Bronx

Published on: August 13, 2012

Defendant Requests Disclosure of Exculpatory Materials

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant in this case is Michael Brown. He has made an omnibus motion requesting several forms of relief. The People of the State of New York are the plaintiffs in the case. The County Court of the City of New York in Suffolk County is hearing the case.

Case Discussion

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant’s omnibus motion has requested discovery pursuant to CPL 240.20. The People have answered that they have provided their entire discovery to the defense. The defendant has not submitted a reply to contest the sufficiency of the answer that was provided by the People. For this reason, it seems that the request has been complied with.

Published on: August 11, 2012

Court Treatment for Defendant in Drug Possession Case

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a matter of an application made by the petitioner Ronald Miller in regard to a judgment that was filed in the Franklin County Clerks office on the 29th of January, 2008. The respondent in the case is Brian Fischer who is the Commissioner for the NYS Department of Correctional Services. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in Franklin County.

Case Background

On the 21st of November, 2006, the petitioner was sentenced in the Suffolk County Court as a second felony offender. His sentence was set at five years with two years of post release supervision. This sentence was for his conviction of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance (drug possession).

Published on: August 11, 2012

Court Rules on Drug Possession Case

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case being heard in the Suffolk County Court. The case involves the People of the State of New York against the defendant Kenneth Murray. The defendant has been accused of acting in concert with another in commission of the crimes of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree. A New York Criminal Lawyer said Murray has moved for the charges against him to be dismissed on the account that the indictment is defective and that it was not found on legally sufficient evidence.

Defendant’s Argument

The defendant argues that the indictment is deficient as it fails to conform to CPL section 200.30, subdivision 7. This section requires that a plain and concise factual statement of each count must be made. It further states that the defendant must be clearly apprised as to the matter of the accusation that is made against him.

Published on: August 8, 2012

Defendant Contends Identification Procedures by Police Incorrect

by Stephen Bilkis

Stalking is a crime that affects everyone who is around the intended victim of the crime. Stalking is a crime that causes a pervasive level of fear that is intolerable for most people. However, a New York Criminal Lawyer said people who have never seen this crime often have a difficult time understanding that the stalker is so focused on their victim that they often do not consider the penalty involved in their actions. The drive to possess that other person is so strong that they will often do anything within their power to have that person and to prevent anyone else from having that person.

In 2008, a woman was being stalked by her ex-boyfriend in New York. She had moved on with her life and was seeing a co-worker romantically. One day while they were at work, her ex-boyfriend showed up. A Staten Island Criminal Lawyer said he began insisting that the woman talk to him. The new boyfriend approached the pair and assessed the situation. He realized that the situation was about to get violent and had the man removed from the business. He thought that the incident was over, but the following day while they were driving to work, the ex-boyfriend drove up beside them on the roadway and brandished a knife in their direction. They refused to pull over and began driving toward the local police station. On their way to the police station, the stalker rammed their mini-van with his car.

Coincidentally, a patrol car was positioned at the street corner just up from the location of the assault with the motor vehicle. The officers heard the impact that they recognized in their experience to be the result of a motor vehicle accident. They immediately turned their patrol car onto the roadway in the direction of the impact sound. When they were on the road, they observed the mini-van and the couple inside the mini-van. The couple motioned to the officers that the car that was behind them needed to be stopped. The officers observed the stalker driving at a high rate of speed in reverse. He changed his direction and began to take evasive action. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the officers turned on their emergency lights and siren to indicate to the driver of the vehicle that he needed to pull over.

Published on: August 8, 2012

Defendant Contends Pat Down Was Illegal

by Stephen Bilkis

Police officers are required to operate under strict adherence to the laws of the state. That means that every time that a police officer comes in contact with a citizen, they are required to operate under certain rules. A New York Criminal Lawyer said these rules are mandated in the United States Constitution, state laws, federal laws, local ordinances, and case law. In order to determine if the officers have overstepped their authority under the law, it is often critical that a defendant hire a good criminal attorney to represent their side.

The rules of search and seizure and admissibility of evidence can be very complicated and they are often argued in a court of law. A New York Criminal Lawyer said each case is different, and each case requires that the persons who are affected by the conduct of police officers on the street are well represented. One case that illustrates this issue occurred in New York on May 14, 1985.

