New York

Published on: October 25, 2012

Court Discusses Validity of Search Warrant

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involves the People of the State of New York against three defendants. The case is being heard in the Criminal Term of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County Part II. The defendants in the case, they have been charged with one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree(drug possession). One defendant Daphne Barber has also been charged with criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree.

Defendants Argument

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendants have motioned both orally and in writing for two search warrants that were issued on the 24th of June and the 2nd of July in 1981 to be removed and for all the evidence including the cocaine that was seized to be suppressed. Defendant Eric Jean did not move with respect to the indictments against him and is not a part of this hearing.

Published on: October 25, 2012

Court Dismisses Indictment Against Defendant

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is being heard in the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. The case deals with an appeal being made by O. B. The respondent of the case is the People of the State of New York. The defendant is appealing a verdict from a judgment made by the County Court of Suffolk County that was rendered on the 8th of May, 1979 and convicted him of criminally negligent homicide.

Case Discussion

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant’s guilt in this matter was not established beyond a reasonable doubt. At the time of the incident the defendant was driving his vehicle with three passengers inside it. He was going approximately 35 miles an hour. All of the passengers had smoked marijuana. Quite suddenly, one of the passengers told the defendant to stop the car. The passenger was a fifteen year old girl. At first the defendant ignored her and continued to drive. She continuously repeated her request for the car to be stopped and threatened to jump out of the car if he did not stop.

Published on: October 24, 2012

Defendant Appeals Based on Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction

by Stephen Bilkis

On this proceeding, the state presented evidence about a pharmacologist who was a member of a conspiracy to procure heroin. The pharmacologist and his accomplices were guilty of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance based on a series of events that commenced in the state. Even if the jury found him guilty of both the crime, on appeal, he challenges the state’s exercise of territorial jurisdiction over the second offense only.

The evidence revealed that the leader of the conspiracy was a man. A New York Criminal Lawyer said through a wiretap surveillance of the telephone line to the leader’s residence, the law enforcement authorities discovered that the leader was raising $120,000 to pay a courier fee to obtain a large quantity of heroin to the state. he intercepted conversations cryptically identified the various players in the proposed drug exchange. The state theorized that the pharmacologist’s role in the project was to test the purity of the heroin.

The leader and another individual discussed the pharmacologist’s availability for the project. Upon receiving a telephone call advising that the pharmacologist had been located. Thereafter, a woman used the leader’s telephone to make airline reservations for three men to fly at 8:00 p.m. that evening and all of them were under the same surnames. The law enforcement authorities observed the pharmacologist together with two other men aboard the flight. At the request of an investigator, a state’s troop followed the activities of the three men. A New York Criminal Lawyer said after registering at the airport’s hotel under aliases, they were seen entering and leaving each other’s rooms during the next 24 hours.

Published on: October 24, 2012

Court Discusses Possession with Intent to Distribute Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant’s convictions arose from a series of drug transactions which began when a certain person contacted another person and informed the latter that he had heroin for sale. The former was unaware that the latter was a confidential informant for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). A New York Criminal Lawyer said the parties and co-defendant agreed that the former would sell the informant 25 ounces of heroin for $6,000 per ounce. While the co-defendant was in Mexico he ran into the defendant who offered to drive him to Texas. He agreed and the two men drove to the border. As they approached the border the co-defendant told the defendant that he wished to walk across the border and would meet the defendant on the United States side. The defendant drove the vehicle across the border while co-defendant walked across carrying the one gram sample of heroin.

A Houston Heroin Possession Lawyer said that, the defendant and his co-defendant drove to the informant’s apartment where they met the informant and an Agent outside the apartment. The defendant and the Agent remained outside in their respective vehicles while co-defendant and the informant went inside. When the two men left the apartment the Agent saw co-defendant hand informant a piece of paper later found to contain .12 grams of heroin (drug possession). The informant gave the paper to the Agent. Co-defendant, the informant and the Agent then discussed the purchase of a test ounce and the full 25 ounce shipment. The defendant drove the co-defendant to another apartment where he met with the certain John doe while the defendant remained outside in the vehicle.

