Long Island

Published on: April 17, 2013

Defendants Charged with Bribery and Participating in Drug Smuggling Ring

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the case before the court involves 10 appellants that have each been charged and convicted under different counts of a seven count indictment. The common thread between the appellants is that they have each been associated with participating in a bribery and drug smuggling ring.

Each of the appellants in the case is challenging his or her convictions on varied grounds. Some of the appeals are common among those that have been convicted for the same counts and others that are unique to each individual appellant. There are six main categories of appeals. First, is the admissibility of recorded conversations between a co-conspirator and certain appellants. Second, there are challenges to the RICO conspiracy convictions. Third, there are appeals regarding the sufficiency of evidence to convict. Fourth, certain appellants argue the cumulative sentences regarding the RICO conspiracy charges and possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute. Fifth, the denial of conflict free counsel to certain appellants. Finally, there are tax issues raised by the appellants that were convicted on the sixth and seventh counts of the indictment.

Case Facts and Background

Published on: April 8, 2013

Defendant Questions Validity of Breathalyzer Test

by Stephen Bilkis

On September 15, 1983, a DWI roadblock, indicated by signs, was set up by a uniformed police unit at the westbound 181st Street Bridge. All vehicles proceeding through the roadblock were stopped. Each driver was then approached and asked how they felt. The vehicle operated by the defendant was driven into this initial area in a normal manner and was stopped solely in accordance with the questioning procedure. The Police Officer, while asking the defendant how he felt, made several observations. He noticed that the defendant’s eyes were watery, his speech was slurred, and he had the odor of alcohol on his breath.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, the defendant was then directed to drive his vehicle to the safety zone a few feet away. The Police Officer ordered the defendant out of his car and gave him a field sobriety test. Based on the defendant’s performance and his statement that he had consumed eight beers, the defendant was then placed under arrest and transported to a highway unit precinct. On the way to the precinct Police Officer gave the defendant his Miranda warnings. Upon arriving at the highway unit precinct, the defendant was again advised of his constitutional rights, whereupon he repeated his statements as to his alcohol consumption. He voluntarily consented to taking a breathalyzer test. The results indicated a reading of .12 percent blood alcohol.

A Long Island Criminal Lawyer said that, the defendant moves to dismiss the charge based on the alleged unconstitutionality of the roadblock and also moves to suppress the breathalyzer test results as well as expected testimony relating to coordination tests administered to him as being obtained in violation of his rights under the State and Federal Constitution. A hearing on this motion was held on March 8, 1984 and continued on March 12, 1984. The defendant now stands charged with violating VTL 1192(2) and 1192(3). He thus makes the instant motion.

Published on: April 5, 2013

Defendant Contends Breathalyzer Test was Impropr

by Stephen Bilkis

On May 6, 1995 at approximately 1:30 AM, a police officer was assigned to a so called DWI checkpoint in Queens County. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that pursuant to the procedures established for this checkpoint, every vehicle was stopped and every driver was asked if he or she had been drinking. If the driver answered affirmatively, he or she was asked to submit to an alcohol-sensor field sobriety test. At about 1:30 AM, the accused man entered the checkpoint area and in response to the officer’s question indicated that he had been drinking. At this time, the accused exhibited the classic signs of intoxication, slurred speech, bloodshot watery eyes, an odor of alcohol and unsteadiness on his feet. The accused agreed to submit to an alcohol-sensor test and the results indicated a blood alcohol content of 0.15 of one percent. This test was re-administered to the accused approximately nine minutes later with identical results and he was then arrested and taken to the 114th Precinct where pedigree information in connection with the arrest was taken. While en route to the precinct, the accused asked the officer what was going to happen. The officer told the accused man that he would be given a breathalyzer test and that if his blood alcohol content registered 0.06 of one percent or less, that he would be released; that if he refused to submit to the breathalyzer test that his license would be revoked; that if he took the breathalyzer test and his blood alcohol content registered 0.10 of one percent or greater, that his license would be suspended. A similar exchange of information between the officer and the accused man took place at approximately 4:15 AM, immediately before the accused man took the breathalyzer test. Thereafter, the accused was transported to the Intoxicated Driver Testing Unit at the precinct. It was here that the officer advised the accused of his Miranda rights prior to questioning him from the IDTU questionnaire. Each and every Miranda warning was given and acknowledged by the accused who voluntarily agreed to answer questions.

