UPPER EAST SIDE RAPIST CONVICTED IN TWO SEPARATE ATTACKS

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., today announced the guilty plea of JASON QUINONES, 22, to Rape in the First Degree and Sexual Abuse in the First Degree, for raping a woman in her East 90th Street apartment on August 13, 2011, and for sexually abusing another woman in her East 83rd Street apartment on July 2, 2011.

“The defendant committed two atrocious sex crimes,” said District Attorney Vance. “In both cases, he saw a chance to sexually assault a woman while she was vulnerable, and both times, he took it. We hope that today’s conviction brings a measure of justice and closure to the victims.”

According to documents filed in court, at approximately 4:30 a.m. on August 13, 2011, QUINONES crawled into the victim’s ground-floor window at her apartment building on East 90th Street, while she slept. The defendant took the victim’s cell phone to prevent her from calling the police, and then he raped her.

In a separate incident, at approximately 3 a.m. on July 2, 2011, QUINONES approached a victim from behind in her apartment building on East 83rd Street. QUINONES followed the victim into her apartment, despite her refusal to let him enter. He then pushed her onto a couch and sexually abused her.

The defendant is expected to be sentenced on June 20, 2012.

Assistant District Attorney Samuel David prosecuted the case under the supervision of Martha Bashford, Chief of the Sex Crimes Unit; and Audrey Moore, Chief of the Special Victims Bureau.

Defendant Information:

JASON QUINONES, D.O.B. 8/23/1989

New York, NY

Convicted:

Rape in the First Degree, a class B felony, one count
Sexual Abuse in the First Degree, a class D felony, two counts

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