Two patrol officers were patrolling the area of Eighth Avenue around 136th street. It was in the early morning hours of about 2:30 a.m. when they were flagged down by a well- dressed man who was standing beside the road. When they talked to him, he told them that he had been leaving a bar in the area when he noticed a man in front of the bar with a pistol tucked down the front of his pants. The man described the pistol as a small revolver that was commonly referred to as a snub nose. He stated that it was black in color and was in the front of the man’s pants. The complainant was especially concerned because he was afraid that the man was considering a hate crime against the homosexual population in the area. The bar that he had been in front of was a bar that catered to the homosexual population. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the complainant advised that he had followed the man and his companion as they left the area of the bar hoping to flag down a police officer to have him checked out. He described the man with the gun as a short black male in a white t-shirt and dark blue jeans. He stated that he was in the company of a man in a darker shirt with light blue jeans.

Published on: August 7, 2012

Defendant Charged with Third Degree Rape

by Stephen Bilkis

Incidents of rape and sexual assault cases involve many different laws. Each case is reviewed in relationship to how it addresses each element of each law. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the most appropriate law or multiple laws are then charged by the prosecution. In some case, a charge is reduced to a lesser included offense because the jury or prosecutor decides that the lesser included offense if more appropriate to the actions of the charged offender. One case of this type occurred in 2008.

On May 21, 2008, a man was charged with rape. He was convicted after a jury trial on May 28, 2008 of third-degree rape, which is detailed under New York Penal Law § 130.25(3). This charge was determined by how the victim expressed her lack of consent to the sexual assault. This victim apparently never stated the actual term “no,” but rather testified that she had been crying the entire time and stating that she just wanted to go home. The court concluded that any reasonable person observing this situation would conclude that the victim was not consenting to the act. The defense maintained that he did not consider her actions to be a refusal because she never actually stated that she did not want to have sex with him. The court evaluated the totality of the evidence which included the fact that this was his second or third offense of sexual assault.

They also reviewed the fact that the offender forced the woman into his apartment against her will and used threats of physical injury to prevent her from leaving. The court determined that when viewed in their entirety, the circumstances surrounding this assault clearly contained all of the necessary elements to be considered a rape. Because of this, the offender’s request to have his conviction overturned was denied.

Published on: August 7, 2012

Defendant Contends Unlawful Stop and Frisk

by Stephen Bilkis

Police patrol officers encounter a wide variety of calls for service. Some of these calls are hazardous some are humorous. Some of these calls are somewhere in between the two. That was the case when two seasoned patrol officers in New York responded to a radio call in the early morning hours on August 4, 1979. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the radio operator advised the officers that an anonymous call had come in to the radio call center regarding an Hispanic male with an afro style haircut wearing light blue pants and a light shirt. The description involved his height which was listed as five foot ten inches tall. The caller advised that the subject was concealing a handgun inside a white shirt that he was carrying.

The officers responded to the location and observed several persons at that location, but none of them fit the description that was provided by the radio operator. They began to check the area and noticed the defendant walking on Amsterdam Avenue. He was wearing a light short sleeved shirt and was carrying a white shirt in his right hand. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the shirt that had been described in the radio transmission was a t-shirt, but this subject had on a banlon shirt. The officers determined that it would be accurate to assume that someone observing him from a distance would think that the shirt was a t-shirt. They observed the subject walk up 95th street and stop in front of a building. He walked up the first three steps and began to open the door with his left hand. He was having difficulty with the door, so he set down the white shirt that the informant had stated concealed the gun.

One of the police officers came up beside him and put his hand over the shirt on the ground so that the defendant would not be able to pick it up. He stated that as soon as he placed his hand on the shirt, he could feel that it concealed some type of handgun. The defendant began to struggle with the officer. Both officers were in uniform when the second officer approached with his firearm out. He ordered the man to stop fighting and not to move. The officers discovered that the white shirt contained a .22 caliber handgun. The subject was placed under arrest and was transported to the jail. He filed a motion to suppress the evidence of the gun.

Published on: August 4, 2012

Defendant Set Up in Sting Operation

by Stephen Bilkis

When police officers make an arrest, it is important that they do so in the proper jurisdiction. The case must then be presented to the Grand Jury if it is a felony. A New York Criminal Lawyer said hat Grand Jury must be in the correct venue to draw an indictment. If it is not, then the case is not legal. One such case was served as a motion from a defendant on June 5, 2005. The defendant claimed that the indictment against him needed to be dismissed because the crime had not occurred in New York County.