A Manhattan Criminal Lawyer said that at some point after the IDTU questionnaire was completed by the officer, the accused was asked if he would submit to a breathalyzer test. Once again, the three alternatives described above were stated to the accused by the officer. The accused, without any apparent hesitation or protest, took the breathalyzer test at 4:15 AM. The results showed 0.09 of 1% of alcohol in the blood. The complainant concedes that the breathalyzer examination was administered more than two hours from the accused man’s arrest. The complainant concedes that notice of this statement was never provided to the defense counsel pursuant to CPL (Criminal Procedure Law).

Accordingly, the stop of the accused was proper. The officer request that the accused submit to an alcohol-sensor test was proper in view of the accused man’s response to the officer’s preliminary inquiry. The alcohol-sensor results provided probable cause to arrest the accused man of DWI.

Published on: April 4, 2013

Defendants Contend Possession of Firearms Charge

by Stephen Bilkis

Case Contentions

A New York Criminal Lawyer said two of the defendants in this case were convicted for conspiracy and attempt to possess with the intent to distribute marijuana and cocaine and knowing possession of several fire arms in conjunction with drug trafficking offenses. One of the defendants was sentenced to 438 months and the other to 468 months of imprisonment. Both defendants are appealing their convictions.

Each of the defendants contend that count four of the indictment that charged the knowing possession of firearms in furthering a drug trafficking crime was not properly presented to the jury and if it was presented to the jury properly the instructions that were provided to the jury in regard to that charge were in error. One of the defendant’s also contests that the evidence in the case against him was not sufficient, the district court failed to give the jury appropriate instructions, and that his 438 months sentence was erroneous.

Published on: April 3, 2013

Defendant Charged with Drug Possession in Reverse Sting Operation

by Stephen Bilkis

Case Contentions

Two of the defendants in this case were convicted for conspiracy and attempt to possess with the intent to distribute marijuana and cocaine and knowing possession of several fire arms in conjunction with drug trafficking offenses. A New York Criminal Lawyer said one of the defendants was sentenced to 438 months and the other to 468 months of imprisonment. Both defendants are appealing their convictions.

Each of the defendants contend that count four of the indictment that charged the knowing possession of firearms in furthering a drug trafficking crime was not properly presented to the jury and if it was presented to the jury properly the instructions that were provided to the jury in regard to that charge were in error. One of the defendant’s also contests that the evidence in the case against him was not sufficient, the district court failed to give the jury appropriate instructions, and that his 438 months sentence was erroneous.

Published on: March 28, 2013

Defendants Contend they Were Never in Possession of Drugs

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a joint appeal case by two defendants for their respective adjudications and sentences that were imposed when a jury found them guilty of unlawful possession of marijuana. The defendants concede that the evidence shows that they attempted possession, but they argue on appeal that they never had actual or constructive possession of the marijuana and because of this their convictions should be reduced from a third degree felony charge to a first degree misdemeanor charge.

Case Background

This was a reverse sting operation where the defendants along with eight other codefendants came up as potential buyers for marijuana that was offered for sale by an undercover police officer that posed as drug sellers.

Published on: March 4, 2013

Court Discusses Single Transaction Rule in Marijuana Possession Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The appellant in this case was charged with selling a controlled substance, cannabis and for having more than five grams of cannabis. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the appellant was convicted on both charges and was sentenced separately for each of the crimes. The appellant argues that the trial court has violated the single transaction rule by imposing separate sentences for the sale and the possession of marijuana.

