Sealed Indictment Charging an HPD Officer Unsealed Following His Arrest

HOUSTON—A Houston Police officer has been arrested following the return of an indictment by a Houston grand jury charging him with drug trafficking and corruption, United States Attorney José Angel Moreno announced today along with FBI Special Agent in Charge Stephen L. Morris.

A two-count indictment was returned under seal on Wednesday, June 22, 2011, charging Houston police officer Leslie Aikens, 46, of Houston, a 19-year veteran of the Houston Police Department (HPD). The indictment was unsealed today following Aiken’s arrest by officers with Houston Police Department Internal Affairs, Texas Rangers, and agents of the FBI as he went off-duty at the HPD substation where he is assigned. Aikens appeared late this morning before U.S. Magistrate Judge Mary Milloy and has been ordered released on a $50,000 bond.

Aikens is charged with aiding and abetting the possession with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine on or about March 10, 2011. He is also charged with extortion under color of official right or a Hobbs Act violation for allegedly accepting a $2,000 bribe to provide protection for a vehicle which he believe to be transporting seven kilograms of cocaine.

The drug offense charged in count one of the indictment carries a statutory penalty of not less than 10 years or more than life imprisonment and a $10 million fine upon conviction. The Hobb’s Act violation as alleged in the second count of the indictment count carries a statutory penalty upon conviction of 20 years’ incarceration without parole and a $250,000 fine.

The investigative effort resulting in the charges was conducted by the Houston office of the FBI, Texas Rangers, and HPD.

Assistant U.S. Attorney James McAlister is prosecuting the case.

Comments

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.

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...

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 ...

New York Paralegal Blog

Search This Blog