New York

Published on: November 5, 2012

Court Finds Evidence Submitted in Error

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is taking place in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department. The appellant in the matter is the People of the State of New York. The respondent in the case is F.W. The defendant is appealing a judgment made by the County Court of Suffolk County that convicted him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled sentence in the third degree.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the issue being argued on appeal is whether admission of evidence that the defendant, who was on trial for a single sale of cocaine, sold drugs to the same buyer on more than one occasion was an error in the case that requires a new trial in the matter.

Case Background

Published on: November 3, 2012

Appellant Claims Due Process Right Violated

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant in this case, R.C., is appealing a judgment made by the Supreme Court of Suffolk County. The judgment convicted the appellant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the appeal brings up issues of denial of the defendant’s omnibus motion that was to dismiss the indictment and to suppress identification testimony. This case is being heard in the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

Case Background

In June of 1984, in response to numerous complaints made by residents in the Wyandanch, Long Island, area that the community was becoming an open drug market, an undercover operation was conducted by the Suffolk County Police.

Published on: November 1, 2012

Plaintiffs Sue Author for Publishing Defamatory Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involves the respondent D.R. and the appellants. The case is being heard in the Court of Appeals of New York. The action is for defamation as the plaintiff is a Justice of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial District. He alleges that he was libeled in the book “Cruel and Unusual Justice” that was authored by the defendants. The defendants motioned for summary judgment in the case after extensive pretrial discovery. The motion was denied by Special Term. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision in a closely divided court. The defendants were granted leave to appeal to our court on a certified question.

Court Discussion

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the question before the court is whether the plaintiff has established the existence of material facts that are sufficient to create a triable issue for his libel cause of action.

Published on: October 31, 2012

Court Decides Possible Acquittal by Reason of Mental Disease

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involves a matter of a recommitment proceeding in relation to Criminal Procedure Law in relationship to the respondent Francis S. The petitioners and appellants in this case are the District Attorney of New York County and the Commissioner for the New York State Office of Mental Health.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the main issue before the court is whether an acquittal by reason of mental disease or defect of a person who has repeatedly violated the order of conditions that he gained upon release and who is still mentally ill, a poly substance abuser, given to acts of violence and still found to be not suffering from a dangerous mental disorder is appropriate.

Case Background

Published on: October 30, 2012

Court Determines Defendant is Entitled to Habeaus Corpus Relief

by Stephen Bilkis

The petitioner was a Florida prisoner on death row, having been convicted of first degree murder. The district court granted a writ of habeas corpus setting aside his conviction and sentence. The United States Court of Appeals reversed the decision of district court. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the issues involved are whether or not the petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the State violated the Brady rule.

An illicit love affair ensued between a man, a real estate broker with ties to Boston’s criminal underworld, and a woman, who was married to a wealthy citrus grower. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the man and the woman conspired to kill the wealthy husband by hiring petitioner as an assassin to murder husband. Unfortunately, the murder did not signal the beginning of a blissful life on the estate for the lovers. The man allegedly wanted more money and continue to harass the woman and her child. Terrified, the woman went to the authorities and implicated the man as the person behind her husband’s murder.

During the trial, the man discredited the woman as prosecution’s star witness. Trial proceedings were tainted with evidentiary irregularity leading to the unavailability of key witnesses. The man was discharged from prosecution in the crime of murder. The court then granted the petition to destroy certain physical evidence held for man’s prosecution.

Published on: October 30, 2012

Court Rules on Probation Violation

by Stephen Bilkis

The People of the State of New York are the respondents of this case. S.H. is the appellant. The case is being heard in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department. The defendant is appealing an amended judgment from the County Court of Suffolk County that revoked a sentence of probation that had been previously imposed by the same court.

Case Background

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of burglary in the third degree on the 12th of March, 2003. He was sentenced by the County Court to a term of six months in the Suffolk County Correctional Facility. This was to be followed by five years of probation. There were terms set for his probation that included that he report as directed to his probation officer, submit to drug testing, and make reparations in the amount of $1000 plus a 5% surcharge to be paid to the Probation Department of Suffolk County.

