second Degree, a class B felony, one count

Sentence:
• At least 15 years in state prison
• Mandatory registry as a sex offender
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.
Post a Comment
Read more

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...
3 comments
Read more

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...
Post a Comment
Read more