New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

Published on: May 29, 2026

Second Circuit Upholds Internet Monitoring Condition of Supervised Release. United States v. Brown, No. 24-1227 (2d Cir. 2026)

by Stephen Bilkis

After a person is released from federal prison, the court may impose conditions of supervised release designed to protect the public and reduce the risk of future criminal conduct. Some of those conditions are mandatory, while others are tailored to the specific circumstances of the defendant and the offense. As technology becomes increasingly intertwined with everyday life, courts have frequently been asked to determine when restrictions on computer and internet use are appropriate.

Background Facts

Mark Richard Brown pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to fourteen counts of making false, fictitious, or fraudulent claims in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 287 and one count of theft of government funds in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641.

Published on: May 28, 2026

Statements Made Before Miranda Warnings Admitted After Court Found Defendant Was Not in Custody. United States v. Pence, No. 24-1025-cr (2d Cir. 2026)

by Stephen Bilkis

One of the most important protections available to individuals during police questioning comes from Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Under Miranda, law enforcement officers generally must advise a suspect of certain constitutional rights before conducting a custodial interrogation. Those rights include the right to remain silent and the right to have an attorney present during questioning. However, Miranda warnings are required only when a person is both in custody and being interrogated. As a result, courts are frequently asked to determine whether a suspect was actually in custody when statements were made to law enforcement officers.

Background Facts

Christopher Pence was investigated by federal law enforcement authorities in connection with a murder-for-hire scheme. During the investigation, agents interviewed Pence and obtained statements in which he admitted participating in the plot.

Published on: May 11, 2026

Federal Habeas Petition Denied After Court Found No Right to Justification Instruction. Brown v. James, No. 23-7864 (2d Cir. 2026)

by Stephen Bilkis

A criminal defendant is often entitled to have the jury consider a defense that is supported by the evidence. One example is justification, commonly known as self-defense. If a trial judge refuses to give a requested justification instruction, the defendant can challenge that decision on appeal. However, once the state appeals process is over and the defendant seeks federal habeas corpus relief, the rules are different. A habeas corpus petition is a legal proceeding in which a person in custody asks a federal court to review whether the conviction or imprisonment violates the United States Constitution or federal law. Federal courts do not decide whether a state court correctly applied state law. Instead, they consider whether the defendant’s federal constitutional rights were violated.

Background Facts

Darryl Brown was convicted of first-degree manslaughter in New York Supreme Court, Bronx County, after he shot and killed his daughter’s boyfriend during an altercation in the lobby of his apartment building. At trial, Brown requested that the jury be instructed on the defense of justification. He argued that the evidence supported a claim that he acted in self-defense. The trial court denied the request and did not include a justification instruction in its charge to the jury.

Published on: May 10, 2026

Police Detention Without Probable Cause Required Suppression of Confession. Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200 (1979)

by Stephen Bilkis

The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. One of the most important requirements imposed by the Fourth Amendment is that police generally must have probable cause before arresting a person. Over the years, courts have addressed situations where law enforcement officers attempted to question suspects without formally placing them under arrest. In those cases, courts have examined whether the police conduct was so restrictive that it amounted to an arrest requiring probable cause.

Background Facts

The case arose from the investigation of a robbery and homicide that occurred at a pizza parlor in Rochester, New York. During the investigation, a Rochester police detective received information from another officer suggesting that Richard Dunaway might have been involved in the crime.

Published on: May 8, 2026

Eyewitness Identification Evidence Held Sufficient to Support Robbery Conviction. People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620 (1983)

by Stephen Bilkis

In criminal cases, defendants frequently challenge the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting their convictions. When reviewing such claims, appellate courts do not decide whether they would have reached the same verdict as the jury. Instead, they determine whether a rational jury could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented at trial.

Background Facts

The defendant was convicted of three counts of robbery in the first degree. The prosecution’s case relied largely on the identification testimony of a witness who observed the crime.

Published on: May 8, 2026

Terrorism Conviction Reversed in Part Following Times Square Subway Bombing. United States v. Ullah, No. 21-1058 (2d Cir. 2026)

by Stephen Bilkis

Federal terrorism prosecutions often involve multiple criminal charges arising from a single act. In such cases, courts must carefully examine whether the evidence supports each individual charge and whether the government proved every required element beyond a reasonable doubt. Even when the evidence clearly establishes that a defendant committed a serious terrorist attack, appellate courts must determine whether the convictions comply with federal law.

