Brooklyn

Published on: April 18, 2013

Defendant Charged with Intent to Distribute 100 Kilograms of Marijuana

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant is appealing his conviction of possession with the intent to distribute over 100 kilograms of marijuana. Border Patrol agents found the marijuana in his tractor trailer while at a border checkpoint. The defendant argues on appeal that his counsel was ineffective as they failed to request a Pennington jury instruction. A New York Criminal Lawyer said he also argues that the district court made an error by failing to provide a Pennington jury, by allowing the government to comment on his arrest, and that the district court abused its discretion by allowing a government witness offer his opinion about whether the defendant knew about the drugs in the trailer. He further argues that the government did not provide sufficient evidence to support the verdict of the jury.

Case Facts and Procedural Background

The defendant was driving a commercial tractor trailer when he arrived at a checkpoint located at the board. The border patrol agent asked the defendant if he was the only occupant of the truck and about his immigration status. Another agent informed the questioning agent to the fact that a narcotics dog had alerted the trailer.

Published on: April 7, 2013

Court Discusses Legal Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel

by Stephen Bilkis

Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on January 18, 1982. At all times relevant to this proceeding, respondent maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Judicial Department. A Bronx DWI Lawyer said that, in December 2001, the Departmental Disciplinary Committee (Committee) served respondent with a notice and statement of charges alleging 28 counts of professional misconduct against him involving seven separate legal matters. The charges alleged that respondent engaged in a pattern of misconduct including the repeated disregard of court orders and directives; misrepresentations to clients, adversaries and courts; and the repeated neglect of client matters, often resulting in default judgments. By order entered November 28, 2001, this Court appointed a Referee to hear and report on the charges. Respondent filed an answer with affirmative defenses in January 2002.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, prior to the hearing, the Committee made a motion before the Referee requesting that the doctrine of collateral estoppel be applied to find respondent guilty of 11 of the 28 counts charged, based upon the findings and decisions issued by four courts. Respondent opposed the motion, and by decision dated November 1, 2002, the Referee granted the collateral estoppel motion on six of the 11 counts requested. Following 23 days of liability hearings on the remaining counts, the Referee issued a February 18, 2003 report sustaining 12 other counts and dismissing 13 counts. Three days of sanction hearings were held, with the Committee recommending disbarment and respondent, citing various mitigating factors, arguing for a public censure. In a final report dated May 5, 2003, the Referee recommended a five-year suspension. A Hearing Panel was convened, and it heard oral argument and accepted written submissions from both parties. In a written determination dated March 2, 2004, the Hearing Panel affirmed the Referee’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, except as to count 3, which it disaffirmed, and it further affirmed the Referee’s recommended sanction of a five-year suspension.

A Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer said that, the Committee now moves for an order pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4 (d), confirming the Referee’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, as modified by the Hearing Panel’s recommendation, and imposing a sanction suspending respondent from the practice of law for a period not less than five years. A review of the five matters in which charges were sustained follows.

Published on: April 2, 2013

Defendant Claims There was Insufficient Evidence for Grand Jury Indictment

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts of the Case:

On 6 November 1992, at approximately 3:13 a.m., two (2) Department of Public Safety Officers at a University observed defendant carrying a dormitory lounge chair on his head as he crossed a bridge on the campus. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that upon being stopped, defendant informed the officers that he had obtained the chair in a Hall, a residence located on the North Campus, and was taking it to the West Campus as a prank, but defendant declined to confirm whether he was a student. He stated that he had no identification on his person and, despite repeated requests he refused to identify himself in any manner. Thereafter, he was informed that he would be referred to the University Judicial Administrator if he was a student, and that if he was not a student, he would be charged with petit larceny in City Court. After approximately 10 minutes of fruitless inquiries, one of the officers expressed impatience with defendant’s uncooperative behavior, at which point defendant stated that he did have identification after all, and began reaching into his pocket. One of the officers stated that he would remove the identification from defendant’s pocket himself and ordered defendant to turn and face the police car. When the officer reached for defendant’s pocket, defendant slapped his hands away. Informed that he was under arrest, defendant bolted from the officers and ran toward the gorge under the bridge. He was pursued by the other officer who caught him by the ankle as he lay on his back on the steep slope. Defendant demanded to be let go, but the officer refused. Defendant then rolled over and dragged her down the side of the gorge until she hit a concrete abutment and smashed her face and broke her teeth. Defendant ultimately escaped.

Consequently, defendant was indicted in the County Court on four counts: three misdemeanors, petit larceny, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, resisting arrest, and one felony, assault in the second degree. A Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer said the defendant then filed a motion to dismiss the indictment in its entirety which was granted by the court. However, on appeal the Appellate Division reversed the decision, holding that the evidence was sufficient for the Grand Jury to indict on the larceny and possession of stolen property counts, as defendant’s larcenous intent could be inferred from the circumstances and his admissions; and that the evidence before the Grand Jury was sufficient to sustain the charge of resisting arrest, and defendant’s intentional acts in preventing his arrest constituted sufficient evidence of the crime of assault. An appeal thereafter followed.

Published on: March 27, 2013

Technically, Defendant was Arrested Before Illegal Sale of Marijuana

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a direct criminal appeal from the defendant who is seeking a review of his convictions for purchase of marijuana or possession of marijuana with the intent to purchase it and for attempted possession of more than 20 grams of marijuana. There are four issues in the case being raised by the appellant.