Published on: October 29, 2012

Plaintiffs Bring Suit for Harrassment and Blackmail

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case, Plaintiffs brought suit against the Defendants for: harassment, blackmailing and conspiring to boycott their classes and attempting to have them terminated from East Texas Police Academy (“ETPA”) in retaliation for their testimony in a case against another police officer involved in a shooting incident. A New York Criminal Lawyer said plaintiffs also claimed violations of: their rights to testify freely under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2); their right to freedom of speech under the First and Fourteenth Amendment; their right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment; and tortious interference with business relations. Plaintiffs were instructors at the ETPA, in Kilgore, Texas, which provides basic and advanced training for law enforcement officers in the greater East Texas area. Defendants are the police chiefs or sheriffs from seven cities and counties within the greater East Texas area and who possess final authority over the training of the officers employed by their respective agencies.

Before the fall of 1998, Defendants enrolled their officers in ETPA courses on a regular basis, including courses taught by the Plaintiffs. The defendants were not contractually bound to continue using either the ETPA’s services or the services of Plaintiffs in particular. In August 1998, Plaintiffs voluntarily testified as expert witnesses against a police sniper from Kerrville, Texas who fatally shot a teenager. The said police officer was not trained at the ETPA nor belongs to the police agencies headed by the Defendants. In the said case, Plaintiffs testified that the Kerrville police officer used excessive force and that the Kerrville police department failed to implement the proper policies necessary to direct the conduct of officers acting as snipers.

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the said testimony irked the Defendants and threatened the ETPA that they will all stop engaging their services for officer training. One of them said that Plaintiffs testimony “is in direct conflict with the basic fundamentals and expectations that we have come to enjoy from Academy instructors.” It created “conflicts of interest” and violated principles of “cooperative responsibility.” They believe that an unacceptable conflict of interest exists whenever a police instructor testifies against a police officer, regardless of location and regardless of whether the instructor had trained the officer. Such a conflict does not exist when an instructor testifies for police officers.

Published on: October 29, 2012

Court Determines if Evidence of Previous Crimes Can be Admitted

by Stephen Bilkis

The People of the State of New York are the respondents in this case. Peter Wayne Orth is the appellant. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant is appealing a judgment made by the Supreme Court of Suffolk County that was rendered on the 8th of March, 1977. The judgment convicted the defendant of robbery in the first degree upon a jury verdict. The defendant has two other orders from the same court, one from the 15th of October 1979 and the other from the 5th of January, 1982, both denying the motion for the judgment of conviction to be vacated and the indictment dismissed.

Case Background

The defendant has been convicted of a robbery that took place at a drugstore in Babylon. During the course of the robbery both drugs and money were stolen.

Published on: October 28, 2012

drugs

by Stephen Bilkis

A woman was convicted after a jury trial of murder. Upon the conviction, a New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the woman was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment with a mandatory minimum period of seventeen years. She was also convicted of attempted robbery and sentenced to an indeterminate term five years imprisonment with a mandatory minimum period of two and one-half years to run concurrent with the life sentence.

The woman moves personally without a notice of motion or sworn affidavit, for re-sentencing to a determinate term of imprisonment. She did, however, verify that she served the District Attorney. Notwithstanding such service, the District Attorney failed to file any opposition. Consequently, on February 4, 2010, the court deemed the woman’s motion submitted on default.

Irrespective of the District Attorney’s default, a New York Criminal Lawyer said the woman fails to provide any legal basis upon which the court may grant the relief requested. While she refers to the recently passed laws that may allow people who are serving life sentences to be considered to be re-sentenced to an alternate determinate sentence, she fails to identify any legal basis in support of her application. Indeed, it appears to the court that her claim is predicated on having been denied parole, stating that he has been denied parole release based solely for her crime, which will never change. It is served above and beyond the minimum term on both indictments and the maximum on one that she is not asking for a reduction that will minimize the responsibility to accept the punishment of her crime, however, the past cannot be change and to be denied release solely for her offense, which will not change is illogical and excessive. The woman believes that she is eligible to file an application under the standards of law and respectfully that she be re-sentenced to a determinate term of imprisonment.

Published on: October 28, 2012

Appellate Court Reverses Indictment for Larceny Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

The respondent and defendant in this case is M.K. The People of the State of New York are the appellants in the case. The Court of Appeals in the state of New York is hearing this case. There were two indictments filed against the defendant, Kirkup, in the Extraordinary Special and the Trial Terms of the Supreme Court of Suffolk County. Indictment 7256 charged the defendant with committing the crime of conspiracy. Indictment 7258 charges the defendant of violating section 1864 of the Penal Law.

Case Background

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the People of the State of New York submitted evidence to the Grand Jury that showed that A.F., who is a pharmacist that operates a small retail drug store in Suffolk County along with his successors in interest had ordered drugs from pharmaceutical houses solely for the use of the Suffolk County Home, but in actuality for selling to the public.