In United States v. Ullah, No. 21-1058 (2d Cir. 2026), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the convictions of Akayed Ullah for his role in a bombing attack in a crowded underground pedestrian tunnel connecting the Times Square subway station and the Port Authority Bus Terminal in Manhattan. While the court upheld most of Ullah’s convictions and his life sentence, it concluded that the evidence was insufficient to support one of the terrorism-related charges.

Background Facts

Published on: May 6, 2026

Certificate of Appealability Required to Appeal Denial of Rule 4(a)(5) Motion. Griffin v. LaManna, No. 24-3009 (2d Cir. 2026)

by Stephen Bilkis

A petition for a writ of habeas corpus is a legal procedure that allows a person who has been convicted of a crime and is in custody to challenge the legality of that conviction or sentence in federal court. Habeas corpus petitions often raise claims that constitutional rights were violated during the criminal proceedings. However, federal habeas cases are governed by strict procedural rules and filing deadlines. Missing one of those deadlines can prevent a court from reviewing the merits of a prisoner’s claims.

In Griffin v. LaManna, No. 24-3009 (2d Cir. 2026), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit considered whether a state prisoner could appeal the denial of a motion seeking additional time to file an appeal in a habeas corpus case without first obtaining a certificate of appealability. The court also addressed whether the prisoner’s attorney had demonstrated excusable neglect sufficient to justify missing the original appeal deadline.

Background Facts

Published on: May 5, 2026

New York Court of Appeals Defined the Scope of Appellate Review in Criminal Cases: People v. LaFontaine, 92 N.Y.2d 470 (1998)

by Stephen Bilkis

When a criminal case reaches an appellate court, the judges do not have unlimited authority to review every issue that appears in the record. Instead, their authority is defined by statute. One important question is whether an appellate court may affirm a trial court’s ruling based on a legal theory that the trial court rejected or never adopted.

The New York Court of Appeals addressed that issue in People v. LaFontaine, 92 N.Y.2d 470 (1998). The case arose from a motion to suppress evidence seized after an arrest made by out-of-state police officers in New York. Although the lower courts disagreed about why the arrest was lawful, the Court of Appeals focused on a different question: whether the Appellate Division had the authority to affirm the denial of suppression on a ground that the trial court had rejected. The Court’s decision became a leading New York criminal procedure case concerning the scope of appellate review in criminal appeals.

Background Facts

Published on: May 4, 2026

Meaningful Representation Standard Upheld in Landmark New York Case: People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708 (1998)

by Stephen Bilkis

New York criminal defendants have a constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel. However, not every mistake made by a defense attorney amounts to ineffective assistance. Courts have long recognized that criminal defense attorneys must make strategic decisions throughout a case, and some of those decisions may not succeed. The question is not whether an attorney provided perfect representation, but whether the defendant received a fair trial and meaningful legal representation.

In People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708 (1998), the New York Court of Appeals addressed an ineffective assistance of counsel claim arising from a robbery conviction. The case gave the Court an opportunity to explain New York’s standard for evaluating claims that a criminal defense attorney provided ineffective representation. The decision remains one of the most frequently cited New York cases on the subject and continues to guide courts evaluating whether a defendant received meaningful representation.

Background Facts

Published on: May 3, 2026

Landmark Fourth Amendment Decision Barred Use of Illegally Seized Evidence in State Courts: Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)

by Stephen Bilkis

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. For many years, federal courts applied a rule that prevented prosecutors from using evidence obtained through unconstitutional searches. However, states were not required to follow the same rule. That changed in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).

Background Facts

The case began on May 23, 1957, when police officers arrived at the Cleveland, Ohio home of Dollree Mapp. Officers were investigating information that a person wanted for questioning in connection with a bombing might be hiding in the residence. They also suspected that gambling materials might be located inside the home. When officers first arrived, Mapp refused to allow them to enter without a search warrant. She contacted her attorney and followed his advice not to admit the officers unless they produced a warrant.