Later that evening co-defendant and the informant took one ounce of heroin to the Agent’s motel room and sold it to him for $5,000 cash. Co-defendant returned to Mexico where he processed the remaining ounces of heroin. The defendant came into the apartment while this processing was being done. The next morning co-defendant secreted heroin in the stereo speaker of his vehicle. After doing so he asked the defendant for help in replacing the screws. The two men then drove to the informant’s apartment in the United States. While en route into town co-defendant advised the defendant that what he was doing was not honest and that he should not get involved in similar “deals”. When co-defendant and the defendant arrived at the informant’s apartment the defendant carried the heroin into the apartment. Later the three men left for the Agent’s motel with the defendant driving. Co-defendant, believing they were being followed, directed the defendant to return to the informant’s apartment. Co-defendant and the informant then drove to the Agent’s motel to deliver the heroin and the defendant left. Co-defendant was arrested as he delivered the heroin to the Agent. Defendant was arrested near Hidalgo, Texas.

Published on: October 23, 2012

Court Rules on Heroin Possession Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

In this drug offense case, defendant was found in his apartment with 6¼ grams of heroin about twenty to thirty minutes after a package containing 13 grams of heroin was delivered by mail to his apartment. Customs and postal inspectors had discovered the heroin in the package when it had arrived in the country at San Francisco. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the package was mailed from Thailand and addressed to defendant’s residence in Daytona Beach, Florida. The postal authorities arranged a controlled delivery of the package to defendant’s residence.

A Jacksonville Heroin Possession Lawyer said that, about twenty to thirty minutes after this controlled delivery had taken place, four officials, one a postal inspector, and another a customs agent, and the other two, Daytona Beach police detectives, entered defendant’s apartment under a valid search warrant. They found defendant in a bedroom with 6¼ grams of heroin on a coffee table in front of him. They conducted a search to find the remaining heroin. During this search, they found thirty packets of heroin, each wrapped in aluminum foil and containing a mixture which included approximately one milligram of heroin, in a drawer of a dresser in a bedroom across the hall from the room where defendant had been found. It was established at trial that these “dime bags” small packets wrapped in aluminum foil containing about one milligram of heroin are commonly used in passing heroin on the streets. The authorities also found some butts of marijuana cigarettes in the same bedroom drawer. While the authorities were searching the apartment, defendant remarked to them, referring to the thirty “dime bags”, “I bet you didn’t think I could package it up that quick”.

A Jacksonville Intent to Distribute Lawyer said that, the indictment charged possession with intent to distribute only the 6¼ grams found on the coffee table. The Government relied upon the 30 “dime bags” to prove that defendant had the requisite intent to distribute. Its theory was that the heroin found in packages suitable for street distribution indicated that defendant was a dealer in heroin; that he had received the 13-gram package delivered in the mail for the purpose of selling or distributing most or all of the 13-gram quantity; and that he therefore intended to distribute the 6¼ gram quantity found on the coffee table.

Published on: October 22, 2012

Court Discusses Mental Hygiene Law

by Stephen Bilkis

The complainant brought this action to recover damages for injuries he claims to have suffered as a result of being knocked down as he attempted to board a bus operated by the accused. At the time of jury selection, the complainant moved to preclude the accused from offering evidence of or in any way calling the jury’s attention to the facts of the complainant’s incontestable past use of heroin and his current participation in a methadone treatment program. A New York Criminal Lawyer said at the jury coordinating part, the judge determined that the accused would be precluded from any reference to the complainant’s current use of methadone or his participation in the treatment program. He reserved to the trial judge the issue of whether the complainant’s past use of heroin was admissible in the liability phase of the trial.

