New York

Published on: August 12, 2012

Court Determines if Delay between Incident and Arrest was Appropriate

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant in this case, Richard Connor, 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. 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: August 12, 2012

Defendant Shown to Have Mental Illness

by Stephen Bilkis

Suffolk Drug Crime 20

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 Drug Crime 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.

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 10, 2012

Defendant Alleges Jury Misconduct

by Stephen Bilkis

The People of the State of New York are the respondents and Zachary R. Gibian is the appellant in this case being held in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department. The defendant is appealing a judgment made by the Supreme Court of Suffolk County that was issued on the 17th of January, 2007 and convicted him of murder in the second degree.

Defendant’s Argument

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant identifies three grounds for this appeal to reverse his conviction. The first is for the preclusion on the grounds of hearsay of the statements that were made by the defendant’s mother. The second is juror misconduct during deliberations. The third is the summary curtailment of the closing statement made by the defense counsel.

Published on: August 10, 2012

Court Confirms Warrant for Arrest Appropriate

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involves the People of the State of New York against Daphne Barber, Timothy Barber and Eric Jean as the defendants. The case is being heard in the Criminal Term of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County Part II. The defendants in the case, Timothy Barber, Daphne Barber, and Eric Jean have been charged with one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree. Defendant Daphne Barber has laso been charged with criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree.

Defendants Argument

The Barbers 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 (cocaine possession) 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: August 10, 2012

Court Reverses Decision in Robbery Case

by Stephen Bilkis

Suffolk Drug Crime 23

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. 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

Published on: August 9, 2012

Defendants Contend Out of Court Identifications Should Be Supressed

by Stephen Bilkis

On July 11, 1977, in their Coral Gables home, a couple was robbed at gunpoint by two men, who took several items of jewelry and other valuables and then fled. The husband had had a recent eye operation and could make no identification. The wife, on the other hand, got a good look at and was able to describe them both. For a period immediately after the criminal act, however, the identity of the men who made the assault remained unknown.

On July 16, 1977, Suffolk County, New York police officers, serving a warrant on a totally unrelated charge, arrested one of the men who robbed the couple at a condominium in which he and his fellow robber were living in Long Island, New York. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said that in the course of that arrest, the officers seized pieces of jewelry from a bedroom in the apartment. The trial judge held and the state concedes, that the seizure was unlawful and in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The effect of that determination is the focus of their appeals. This is so because the taking of the jewelry led directly to the identification of the two robbers as the perpetrators of the Coral Gables criminal acts of burglary and armed robbery.

Indisputably, the occurred is an entirely fortuitous fashion. As a matter of routine, the Suffolk County authorities sent descriptions of the jewelry they had seized across the police teletype to several, apparently randomly selected, cities throughout the country. The teletype information came to the attention of Coral Gables police officers investigating the criminal act. The police officer thought he recognized some of the described items as having been taken from the couple and requested the Suffolk County police to forward photographs of the jewelry and of the persons who had occupied the apartment from which it was taken. The New York authorities complied with the requests. On August 24, 1977, the Coral Gables police showed the wife first the written descriptions, and then the photographs of the jewelry seized from the condominium. She positively identified several items as having been taken from her home during the robbery assault. As a result, about two weeks thereafter, on September 13, 1977, the officers displayed to the wife a photographic lineup which contained the pictures of the two robber men obtained from Suffolk County. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the lower court specifically determined and no attack is made on the finding that the photo lineup itself was fairly conducted and was not improperly suggestive. Upon viewing the photo display, the wife quickly and with certainty identified the pictures of both men as those of the offenders in question.

Published on: August 9, 2012

Court Hears White Collar Crime Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

White collar crimes have long been considered the type of crime where appropriate punishment for the actions is not received. In many cases, deals are struck between the offender and the suspect that are designed to reduce the public exposure of the crime and there is no consideration for the actual punishment of the offender. While there have been many cases in which this has happened, one in particular stands out. It involved a man who was working as the assistant comptroller at Long Island College Hospital in the Prospect Heights Division. A New York Criminal Lawyer said while he was employed in this position, he received numerous checks that were made payable to the hospital, but that he endorsed and deposited into his own personal bank account.

When the actions of this man became known to the hospital, the man was terminated and an audit was conducted to determine the extent of his embezzlement. They determined that between 1967 and 1972, the man embezzled $68,000. He admitted to the theft and he was arrested. He served five days in jail after his arraignment. During this time, he met with the insurance provider for the hospital. They decided between them that he would pay a little over $10,000 in restitution to the hospital. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the insurance company would provide the remainder of the money that he stole to the hospital. In return for his restitution, the prosecutor agreed to reduce the charge from a felony to a misdemeanor crime and that he would get three years of probation. They agreed with the court that everyone was satisfied with this arrangement. However, once the restitution was paid and the case went in front of the judge, the judge refused to accept the deal.

The judge determined that the man was currently living in Connecticut in a new house that was remodeled. The man had a new job working in Connecticut and there were rumors that he had stolen much more from the hospital than the $68,000 that he had been charged with. It seems that the hospital lost all of the records that it had prior to 1967 in a flood. The man had been an employee of the hospital for several years before 1967. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said that some of the estimates placed the amount stolen well in excess of six digits. The judge determined that the defendant should serve one year in jail and three years on probation. The defendant and the prosecution objected to the change in the proposed arrangements. The prosecution stated that the hospital had received restitution of the entire amount that it lost and that the state should not be concerned that only $10,000 of that came from the defendant.

Published on: August 8, 2012

Court Discusses Fourth Article of Constitution

by Stephen Bilkis

This is an action of trespass brought by a complainant man against another man and others for breaking and entering the complainant’s house. The opponents justify upon the ground that large numbers of men were assembled in different parts of the state for the purpose of overthrowing the government by military force and were actually levying war upon the state. Moreover, New York Drug Crime Lawyer said that in order to defend itself from the said rebellion, the state was declared by competent authority to be under martial law. In that event the complainant was engaged in the rebellion and that the opponents being in the military service, by command of their superior officer, broke and entered the house and searched the rooms of the complainant, who was supposed to be there concealed, in order to arrest him, doing as little damage as possible. The complainant replied that the trespass was committed by the opponents with their own wrong. The parties then proceeded to trial.

The evidence offered by the complainant and the opponents stated at large in the record and the questions was decided by the circuit court. The evidence revealed that the opponents, in breaking into the complainant’s house and chasing to arrest him were acted under the authority of the government which was established and which is usually called the charter government.

The complainant contends that the charter government was displaced and ceased to have any lawful power, after the organization, of the government which he supported, and although that government never was able to exercise any authority in the state, nor to command obedience to its laws or to its officers, but he still insists that it was the lawful and established government, upon the ground that it was approved by a large majority of the male people of the state with the age of twenty-one and upwards, and also by a majority of those who were entitled to vote for general officers under the then existing laws of the state.