New York

Published on: February 3, 2013

Defendant Contends 6th Amendment Rights Were Violated

by Stephen Bilkis

The appellants in this case were convicted of one count of possession of marijuana with the intent to sell. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the appellants argue that the Speedy Trial Act as well as the 6th amendment barred them from being prosecuted. The appellants also challenge the sufficiency of the evidence that was submitted against them.

Case Fact

The appellants were indicted and convicted based on a reverse sting operation conducted by a DEA agent acting undercover. The agent used a confidential informant who advised people within the community that she knew someone that wanted to sell marijuana.

Published on: February 3, 2013

Defendant Charged with Possession of Drug Paraphernalia

by Stephen Bilkis

This case deals with a juvenile who was charged with marijuana possession and possession of drug paraphernalia. An adjudicatory hearing was held and the court determined that the evidence was enough for the allegation of possessing drug paraphernalia, but dismissed the charge of possession of marijuana. The juvenile is appealing the ruling that did not dismiss the possession of drug paraphernalia stating that the trial court made an error.

Case Background

A Staten Island Criminal Lawyer said while at school the juvenile’s backpack was searched by a school police officer. The officer found a plastic case that had a green leafy substance inside. The container also had a glass ear dropper that had been turned into a pipe. The makeshift pipe had residue on it.

Published on: February 2, 2013

Court Discusses Constructive Possession in Drug Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The case before the court is one of appeal from a conviction of possessing more than five grams of marijuana. The appellant was charged with possessing more than five grams of marijuana (marijuana possession), possessing hashish, and possessing PCP. The appellant was acquitted for the possession of hashish and PCP charges.

Case Background

In April, officers executed a search warrant of the home that is owned by the appellant. The residence had been under surveillance for about a year before the warrant was issued. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that during that year the appellant had been seen coming and going from the house on several occasions.

Published on: February 1, 2013

Defendant Contends Police Lacked Probable Cause in Drug Possession Case

by Stephen Bilkis

Case Background

The police responded to a citizen’s report that marijuana was being grown in an open field. When the police officer arrived at the area described he found between 40 and 50 marijuana plants growing about a hundred yards from a home that was occupied. A New York Criminal Lawyer said he reported the find and the next day he and another officer returned to dig the plants up.

When the officers were gathering the plants the appellant of this case drove up to the house located near the field. The appellant got out of his care and one of the officers called him over. The officer asked him if he owned the home and he said no, but one of his friends did. The officers asked if the owner was home and the appellant told them to come to the house to find out.

Published on: January 31, 2013

Court Discusses Constructive Possession in Drug Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant in this case is appealing an order that revoked his community control and resulted in a five year prison sentence. The defendant argues that the state did not establish that he had constructive possession of marijuana that was found in a car that he was a passenger in.

Case Background

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant was suspected of drug activity and for this reason the police department kept the defendant’s studio apartment under surveillance. The officer watching the apartment saw an unknown couple driving a white car approach the defendant. The couple got out of the car and went inside the apartment with the defendant. When the couple came back out it appeared as if the man had stuffed something inside the front of his pants. All three got into the car, the man drove, the woman sat in the passenger seat, and the defendant rode in the back.

Published on: January 31, 2013

Court Discusses Medical Marijuana Laws

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case being heard in the Supreme Court of the United States. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the main question that is presented in this particular case is whether the Congress has the power under article 1 section 8 of the constitution to regulate commerce with several states and foreign nations includes the power to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana that is in compliance with the laws of the state of California.

California Marijuana Laws

When it comes to regulation of marijuana, the state of California has been a pioneer. The state was among the first to prohibit the possession and sale of marijuana in 1913 and as of 1996 the state was the first state to authorize marijuana to be used for medicinal purposes.

Published on: January 30, 2013

Defendant Says Insufficient Evidence for Marijuana Possession Charge

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant in this case is appealing his conviction for multiple drug charges.

Case Background

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the charges that were made against the defendant come from a drug purchase made by an undercover police officer. The purchase took place inside of a house. The defendant along with another man arrived at the house in the car owned by the defendant. The car was left outside of the home before the arrests occurred.

Published on: January 29, 2013

Defendant Convicted of Intent to Distribute 41 lbs. of Marijuana

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant has been convicted of possessing with the intent to distribute 41 pounds of marijuana. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said he is appealing the conviction and seeking a reversal because of actions that were taken in the district court. First, the court refused to grant a continuance of his trial so it could be held after a co-conspirator pled guilty. Second, the court did not allow the counsel for the defense to cross examine a witness on their prior misdemeanors. Third, the court allowed prejudicial testimony concerning the reputation of the defendant for telling the truth and being honest. Fourth, the court refused a verdict on the ground of insufficient evidence and refused to allow results from a polygraph test that the defendant took. Finally, the court refused to consider a charge of proximity to marijuana as opposed to possession.

The defendant has supplied supplemental briefs and has motioned for a new trial. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said he states that a new trial should have been granted on the basis of newly found evidence and because of the suppression of favorable evidence by the government.

Case Background

Published on: January 29, 2013

Drug Crime Defendant Moves for Acquittal for Failure to Prove Possession

by Stephen Bilkis

The appellant in this case was charged on several drug related charges including possession of cocaine and heroin, possession of cocaine, marijuana, and heroin possession, with the intent to sell, two counts of attempted first degree murder, and displaying a firearm during the commission of a felony.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the appellant was convicted on the charges of possessing marijuana with the intent to sell, trafficking cocaine, and possession of cocaine with the intent to sell. He was sentenced to five years for the marijuana charge, ten years for the trafficking cocaine charge, and five years for possession of cocaine with the intent to sell.

Case Background

Published on: January 28, 2013

Defendant Contends Insufficient Evidence to Uphold Marjuana Conviction

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant is appealing a jury conviction that charged him with the crime of carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime and for possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon.

Case Background

In July, law officers executed a search warrant on the defendant’s residence. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the officers testified that the defendant arrived at his home around 9:45 p.m. and got out of his vehicle and went into the house. Not long afterwards another car pulled up and the defendant came out of the house to talk to the driver of the vehicle. After the driver left the officers executed the search warrant of the property.