This matter deals with David A. Appell, who is an attorney and the respondent in the case. The petitioner in the matter is the Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department. The case is being heard in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.
A New York Criminal Lawyer said this is a disciplinary proceeding that has been instituted by the Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department.
Case Background
The Facts:
A New York Criminal Lawyer said on 15 December 1981, defendant was convicted of several drug crimes (which includes marijuana possession, heroin possession, etc.), viz: Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance in the First Degree, Conspiracy in the Second Degree and Criminal Use of Drug Paraphernalia in the Second Degree. Defendant was sentenced to various terms of imprisonment.
The Issue:
Issues that involve mentally ill suspects can be difficult to manage in the criminal justice system. Mentally ill suspects are a special population of offenders that do not fit squarely in the legislative intent in most cases. A New York Criminal Lawyer said when a violent crime involves a person who is clearly mentally ill, the court must balance the rights of the victim’s family to see justice done with the ethical problem of managing an offender who may not be able to comprehend the trial process, his charges, or that what he did was wrong. There have been several laws throughout history that were designed to create a balance of determination where it regards mental competency to stand trial. The McNaughten Rule was the common choice for the last 100 years. The McNaughten Rule established that the offender had to know that what he had done was wrong.
In 1963, the New York Legislature passed document No. 8. On pages 18-19 of this docuent, the courts revised the McNaughten Rule’s theory of the offender knowing that what he did was wrong. The more modern view that encompasses the scientific knowledge of the day as it relates to mental illness, only requires that an offender has a substantial capacity to know or appreciate that what they have done is wrong. A New York Criminal Lawyer said some states include this wording in legal statutes that claim the person may be guilty, but still mentally ill. In states that have a guilty, but mentally ill statute, the person who is found guilty of the crime is sentenced to a mental institution until they are deemed cured, then they are transferred to a penitentiary where they will serve the remainder of their sentences. In 1970, this option was not available. One particularly heinous crime brought this legal problem to the forefront of public attention.
In 1970, a sixteen year old boy was working in a New York apartment building as a porter. One of his duties was to fix minor problems within the apartments. One day, a woman called in a problem with her blinds, the porter responded to fix them and entered her apartment. She was later found raped and brutally stabbed numerous times. The knife was left protruding from her buttocks when the offender left the scene. Before her body was found, the porter had shown up at the fire station next door to the apartment building with a severe cut on one of his hands. He told the firemen that he had cut his hand on some barbed wire. The firemen transported him to the hospital to receive stitches. The boy went home and told his mother that he had fallen on a bag that had glass in it and cut his hand. He was later arrested and told the police a different story about how he had cut his hand.
The plaintiffs and appellants in the matter are B.B.C.F.D., S.A., etc., et al. The defendants and respondents in the case are Bank Julius Baer & Co. Ltd., et al., and Mina Persyko. The case is being heard in the First Department, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the plaintiff in this matter is seeking to appeal a verdict that was made on the 7th of November, 2008. The previous order dismissed some of the claims that were made by the plaintiff and denied the motion from the plaintiff to recall and modify the complaint.
Case Background
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.
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.
The grand jury of the special narcotics courts voted a verdict against the four men charging them with four counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, four counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and two counts of conspiracy in the fourth degree. However, the four men filed discovery motions. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the state of New York then supplied the grand jury minutes to the court for in camera examination. After examining the minutes, the court ordered the parties to submit additional memoranda of law on two jurisdictional questions.
First, the charges does not contain any drug crime related charge, does the grand jury of the special narcotics courts have subject matter jurisdiction? Second, the special narcotics grand jury has subject matter jurisdiction, does it also have geographic jurisdiction?
On the proceeding, the state of New York alleges that a confidential informant contacted a man to offer an opportunity to rob drug dealers with a valuable supply of narcotics and/or cash. The man allegedly accepted the informant’s offer and engaged the three other men to be part of the robbery gang. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the case detectives instructed the informant to tell the four men that the robbery location was in Bronx. Apparently, it is also alleged that the informant and the four men loaded two vehicles with a number of weapons and went to that Bronx location with the intention to commit a burglary and a robbery.
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. When the detective and his colleague went to the apartment, they smelled a strong odor of marijuana and observed marijuana residue (marijuana possession). 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. 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.
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. 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.
The Facts:
The seizure of evidence from the defendant was an offshoot of a joint investigation undertaken by the DEA and New York State law enforcement authorities. The purpose of the investigation was to identify the members of a drug dealing organization, its suppliers and customers, and to locate stash and distribution locations. he investigation began at least as early as 27 September 1990, when several eavesdropping warrants were issued permitting the authorities to gather information concerning narcotics trafficking being done by a large number of people including man-one and his brother, man-two.
A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said through the wiretaps, surveillance and a confidential informant, the agent in charge of the operation had established, by 17 January 1991, that the organization used an apartment at the Bronx to store and package heroin for sale; that another place at Walton Avenue was being used to store narcotics and narcotics packaging paraphernalia; and that another place in Wyatt Avenue was being used to discuss their narcotics business. Moreover, the agent was aware that the DEA’s wiretaps showed a pattern of conversations that are coded, cryptic and carefully worded. According to the agent, the intercepted conversations contain repeated references to iron and board and for clothes, which he believed to be references to narcotics packaging paraphernalia. Narcotics, as the agent averred, were discussed in terms of food, bottles, cases of beer, and clothes.
The plaintiffs in this case are Michael and Mary Marcantonio. The defendants in the matter are Michael Picozzi, III, Viola, Benedetti, Azzolini & Morano, LLC, Project Real Estate, Inc., and John McHugh. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in Nassau County. Judge Michele M. Woodard is hearing the case.
Case Information
A New York Criminal Lawyer said in the first motion sequence the defendants Michael Picozzi, III, and Viola, Benedetti, Azzolini & Morano, LLC have moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that there is no cause of action stated.
The People of the State of New York are the plaintiffs in the case. The defendant is Leonard DiBari. The case is being heard in Westchester County, Justice City of the Town of North Castle. Judge Elyse Lazansky is overseeing the case.
The defendant, Leonard DiBari, is charged with driving while ability impaired by alcohol. During the course of the non-jury trial and pretrial hearings the defense has objected the prosecution’s use of simulator solution certificates and certified calibration records.
Case Background
New York Criminal Lawyer Blog