The first issue that the appellant raises is whether or not it was an error to deny his motion for dismissal and subsequent motion for judgment of acquittal base on an entrapment defense. The second issue is whether it was an error to deny his motion to dismiss based on allegations that the state had failed to produce exculpatory evidence. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the third issue is whether it was an error to deny his motion for judgment of acquittal on the charge of purchase of marijuana or possession of marijuana with the intent to purchase it based on legal insufficiency. The final contention that the appellant offers is whether it was an error to deny the motion for arrest of judgment on the charge of purchase of marijuana or possession of marijuana with intent to purchase on the ground of inconsistent verdicts.

Case Background

Published on: March 26, 2013

Court Rules Closed Containers Cannot Be Searched Without a Warrant

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involves an appeal from convictions of possession of marijuana. The defendant challenges that the trial court’s failure to suppress the marijuana. The other defendant challenges the sufficiency of evidence in the case.

Case Background

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the local police officer was monitoring a parking lot during a rock concert. He saw three men leave the building about half way through the concert and get into a car. He saw the two men in the front seat start to fumble around on the floorboard for about a minute and then saw what looked like a cigarette being lit and passed around the vehicle. He suspected that the cigarette was likely marijuana so he called for backup.

Published on: March 2, 2013

Defendant Found With Stolen Prescription Pad

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts of the Case:

On 9 October 1980, at approximately 11:30 A.M., the defendant was arrested on East 40th Street in Manhattan, in possession of a blank prescription pad bearing the name of a certain doctor, a hypodermic syringe, twelve tablets of Triavil, and one bottle of Procaine. Thereafter, a New York Criminal Lawyer said the arresting officer, a Police Officer of the 9th Precinct, telephoned the doctor concerned at his Bronx office, inquiring whether the doctor had been burglarized. The doctor informed the officer that he was not aware of any burglary at his Manhattan or Bronx office, but that the man arrested was not authorized to take, use, or possess the property. Thus, the officer charged the defendant with Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Seventh Degree, Criminally Possessing a Hypodermic Needle, and Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Third Degree. Defendant was given a Desk Appearance Ticket, returnable on 24 October 1980. A misdemeanor complaint containing these charges was filed with the court.

On the same day, at about 3:00 P.M., when the aforesaid doctor arrived at his Manhattan office, he discovered that it had indeed been burglarized. The doctor reported the incident and officers from the 17th Precinct Burglary Unit responded. On this call, one of the Police Officers lifted a latent fingerprint from a cigarette package apparently left by the burglar. The doctor informed the Burglary Unit officers of the earlier telephone call he had received at his Bronx office, but was unable to recall the name, shield or command of the earlier caller. All attempts of the 17th Precinct Burglary Unit to ascertain the identification of that first caller proved unsuccessful.

Published on: February 26, 2013

Court Discusses Elements of Grand Larceny in the Second Degree

by Stephen Bilkis

A man was accused of the crimes of criminal mischief in the second degree, two counts of criminal mischief in the fourth degree, two counts of grand larceny in the second degree and two counts of attempted grand larceny in the second degree.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the accusation arise from the incident when the man directed his agents or employees to widen and reconstruct a town road and did thereby intentionally damage property of another person by destroying trees, stone walls, and wire fences, having no right to do so nor any reasonable ground to believe that he had such right, and did thereby steal and appropriate said road and property for his own benefit.

The man then made a motion and submitted an affidavit seeking various items of pre-trial relief. In the motion, the man asked the court to inspect the grand jury minutes. The court then granted the request to the extent that the court will examine the transcript of the proceedings.

Published on: February 11, 2013

Defendant Claims 6th Amendment Right to Impartial Jury was Violated

by Stephen Bilkis

The appellant was convicted on a charge of conspiracy to distribute marijuana and distribution of approximately 530 pounds of marijuana. A New York Criminal Lawyer said he is appealing this conviction on the ground that the trial court’s examination of prospective jurors was inadequate and that the venue for the distribution count was improper.

Case Background

The conspiracy and distribution convictions of the defendant come from his attempt to sell a large amount of marijuana to an undercover agent. The transaction between the defendant and the undercover cop was arranged by a co-conspirator. The undercover agent was posing as a buyer from Michigan and agreed to buy 500 pounds of marijuana at the price of $250 per pound.

Published on: February 6, 2013

Defendant Requests Motion for Mistrial Based on Government Misconduct

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant is appealing his convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana and marijuana possession. The defendant argues that the evidence in the case is insufficient to support the charges against him and that the trial court made a mistake when they denied his motion for a mistrial based on the evidence of government misconduct.

Case Background

A Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer said this case comes from a reverse buy sting operation. The defendant asked an acquaintance of his to broker a marijuana deal. The defendant had several prospective buyers and the friend had connections. One of the connections happened to be an informant. The friend contacted the informant to set up a transaction and a meeting was arranged between the informant, the friend, and the defendant.

Published on: January 27, 2013

Drug Crime Defendants Claim There is Insufficient Evidence Against Them

by Stephen Bilkis

The DEA along with the local Sherriff’s Department started a joint investigation of what was believed to be to be a cocaine trafficking organization. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the investigation focused on a local restaurant and its owner. The investigators believed that the owner of the restaurant was the leader of the organization that purchased powder cocaine and crack as well as marijuana (marijuana possession). These suspicions were confirmed when confidential informants made several drug purchases at the restaurant. The owner refused to sell to one of the informants, but his son sold to the informant and the owner watched the transaction take place.

The task force began to accumulate evidence against the owner of the restaurant as well as many of his customers over the years. Several individuals were arrested in the central part of the state for possession of numerous controlled substances and identified the restaurant as where they received the drugs.

After a while participants in the drug ring started to turn on the organization. A Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer said the first individual told officials that crack cocaine was dealt at the restaurant and the main person was the owner. He told officers that he along with another man, and the girlfriend of the owner worked directly for the restaurant owner. Other people came forward and confirmed this story.