Case Background

The evidence that was shown at trial revealed that there were two undercover police officers who met three individuals at a bar in town. One of the individuals told the undercover agent that they could obtain a quantity of marijuana. The agents were driven to another bar by their companions.

Published on: February 27, 2013

Defendant Claims that Theft Charges Were Time Barred

by Stephen Bilkis

In 1991, the man assumed administrative duties at a nursing home. He became its principal operator in 1995. A New York Criminal Lawyer said at all relevant times, the nursing home was a participant in the Medicaid programs and was reimbursed through such programs for services provided to each state’s residents who were Medicaid recipients residing within its facility.

In 1993, the man, on behalf of the nursing home, submitted rate reports to the state setting forth the nursing home state rate. He thereafter certified that the nursing home was also going to provide physical, occupational and speech therapy services, as well as dental services, to the state’s Medicaid recipients but that the cost of such services was not included in the home state rate. Based upon the said reports, the state calculated the nursing home’s daily rate and then included add-on payments for the specified ancillary services.

In 1998, the state advised the nursing home that they going to review the services they provided to the state’s Medicaid recipients by out-of-state providers. They also requested the nursing home to make available for inspection all patient records dating back 1992. Following the said investigation, the man and the nursing home were each charged with two counts of grand larceny in the first degree and two counts of grand larceny in the second degree.

Published on: February 22, 2013

Defendant Claims the People Failed to Establish Burden of Proof in Larceny Case

by Stephen Bilkis

This is an appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County, rendered April 21, 1976, convicting him of grand larceny in the second degree (13 counts) and grand larceny in the third degree (2 counts), upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him to indeterminate terms of imprisonment with a maximum of seven years on each of the counts of grand larceny in the second degree, and to indeterminate terms of imprisonment with a maximum of four years on each count of grand larceny in the third degree, the sentences on all counts to run consecutively.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, defendant’s convictions are based upon the taking of money from various individuals from March, 1972 to February, 1974 in connection with an investment scheme, commonly referred to as a “Pyramid Scheme”. The prosecution proceeded under a theory of larceny by false promise, pursuant to section 155.05 of the Penal Law. A Suffolk Grand Larceny Lawyer said that, defendant’s primary contention on appeal is that the People failed to sustain their burden of proving this particular type of larceny, in that the representations made by him and his agents to the witnesses, as to how their money would be invested, were in fact carried out. Defendant contends that he at all times intended to fulfill his promises as to the investment plan and was merely a victim of some “bad investments”.

The issue in this case is whether the people failed to sustain their burden of proving the particular type of grand larceny.

Published on: February 19, 2013

Defendant Contends Confession was Coerced

by Stephen Bilkis

In summary, the accused was arrested for possession of a weapon and when brought to the station he asked the police officer that he would cooperate in bringing additional guns through his wife. A few hours later, he was already suffering from heroin withdrawal that prevented him to being brought to the criminal booking office. A New York Criminal Lawyer said during the course of his detention and while feeling sick due to his withdrawal from drugs, the other investigators questioned and interrogated him for the gun crime, specifically, a shooting incident. The result of which, is that he was asked to sign a waiver and was then charged and subsequently arraigned for the alleged crime of shooting that he committed.

A few days later, the offender was examined by a doctor where he was diagnosed of having heroin withdrawal. An expert in forensic psychiatry testified that the defendant suffered from opioid withdrawal where symptoms usually occur within eight to twelve hours from the last drug intake. The doctor further averred that a person having opioid withdrawal is not in his normal behavior and usually suffer severe physical conditions.

The defendant was charged with the crime for shooting the victim inside his apartment at Brooklyn. The appellant moved to suppress evidence acquired due to his unlawful detention for the charges of criminal possession of weapons and seek to repress his admissions he gave through coercive measures conducted by the police towards him during such detention.