Following jury selection and prior to opening, the court granted the balance of the complainant’s motion and precluded the accused from mentioning or offering any evidence of the complainant’s past use of heroin. Given that there is a paucity of reported case law regarding the admissibility of such evidence in civil proceedings, the court files the decision to memorialize its opinion.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the motion does not question whether a complainant’s use of heroin is admissible in the damages phase of a civil trial where the jury is assessing a variety of health and life issues relating to the complainant, such as life expectancy. In that context, with an appropriate foundation, testimony regarding the complainant’s heroin use would surely be admissible. Nor is it about whether the complainant was under the influence of heroin at the time of the accident so that his powers of perception or recollection might actually have been impaired by his heroin habit; nor whether the complainant was under the influence of heroin at the time of his testimony. The use of heroin by the complainant in those circumstances would be admissible even in the liability phase to impeach his credibility as a witness. Indeed, in all of those situations, proof of heroin use and addiction even by extrinsic evidence would be proper. The lone issue decided by the court on the branch of the motion reserved to it was whether the complainant’s past use of heroin was admissible as an act of moral depravity offered only to attack his credibility as a witness.

Published on: October 21, 2012

Plaintiff Claims Malicious Prosecution

by Stephen Bilkis

In her complaint the appellant averred that she was maliciously prosecuted when the appellees, acting in concert, caused her arrest and induced the County Solicitor of Dade County to file information in which she was charged with grand larceny, a charge the appellees knew was false. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the pleader detailed the procedure following the filing of the information, related the embarrassment she endured and the damage she suffered, and she repeated the charge that the prosecution was instigated through malice without probable cause. A Dade Grand Larceny Lawyer said that, it was stated in the complaint that appellant pleaded not guilty upon arraignment, waived a jury and was found not guilty by the Judge of the Criminal Court of Record.

A Dade Petit Larceny Lawyer said that, summary judgment in favor of the appellees, who were defendants in the circuit court, was entered by the judge when he concluded that no genuine issue of fact was presented and that the movants should prevail as a matter of law.

The issue in this case is whether the Circuit Court Judge erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the appellees.

Published on: October 20, 2012

Court Decides if 3 Petit Larceny Convictions Amounts to a Felony

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case, the Appellant sought review of the sentences imposed based upon inaccurate sentencing guidelines scoresheet, and a written probation order that included a condition which was not pronounced orally at the sentencing hearing.

The court reversed the sentence imposed and remanded the case for resentencing.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the predicate offenses, kidnapping and armed robbery with a weapon, were committed June 8, 1990. The guidelines scoresheet used at sentencing shows a total of 316 points, for a recommended sentencing range of twelve to seventeen years, and a permitted sentencing range of nine to twenty-two years. The trial court imposed a sentence of twenty years on the kidnapping conviction, and a probationary term of twenty years on the armed robbery with a weapon conviction. The probation was to be served consecutively to the kidnapping sentence.

Published on: October 19, 2012

Court Discusses Impeachment with Evidence of Prior Conviction

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is about an appellant who was adjudicated guilty, after a jury trial, for inciting a riot under Section 870.01(2), Florida Statutes (1981). Appellant argued that the evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to support his conviction. Although the sufficiency of the proof presented a close question, after thorough review, the court held that the State did present a prima facie case and that a judgment of acquittal was not required.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the case however was reversed on the ground of evidentiary rulings as to prior convictions. The question concerns the impeachment of appellant under Section 90.610, Florida Statutes (1981), on the basis of two prior petit larceny convictions. The trial court ruled that these prior petit larceny convictions could be used for impeachment purposes and threatened to hold appellant in contempt if he took the stand and testified that he had not been convicted of a crime. Appellant did testify and on direct examination stated he had been convicted of a crime twice.

The old rules on Evidence provide that a witness was subject to being impeached with evidence of a prior conviction of any crime, excluding violations of a municipal ordinance. Jurisprudence prior to the amendment of the rules established that “a crime is a crime”. The argument that discrediting crimes must involve moral turpitude was expressly rejected.

Published on: October 18, 2012

Court Discusses Elements of Petit Theft

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is about an appeal filed by a juvenile from an adjudication of delinquency for robbery and a subsequent commitment to the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the central question presented for review is whether the state established a prima facie case that the respondent juvenile employed force, violence, assault or putting in fear–an essential element of robbery–in effecting a theft of jewelry from a three-year-old child.

The respondent was charged in a petition for delinquency before the Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit with the offense of robbery.