The police detective contends that over a period of several weeks, he had telephone conversations with a confidential informant. This informant provided him with information that the defendant and several of his friends had a plan to rob some drug dealers. He stated that the group planned to stockpile some weapons (possession of a weapon) and create a robbing gang. This gang would target drug dealers and rob them of their drugs and cash. The informant contacted the police department. The police detective told the informant to give this robbing gang bad information about a non-existent drug dealer who had 60 kilos of cocaine and a large amount of money. The gang began to make their plans. The detective told the informant that the address that he was to give to the gang was an address in the Bronx. The defendant and his accomplices were arrested and indicted. They maintained that none of the telephone conversations that were the crux of the case occurred in New York County. Because they did not occur in New York County, the state could not prosecute the crimes of conspiracy to commit a crime and the numerous other charges that the gang was indicted on.

The prosecutor makes the argument that the intended target was an address in the Bronx which was in New York county. The prosecutor contends that the intended target would make the case venue New York County. The Supreme Court disagreed. A Long Island Criminal Lawyer said they made several disparaging remarks directed at the prosecutor and at the detectives involved in this case. They contend that the detective did not ascertain the jurisdiction that he or the confidential informant were in at the time that the phone calls were made. Since the jurisdictional issues cannot be formulated based on the locations of each party to the calls, then the court is not able to establish venue for the hearings. They contend that the argument that would apply the jurisdictional issue to the proposed target location is not realistic. The court contends that the crime took place at the location in which one or both of the parties to the telephone conversation were located at the time of the conversation. If the jurisdiction cannot be determined, then the case is not able to continue.

Published on: August 1, 2012

Defense Moves to Supress Evidence

by Stephen Bilkis

A detective led a police team that was investigating the deaths of a two man. The bodies of the two victims were discovered in the bathroom of the other man’s apartment. Both men had been bound with duct tape and shot through the head. A New Criminal Lawyer said when the detective and his colleague went to the apartment, they smelled a strong odor of marijuana and observed marijuana residue. The police later discovered that the other man had been a low-level drug dealer.

A witness, who claimed to have been a close friend of the other victim undergone interview with the detective, during their discussions, the witness stated that he knew the victim and they had been friends for fifteen years. The witness also stated that the victim had been a marijuana dealer with regular clientele. He also revealed that he had been present in the victim’s apartment when the victim sold between a half-pound and a pound of marijuana to another man. The witness also asserts that the victim had also been well acquainted with his client, whom he sold the pound of marijuana. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the witness further states that the victim told him about a shipment of 30 to 50 pounds of marijuana and had some out-of-town buyers for it. The victim was nervous about so large a shipment and his client was present when the victim mentioned the prospective sale to the witness.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the police utilized the information from the witness to obtain a photograph of the victim’s client. They put the photograph into a computer-generated photo array which they showed the witness. The witness identified the person pictured in the photograph as the client who purchased the marijuana from the victim. The police also obtained a number of addresses of locations that were linked to the client. A New York Drug Possessionhttp://http://www.newyorkcriminallawyer24-7.com/lawyer-attorney-1732528.html Lawyer said another detective informed the head detective that the victim’s client had a reputation for robbing drug dealers. At about 7:00 pm that same day, the detectives visited one of the apartments in the hope of finding the victim’s client.

Published on: July 31, 2012

Teenager Charged with Cocaine Possession

by Stephen Bilkis

On January 23, 1990 a police detective was looking through a one-way mirror at the passengers lined-up waiting for a bus to go to Virginia. The detective noticed a girl who looked no more than 13 years old lined up all by herself without a parent or guardian travelling with her. The detective also noticed that she had a bulge underneath her zipped-up coat.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said aware that some drug dealers used teenagers as drug mules to bring drugs across through state lines, and fearing that the teenager may be a runaway, the detective approached her and talked to her.

The detective sat behind her on the bus. The detective asked her first if she didn’t mind speaking to her and she assented. He asked her if she was travelling alone, how old she was and where she was headed. The girl confirmed that she was travelling alone and that she was on her way to visit family in Norfolk. She also claimed that she was 18 years old.